# Continental's Pet Fee



## Julie718 (Feb 17, 2006)

I had a family emergency come up. My Mom broke her ankle and my Grandma is having surgery. The problem is that my Mom takes care of my Grandma. So, I am flying out there this weekend to help out. I'm taking Tango with me b/c I cannot bare to part with him! I called Continental to add him to my flight and they have raised their pet fee from $80 each way to $95 each way!







This makes me so mad because they don't do anything extra when you carry your Malt in the cabin! It is just a sorry way for them to squeeze more money out of us! 

Of course I paid it because I don't want to be without Tango for one week. I just had to vent.


----------



## msmagnolia (Sep 8, 2004)

I flew Continental last week and it was still $80, but I made my reservation in June. It probably went up on July 1. I frankly think it is a ripoff. And, on top of the cost of the reservation, the pet counts as your carry-on baggage so you don't even get to bring another piece of baggage other than your purse. Having said all of that, there isn't much we can do. I sure wouldn't want to sneak a dog on and if you don't have a reservation in advance there might already be the maximum number of dogs on the flight. Its a pain!


----------



## Karen542 (May 4, 2005)

Wow, years ago me and my yorkie, CeCe used to fly on Continental and it was $50.00 each way, I quess inflation!!! Hope your Mom and Grandma are ok, have a safe trip


----------



## Julie718 (Feb 17, 2006)

> I flew Continental last week and it was still $80, but I made my reservation in June. It probably went up on July 1. I frankly think it is a ripoff. And, on top of the cost of the reservation, the pet counts as your carry-on baggage so you don't even get to bring another piece of baggage other than your purse. Having said all of that, there isn't much we can do. I sure wouldn't want to sneak a dog on and if you don't have a reservation in advance there might already be the maximum number of dogs on the flight. Its a pain![/B]


The agent said it increased as of July 9th. I read that the pet does NOT count as your baggage. When I flew with Tango last month I had him, a small carry on and my purse and they didn't say anything. 

I agree that there isn't much we can do, but the price is completely outrageous!!!


----------



## HappyB (Feb 28, 2005)

Sorry about your grandmother. I will be praying for all of you.

As for the pet travel, the last time I flew with one of mine, I had these horrible children behind me. They were under two, so they flew for free. My little one was quiet as a mouse, and the only way anyone knew she was on the flight was because the stewardess asked if she could show her off to the other passengers.

I'm leaving in the morning for my daughter's wedding. I chose to drive the 600 miles rather than fly because I don't want Pocket to have his rabies shot until he gets larger/older. I almost lost a little one once before with the rabies shot, so I'm giving him more time to grow.


----------



## msmagnolia (Sep 8, 2004)

> Sorry about your grandmother. I will be praying for all of you.
> 
> As for the pet travel, the last time I flew with one of mine, I had these horrible children behind me. They were under two, so they flew for free. My little one was quiet as a mouse, and the only way anyone knew she was on the flight was because the stewardess asked if she could show her off to the other passengers.
> 
> I'm leaving in the morning for my daughter's wedding. I chose to drive the 600 miles rather than fly because I don't want Pocket to have his rabies shot until he gets larger/older. I almost lost a little one once before with the rabies shot, so I'm giving him more time to grow.[/B]


Exactly! Last week from Tulsa to Houston there were two little kids and their mom across the aisle from me. One of them was flying for free but had his own seat. They kicked the seat in front of them the entire way and the mom never said a word. The littlest child let out an ear piercing shriek every few minutes.









Meanwhile Hope was trying to get out of her carrier and I had to sit it on the empty seat by me to keep it closed. She never whimpered, cried or barked but she was trying like mad to get out. I had already decided if the flight attendant said anything to me, I was probably going to go off. Luckily no one even noticed. I guess they thought I was using her bag as an armrest!









Hope your daughter's wedding is just beautiful. Be careful and have fun!


----------



## saltymalty (Sep 14, 2004)

I have a real problem with the child under two thing...It is so unsafe!!! If your under two child is riding on your lap, even with normal turbulance they can be seriously injured. I don't understand this policy...why aren't we concerned about protecting our youngest? I'm sorry to vent here, but I just don't think it is a safe policy of the airlines. I always purchased tickets for my babies (human)! But each and every time we flew (usually to a vacation spot on an over booked flight) I would have to fight with the stewardesses. They would insist that I could give up the seat for another "paying customer" even though I had paid for the seat. I have not taken Valletta on a plane yet, but when I do, I think I might purchase her her own seat to avoid any problems.


----------



## KimKarr (Feb 4, 2006)

Julie -- sure hope everything works out well with your family. As I told you, I think you're an







for going up to take care of everyone. And -- I also think that Tango is delighted to be part of the frequent flyer's club and secretly thrilled to have his neutering appointment rescheduled.









Shame on Continental -- for all kinds of reasons! Aren't they also the airlines that are now charging extra to have an aisle seat and/or exit row seat?


----------



## Julie718 (Feb 17, 2006)

> Julie -- sure hope everything works out well with your family. As I told you, I think you're an
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not sure about Continental charging more for aisle or window seats. I haven't heard about that. I am really tired of them charging more money for everything!


----------



## Deanna (Jan 14, 2005)

Julie, I hope your mom and grandma get to feeling better. I am sure Tango will help cheer everyone up!


I too am fed up with flying, it's worse in Canada than in the US! It is much more expensive to fly within Canada than is to fly within the US. What kills me is that my family can fly from Dallas to Edmonton for $300US, but for me to fly from Edmonton to Dallas its $600 CAD!!!!! On my last trip from Dallas, they had lowered the allowed weight of check in luggage- so on the way there I was allowed to take 75lbs, but during the week I was in Texas they lowered the weight to 50lbs, no one told me so I got socked with a $50 fee since my luggage was 75lbs.









Since Wilson can't be confined in a carrier, we have decided that the next time we go to Dallas we will drive. It's a 3-4 day drive, but I am just so fed up with delayed flights, bad service, over priced tickets, screaming kids, and no leg room I just can't take it anymore.


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

What I am mad at, is that they make you pay for your pet and it has to ride under the seat. Depending on the crew, they don't let you hold it on your lap even in the bag. Kids under 2 years old can ride for free on their mother or dad's lap. And they are way more unruly then your pet. When my daughter and her husband traveled to France with me with my grand'daughter, we paid for a full seat for the baby (she was a little over 1 year old). I wanted them to be comfortable even for the trip between Phoenix and Houston.
About 10 years ago, my daughter had a very bad experience with Continental. She was going through a divorce and I sent her a ticket to come to Houston to spend Christmas with us. She traveled with her late shi tzu. The dog was in a sherpa bag under the seat sleeping, but his head was looking out the bag. Suddenly there comes the stewardess screaming at her because the dog had his head out of the bag. My daughter could not place one word. The stewardess didn't serve her ONE thing during the whole flight in retaliation. When they arrived in Houston, my daughter was greeted from a ground supervisor at debarking. People that were seated next to her stopped to defend her. When that supervisor asked questions, the stewardess answered hysterically and my daughter again could not even place a word. She just looked at the supervisor and said "See ?". Unfortunately my daughter did not want to pursue that incident, she had enough to do with her divorce and didn't need that aggravation also.



Soooooooo, we will take a plane with Alex ONLY if it's an emergency and no other solution available.


----------



## Julie718 (Feb 17, 2006)

> What I am mad at, is that they make you pay for your pet and it has to ride under the seat. Depending on the crew, they don't let you hold it on your lap even in the bag. Kids under 2 years old can ride for free on their mother or dad's lap. And they are way more unruly then your pet. When my daughter and her husband traveled to France with me with my grand'daughter, we paid for a full seat for the baby (she was a little over 1 year old). I wanted them to be comfortable even for the trip between Phoenix and Houston.
> About 10 years ago, my daughter had a very bad experience with Continental. She was going through a divorce and I sent her a ticket to come to Houston to spend Christmas with us. She traveled with her late shi tzu. The dog was in a sherpa bag under the seat sleeping, but his head was looking out the bag. Suddenly there comes the stewardess screaming at her because the dog had his head out of the bag. My daughter could not place one word. The stewardess didn't serve her ONE thing during the whole flight in retaliation. When they arrived in Houston, my daughter was greeted from a ground supervisor at debarking. People that were seated next to her stopped to defend her. When that supervisor asked questions, the stewardess answered hysterically and my daughter again could not even place a word. She just looked at the supervisor and said "See ?". Unfortunately my daughter did not want to pursue that incident, she had enough to do with her divorce and didn't need that aggravation also.
> 
> 
> ...


OMG...that is awful about your daughter's experience! When we flew with Tango last month I kept him in his bag the entire time. I did open the bag and let his head out for awhile b/c he was upset.







I hope I am able to do this again.

Yea...I am not sure why they aren't more accommodating towards small dogs and let little kids go crazy!









What do you do with Alex when you go out of town? Board him? Pet sitter?


----------



## Bijousmom (May 29, 2005)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=220608
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder if you could fly for less if your dog is under 2 years old.














That child thing makes less sense than a dog under your seat.


----------



## pico's parent (Apr 5, 2004)

Pico and I fly 4-5 times a year so you can imagine that this is a pet peeve of mine, too! Aaarrgghhh! And American DOES count the dog carrier as one of your two carry-on pieces. It is beyond ridiculous but since all the airlines charge this, what are we to do? Leave our furbabies home? Don't be absurd!


----------



## charmypoo (Sep 11, 2004)

I recently flew from Buffalo to Orlando on US Air. I booked the flight through http://www.mobissimo.com/search_airfare.php and then I called US Air to tell them I was brining a pet. I used e-checkin on both ways and they never did charge me for bringing a pet onboard


----------



## Teddyandme (Feb 6, 2005)

When I took Teddy we had a good flight both ways...although going was so much nicer....The stewadess actually brought me a blanket and said something in code for hide him on your lap so no one can see...I thought it was just so very nice...of course I found out during the flight that she too had a Maltese.

On the way home I took Teddy and and they looked at me funny at first and then gave me a blanket. I just could not see making him sit in the carier under the seat when all he wanted to do was sit on my lap and sleep...he does not care about going anywhere else...but Mommy please let me have the lap. 

I also think if I take him again I might buy a whole ticket so that I can put his bag on the seat....darn if I fly Jet Blue it might be cheaper than the $99 fare on continental


----------



## kristiekellogg (Feb 1, 2006)

I've flown with Kea and never had to pay to carry her on the plane. HOWEVER, I hate how they charge for overweight luggage. I had to pay $75 extra between my flight to Utah and my return flight. All over 8 pounds


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

> What do you do with Alex when you go out of town? Board him? Pet sitter?[/B]


We take the car to go to Phoenix to visit our daughter. And when I go overseas visiting family my husband stays home to babysit Alex. Besides that, we don't go on a vacation.



Teddyandme, you might find out that it is not as easy as you think to buy another seat for the dog.

My travel agent friend inquired for me about that with Air France once. At the end, we decided that I will go by myself. 



Told Alex that the day we can afford 2 business class tickets he will go with us see France.


----------



## saltymalty (Sep 14, 2004)

> I recently flew from Buffalo to Orlando on US Air. I booked the flight through http://www.mobissimo.com/search_airfare.php and then I called US Air to tell them I was brining a pet. I used e-checkin on both ways and they never did charge me for bringing a pet onboard
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am sure the ticket agents took one look at your pup and instantly fell in love...cuteness does have it's benefits!


----------



## Julie718 (Feb 17, 2006)

> When I took Teddy we had a good flight both ways...although going was so much nicer....The stewadess actually brought me a blanket and said something in code for hide him on your lap so no one can see...I thought it was just so very nice...of course I found out during the flight that she too had a Maltese.
> 
> On the way home I took Teddy and and they looked at me funny at first and then gave me a blanket. I just could not see making him sit in the carier under the seat when all he wanted to do was sit on my lap and sleep...he does not care about going anywhere else...but Mommy please let me have the lap.
> 
> I also think if I take him again I might buy a whole ticket so that I can put his bag on the seat....darn if I fly Jet Blue it might be cheaper than the $99 fare on continental[/B]


See...I feel that Tango would just sleep if he could be on his Mommy's lap too! I hope I have some nice flight attendants that let me put Tango on my lap!


----------



## pico's parent (Apr 5, 2004)

I have successfully used the blanket to shield Pico from view on my lap, also. He just snuggles up and sleeps most of the way and most attendants just look the other way if he is not obvious. Even without a blanket, he looks like a sweater on my lap and many don't even realize he is an animal. Except children.....they spot him a mile off, which is why I shield him because I don't want the children bringing attention to us and getting him excited. 

DFW has instituted a new rule at security. You must have a boarding document for your carry on pet. I have not encountered this at Ft. Lauderdale or San Antonio but it surely precludes sneaking a carrier on the plane there. I found out when I took him out to pee during a short layover and coming back in through security I was stopped and asked for it. Of course, I had it but had never had to show it before.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> I have a real problem with the child under two thing...It is so unsafe!!! If your under two child is riding on your lap, even with normal turbulance they can be seriously injured. I don't understand this policy...why aren't we concerned about protecting our youngest? I'm sorry to vent here, but I just don't think it is a safe policy of the airlines. I always purchased tickets for my babies (human)! But each and every time we flew (usually to a vacation spot on an over booked flight) I would have to fight with the stewardesses. They would insist that I could give up the seat for another "paying customer" even though I had paid for the seat. I have not taken Valletta on a plane yet, but when I do, I think I might purchase her her own seat to avoid any problems.[/B]


It is unequivocally more likely for a child under two to be injured during turbulence on a flight in their own seat than properly secured in their parents' laps according to the protocol airline positions. The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) sets the guidelines for airline travel for children under two and rest assured if their data indicted children were being injured in "normal turbelence" because they were sitting on a mother or father's lap, it would not be mandated that they sit on their parents' laps. 


Just to be clear, Saltymalty, this next paragraph is not directed at you at all because your post contained nothing but genuine concern for the safety and welfare of the young children on these flights, but it's included in this response nonetheless because I don't want to double-post. 

It really, really bothers me that whenever someone posts here about a bad experience they had concerning having their dog in a public situation (grocery stores, shopping, airlines) and the enforcement of whatever regulations the business had, there is inevitably an onslaught of posts along the lines of "they won't let my dog do "X" but my dog is much better behaved than the bratty kids they do "Y"." They are apples and oranges, folks! In these posts the attitudes range from general dislike of children to downright mean-spirited comments about them. I understand that at times some of the regulations and especially the enforcement of them are arbitrary and senseless, but it's not the fault of children, it's the fault of the business and what should be targeted is the senseless policy itself and bad/unprofessional behavior by the employees. It's not the children's fault the flight attendant or store employee was nice to them but mean to your pet. And it really reflects poorly upon the author of the comment. We all know there are some people who just don't like small dogs and make snide comments about them, and it hurts some of our feelings to hear those comments, but it hurts the feelings of the parents of small children when people who obviously don't like small kids make those same kinds of snide comments about them! Yes there are bad parents who have children who behave badly in public, and I don't particularly care to sit near them on flights or stand by them in the lines at stores, but one has nothing to do with the other. Comparing policies on dogs to policies on human children is inadequate - one really shouldn't have anything to do with the other. Policies on dogs are put into place mostly because there are certain bacteria that dogs can carry that needs to be kept away from food supplies, and because people can and do at times have severe allergies to them (and yes I acknowledge that some policies on dogs are just archaic and unfounded).

I guess what I am asking is for people to try and keep this in mind the next time someone wants to vent about bad public policy concerning their dog(s). It's perfectly acceptable to vent about it but please try to keep in mind that people here do have young children that aren't complete monsters, and just because you have to keep your pet under your seat on a flight doesn't mean we should have to keep our toddlers there, too, or that because you can't take your dog to the grocery store that we should have to leave our toddler at home. And yes, some people really seem to have that attitude.


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

I don't think it is because of the food that they have that policy. I think it is more about liability in case the dog bites somebody (passengers or crew). The last time my husband was in France (quite a few years ago) he was on an inside flight between Paris and Basel. There was a lady in the cabin with a poodle and she had him in a bag under the seat. Years ago and years ago Air France was very liberal about the pets in the cabin and they did not mind you having them on your lap. They even brought you water and food for them. Soooo my husband seeing that and being a dog lover, he asked the steward why the lady could not take the dog out of the bag. The stewarts said that they had been sued because a dog bit somebody and now their policy is that they have to stay inside the bag under the seat. 
Personnally, if I would be sitting next to a stranger I would not take my dog out of the bag and certainly not without asking that person if it would bother them.
What I don't agree with, is an hysterical crew member shouting at you that the dog cannot have his head out of the bag under the seat. The dog was not bothering any body. He was sleeping. She could have said nicely that their policy is that even the head has to be in the bag and they cannot make an exception. My daughter would have apologized and complied. 

As for the kids under 2 years old. You are right. Even tho we had a seat for my grand child (it was more to have space then for the kid itself), she was on her mother's lap during take off and landing, and when there was turbulence.


----------



## Deanna (Jan 14, 2005)

lucida.ann,

While I understand what your saying, I don't think any of us are mad at the _children_ for behaving poorly-- I think most of us are disgusted that *parents* allow their children to behave that way. 

I think most of us would like to see badly behaved children, adults, and animals dealt with instead of making over the top rules that, in essence, are a punishment for those of us that are well behaved adults, or those with well behaved children and/or animals.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> I don't think it is because of the food that they have that policy. I think it is more about liability in case the dog bites somebody (passengers or crew). The last time my husband was in France (quite a few years ago) he was on an inside flight between Paris and Basel. There was a lady in the cabin with a poodle and she had him in a bag under the seat. Years ago and years ago Air France was very liberal about the pets in the cabin and they did not mind you having them on your lap. They even brought you water and food for them. Soooo my husband seeing that and being a dog lover, he asked the steward why the lady could not take the dog out of the bag. The stewarts said that they had been sued because a dog bit somebody and now their policy is that they have to stay inside the bag under the seat.
> Personnally, if I would be sitting next to a stranger I would not take my dog out of the bag and certainly not without asking that person if it would bother them.
> What I don't agree with, is an hysterical crew member shouting at you that the dog cannot have his head out of the bag under the seat. The dog was not bothering any body. He was sleeping. She could have said nicely that their policy is that even the head has to be in the bag and they cannot make an exception. My daughter would have apologized and complied.
> 
> As for the kids under 2 years old. You are right. Even tho we had a seat for my grand child (it was more to have space then for the kid itself), she was on her mother's lap during take off and landing, and when there was turbulence.[/B]


Jane, thank you for your kind reply, and I don't agree with the way your daughter was treated at all. There was no reason to scream at her like that. Maybe that airline employee needs some anger management counseling! 

I will contradict my previous post just a tiny bit and say that, based upon what goes on at my toddler's day care center, your average airline passenger *is* *in as much danger from a bite from a toddler * as from a puppy







- probably more!


----------



## Deanna (Jan 14, 2005)

> I will contradict my previous post just a tiny bit and say that, based upon what goes on at my toddler's day care center, your average airline passenger *is* *in as much danger from a bite from a toddler * as from a puppy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is an excellent point. 

I was recently on a very long flight from Edmonton, Alberta to Nashville, TN- we had a long delay, due to weather, in Denver- there was a very cute little 3 yr old running up and down the aisle screaming for 2 hrs- not only was the child screaming it was coughing, sneezing, and had a runny nose. I was coughed on no less than 8 times, and had a snotty hand touch me or my arm rest about 10 times. This resulted in me getting a very nasty cold while on my business trip to Nashville. I am not likely to catch anything from a dog sitting quietly in someone's lap, or poking its head out of it's bag.


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

> MalteseJane,
> 
> While I understand what your saying, I don't think any of us are mad at the _children_ for behaving poorly-- I think most of us are disgusted that *parents* allow their children to behave that way.
> 
> I think most of us would like to see badly behaved children, adults, and animals dealt with instead of making over the top rules that, in essence, are a punishment for those of us that are well behaved adults, or those with well behaved children and/or animals.[/B]


I don't think I said anything about children behaving poorly in my post. You confused me with another post.

As for your last paragraph, it has always been that way, things get taken away from everybody because of a few bad apples. It's a shame but what can you do. Complain ? they don't care. Planes are full anyway. They don't need to be nice anymore. It used to be a pleasure to take an airplane. Today, it stinks.


----------



## Deanna (Jan 14, 2005)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=221425
> 
> 
> 
> ...


D'oh! Sorry for the confusion







- I edited my post!


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> lucida.ann,
> 
> While I understand what your saying, I don't think any of us are mad at the _children_ for behaving poorly-- I think most of us are disgusted that *parents* allow their children to behave that way.
> 
> I think most of us would like to see badly behaved children, adults, and animals dealt with instead of making over the top rules that, in essence, are a punishment for those of us that are well behaved adults, or those with well behaved children and/or animals.[/B]


I agree with your second paragraph wholeheartedly. As a mother of a small child I get very aggravated when other parents don't do what I consider to be their job. My toddler would never be allowed to run up and down the aisles and if she touched another passenger with snotty hands or sneezed on them I would be mortified! In fact one of my pet peeves is when the husband and I pay out the nose to hire a babysitter for a rare evening out to see an adult-themed (R- or PG-13 Rated folks not the kinds of adult films PeeWee Hermann liked to go see) movie, only to have to deal with someone else's poorly behaved children going out of their way to ruin the movie for everyone. Thankfully I was never one to suffer in silence and I have had kids and their parents removed from movies before. But more often than not the parents aren't there - they are either on the other side of the theater or have used the movie theater as their babysitter for the evening. And I blame those parents 100%.

Now about that first paragraph, Deanna...I am willing to entertain the notion that I misinterpreted some people but I did get the distinct impression that some people were angry that kids were allowed in places their dogs weren't. On this thread here are the kinds of statements I took that kind of sentiment from:

*"As for the pet travel, the last time I flew with one of mine, I had these horrible children behind me. They were under two, so they flew for free. My little one was quiet as a mouse, and the only way anyone knew she was on the flight was because the stewardess asked if she could show her off to the other passengers."*

I don't see anything in this comment that expresses anger with the parents, only a comment that suggests that the horrible kids flew for free while the dog she paid for was quiet as a mouse. This next comment does express frustration at the negligence of the mother of the kids but is much more focused on the fact that a child flying for free gets to sit in an extra seat but the dog owner was apprehensive that her dog might not be allowed to (even though nobody said anything) sit in an extra seat and that her dog wasn't allowed out of her pet carrier. This post explicitly focuses on a comparison of the woman's dog to the children which again I submit is unnecessary and inaccurate as far as comparisons go.

*"Exactly! Last week from Tulsa to Houston there were two little kids and their mom across the aisle from me. One of them was flying for free but had his own seat. They kicked the seat in front of them the entire way and the mom never said a word. The littlest child let out an ear piercing shriek every few minutes. Meanwhile Hope was trying to get out of her carrier and I had to sit it on the empty seat by me to keep it closed. She never whimpered, cried or barked but she was trying like mad to get out. I had already decided if the flight attendant said anything to me, I was probably going to go off. Luckily no one even noticed. I guess they thought I was using her bag as an armrest!"*

Another post that sparked my remarks about comparing apples and oranges:
*
"Yea...I am not sure why they aren't more accommodating towards small dogs and let little kids go crazy!"*

Now those were just the posts in this thread that prompted my remarks, but here are some historical ones here that I also had in the back of my mind when I decided to finally say something:

In this thread, a woman writes*,"I was asked to leave the post office once "no dogs allowed" I told the lady that was a silly rule considering the kids that were there were noiser, ruder and dirtier than my dog."* That is just a plain mean thing to say IMO.

Another comment from the same thread is not meanspirited:"*but you've definitely got guts. i want to tell people soo bad that my dog is better than their children (well, i told my neighbor when we had a fight....but its true!) but i've wanted to tell other people...but i dont have guts. lol "*

All I am noting is that there is a tendency for people to make these comparisons that are unnecessary and really don't do anything to advance the real issues, which again are public policies and employee attitudes towards dogs. They are completely separate from human children is the point I really want to make here, and if people aren't willing to distinguish between an animal and a human being I suppose any further comparisions from me are lost.


----------



## Teddyandme (Feb 6, 2005)

I do understand what you are saying and I have a feeling you are correct in saying it....even though I am sure there will be some who take offense.

I beleive that if we really want to raise the attitude of people more positively towards our animals that we must make valid arguments for there being allowed places by making reference to why it would be nice, kind, legitimate, and maybe even benificial to those establishments (lets face it money talks...if they have pet night at a local resturant and it is filled they will have another one so that they continue to make money)

But to constantly compare our animals to children is kind of rediculous because people are never going to stop bringing the children places...they have already won the right to be places people (as if







)...we don't want their rights taken away we want our pets rights given. 


And by the way....and this has nothing to do with anything....I am a full on crazy nut for kids...any children to me are incredible...now some parents I can do without. To me there is nothing like spending the afternoon playing with a child and listening to the laughter as they tell you awesome stories of just about everything. And Teddy loves them too. He can spot a toddler across the park. Too funny


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> I do understand what you are saying and I have a feeling you are correct in saying it....even though I am sure there will be some who take offense.
> 
> I beleive that if we really want to raise the attitude of people more positively towards our animals that we must make valid arguments for there being allowed places by making reference to why it would be nice, kind, legitimate, and maybe even benificial to those establishments (lets face it money talks...if they have pet night at a local resturant and it is filled they will have another one so that they continue to make money)
> 
> ...


Thanks Teddy's Mom (it's Susan right?), and I think you said in a few short paragraphs the essence of what I took two long posts to try and communicate. Although I did try to word my language so as to minimize any personal offense to others, and I left the names out of the people who made the comments I quoted because I didn't want to be focusing on the person who said them; I only wanted to focus on the comments that were made themselve...I would not be surprised terribly if someone were to take offense at my post, and that's okay if they do. All I ask is that they take offense at the ideas I express and not me as a person, because I can rationally respond to the former whereas with the latter I would just have to say _"OKee-Dokee, you think I am a jerk, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, k'thx."_









~ Lucie


----------



## Deanna (Jan 14, 2005)

> But to constantly compare our animals to children is kind of rediculous because people are never going to stop bringing the children places...[/B]


Sadly you are right... but can't we dream??!?!















Just kidding, well sort of kidding! 

I don't think making the comparison to kids and animals is as far fetched as y'all think. Take apartment renting- I was always annoyed that I had to pay a $300 non-refundable pet deposit for my cat that was declawed (he was a rescue I would NEVER do that to an animal), and had never had an accident in my apartment- even when he had to throw up or hack up a hairball he threw up in the recycle bin, he did no damage at all to my apartment. However the people in the next building with 3 kids, even 3 well behaved kids, were more destructive than my pet. 

People who bring their kids to work- way more of a distraction than when a co-worker brought her dog in who had just had surgery and had to be fed every hour on the hour. No one even knew her dog was there, but I sure as heck know when my other co-worker brings in his 2 little kids. 

We live in a very kid friendly society, and for some of us with no kids- or kids that are well behaved, we get frustrated when we see kids being disruptive or destructive and we are told that our little quiet dog inside a bag can't come in. For many of us our dogs are our kids- and we want them with us. 

I don't think any of the people that were quoted in lucida.ann's post were doing anything but venting their frustrations to people who get how important our dogs are to us.


----------



## saltymalty (Sep 14, 2004)

It is unequivocally more likely for a child under two to be injured during turbulence on a flight in their own seat than properly secured in their parents' laps according to the protocol airline positions. The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) sets the guidelines for airline travel for children under two and rest assured if their data indicted children were being injured in "normal turbelence" because they were sitting on a mother or father's lap, it would not be mandated that they sit on their parents' laps. 


Lucida, while I appreciate your comments I must respectfully disagree, a child under two is much safer secured into a car seat than in the lap of a parent or other adult. At a minimum, if a child is buckled into their own seat they are much safer than on their parent's lap which provides no measure of protection either during turbulance or during a crash. That is evidenced by crash test data that has been conducted on automobiles. Remember that horrible crash in Sioux City? One of the recommendations of the NTSB was to develop rules regarding the use of child safety seats in aircraft. See the link to the report: Sioux City Crash Report One of the few survivors of that crash was a little girl buckled into her car seat. A child is not "secured" into their parent's lap. It is just like riding in a car...my under two child is much safer buckled into their safety seat then held in their parents arms or on their lap. The reason the NTSB does not change their policy has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with the very powerful airline lobby that opposes the promulgation of rules requiring car seats on aircraft. I would not ride in my car (or any other) for that matter with a child under two not buckled into a car seat...I would not on an aircraft either.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> It is unequivocally more likely for a child under two to be injured during turbulence on a flight in their own seat than properly secured in their parents' laps according to the protocol airline positions. The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) sets the guidelines for airline travel for children under two and rest assured if their data indicted children were being injured in "normal turbelence" because they were sitting on a mother or father's lap, it would not be mandated that they sit on their parents' laps.
> 
> 
> Lucida, while I appreciate your comments I must respectfully disagree, a child under two is much safer secured into a car seat than in the lap of a parent or other adult. At a minimum, if a child is buckled into their own seat they are much safer than on their parent's lap which provides no measure of protection either during turbulance or during a crash. That is evidenced by crash test data that has been conducted on automobiles. Remember that horrible crash in Sioux City? One of the recommendations of the NTSB was to develop rules regarding the use of child safety seats in aircraft. See the link to the report: Sioux City Crash Report One of the few survivors of that crash was a little girl buckled into her car seat. A child is not "secured" into their parent's lap. It is just like riding in a car...my under two child is much safer buckled into their safety seat then held in their parents arms or on their lap. The reason the NTSB does not change their policy has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with the very powerful airline lobby that opposes the promulgation of rules requiring car seats on aircraft. I would not ride in my car (or any other) for that matter with a child under two not buckled into a car seat...I would not on an aircraft either.[/B]


There was also a recent horrible plane crash in Detroit, and the ONLY survivor was a child under two who was thrown clear of her parents. Spurious correlations are spurious correlations.

However, I do agree that if the NTSB were to develop standards for car seat implementation for children under two it might decrease their injuries marginally. I just don't see the data that very many people survive plane crashes, car seats or no car seats.

Deanna I would like to address your comments more fully and so I will have to wait until my break at work to do so. But they're a-comin'!


----------



## saltymalty (Sep 14, 2004)

Lucida, you might be interested these links: FAA Policy on Child Safety Seat Use Planesafe.org
Article quoting government officials and seat safety for children.
AAP 

I could not find one article stating the use of child restraints on aircraft was a bad thing.


----------



## dolcevita (Aug 3, 2005)

I don't think anyone meant to imply that children are horrible across the board. Are there some annoying brats out there? Yes. Are there also many badly behaved dogs? Yes again. I think that what some people mean is that many of the arguments against allowing dogs out of their carrier, or in a restaurant don't apply to children, so the arguments aren't valid. If spreading germs, making noise, and bothering people are enough to ban members of one species, why don't they apply to everyone, human children and adults included. The real reason pets aren't allowed is because they're not human, but that isn't acknowledged. I don't have children by choice, so my dog is like a child to me, and my feelings for her are no less valid to me because she isn't technically a human. I think we should all agree to be considerate of each other's "children", no matter their species. I know many people will not agree with me as far as dogs being equal to humans, but I think we all should respect each other. I feel like I'm not expressing myself as well as I'd like, but I hope you get my drift. No offense meant.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> I don't think anyone meant to imply that children are horrible across the board. Are there some annoying brats out there? Yes. Are there also many badly behaved dogs? Yes again. I think that what some people mean is that many of the arguments against allowing dogs out of their carrier, or in a restaurant don't apply to children, so the arguments aren't valid. If spreading germs, making noise, and bothering people are enough to ban members of one species, why don't they apply to everyone, human children and adults included. The real reason pets aren't allowed is because they're not human, but that isn't acknowledged. I don't have children by choice, so my dog is like a child to me, and my feelings for her are no less valid to me because she isn't technically a human. I think we should all agree to be considerate of each other's "children", no matter their species. I know many people will not agree with me as far as dogs being equal to humans, but I think we all should respect each other. I feel like I'm not expressing myself as well as I'd like, but I hope you get my drift. No offense meant.[/B]


1. Dolcevita: No offense taken. I understand that your feelings for your pet are no less valid than a parent's regard for their child, but that doesn't change the fact that your pet is in fact not a human being, and I for one am perfectly willing to acknowledge one of the main reasons dogs aren't allowed in places is because they aren't human.

2. SaltyMalty, your points on child restrain safety issues are taken.

3. Deanna, I know that I indicated earlier this morning that I wanted to respond in more depth to your latest post, but after giving it more thought, I realize that we just have a philosophical difference of opinions which means we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't see that American society is particularly kid-friendly so much as it is kid-tolerant out of necessity for continuation of the human race, and there are quite a few places I can think of that don't allow children or don't allow children under a certain age or after a certain time of day. And that is totally the right of the business owner to make those rules, because I do think people should be able to go places without having to encounter the set of issues that young children - no matter how well behaved they are - bring into any situation. A movie theater on a Friday evening, for example, is one such place I can think of. A couple who decides they want their wedding & reception to be adults-only is another such example. Back in my days of apartment-living, I was fortunate enough to deal with management companies who did their darnedest to keep single or child-free tenants away from the apartments with children.

And if people would be a bit more considerate of others and exercise some common sense, they wouldn't ruin it for responsible pet owners who could bring their pets along with them everywhere without causing a problem. Unfortunately we have to cater to the lowest-common denominator in our society.

But suppose a person kept a large snake for a companion that they regarded as their child the same way some people regard their dog as their kid. Would you want to sit at the table in the restaurant next to it, caged or not? What if that pet was a rat that a person was keeping in their pocket? Would you want to be surprised by it rearing it's head out of the pocket while standing next to it's owner in a grocery store aisle? People have phobias about animals, and some people are terrified of dogs. They should be able to go places that they know they won't have to encounter animals in the same manner that people should be able to go to places they won't encounter children in.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=221882
> 
> 
> 
> ...


PS - Sorry folks, I indicated I was going to agree to disagree and then launched into a mini-diatribe anyways. This is a discussion that could potentially be a good discussion to have if done right, and could also potentially be a hornet's nest if I take the wrong approach, and since I can't be assured the outcome will be the former and not the latter, I should really just walk away and let people respond if they choose but not repeat what I have already voiced as my opinion on this issue. Thanks.


----------



## Teddyandme (Feb 6, 2005)

I am one of those head over heals people for Teddy and i would appriciate more than some my Teddy being allowed to be with me...anywhere. 

My point was that we may have better chance of changing peoples minds if we don't use the argument that there are children that are worse behaved than our little fluffbutts. I am advocating that our little ones be allowed to go with us...I would never be without Teddy just like some people are not without their children....but children already have the rights to be places....kinda silly of us to think otherwise or to say that there are children who should not be allowed places because they are brats...we will be laughed off the planet...because as we all know children grow up to be adults...and we are adults. 

My point also is that we must show the places where we want our little ones that it is in the best interest of the business to allow our fluffbutts....we all know that there will at some point be a misbehaved fluffbutt also and it must be better business for the owners of establishments to put up with the occasional horrible fluffbutt so that they can make money on the great fluffbutts that will bring them good business. 

Now, I also am allergic to the same fluffbutts that I am saying we should allow so I must be nuts.







Seriously, we have little fluffbutts who for the most part are hypo-allegenic, what would the limit be here...will we allow saint bennards to actually sit at the dinner table...


This is a very complicated subject...I sure wish I had an answer because I love children and I love my fluffbutt and would love to have them with me.


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

You know, even tho dogs can go almost every where in France, the majority of people don't take them. I have yet to see a St Bernard in a french restaurant. The ONLY time I would take Alex with me to a restaurant would be when traveling because I don't want him to stay by himself in a hotel room. 



> But suppose a person kept a large snake for a companion that they regarded as their child the same way some people regard their dog as their kid. Would you want to sit at the table in the restaurant next to it, caged or not? *What if that pet was a rat that a person was keeping in their pocket? Would you want to be surprised by it rearing it's head out of the pocket while standing next to it's owner in a grocery store aisle?* People have phobias about animals, and some people are terrified of dogs. They should be able to go places that they know they won't have to encounter animals in the same manner that people should be able to go to places they won't encounter children in.[/B]


Now, I would like to see this : a person in a restaurant with his mouse or rat picking out of his chest pocket.





















This would be hilarious to me. I would have a ball just watching everybody running from a little mouse. Like the small beast would eat the big beast ! Ya right. If you are wondering, no, I don't have a mouse as a pet, even tho I am not afraid of them. And I would not eat in a restaurant where the mice are running in the kitchen either.


----------



## Deanna (Jan 14, 2005)

I am not advocating for our pets to be allowed places they are banned from. I understand why my dog can't go into certain places. I disagree with the people who sneak their pets in to stores, restaurants, malls, etc. I have no issue with those places telling me I can't take my pet to them. But it does annoy me, because kids can be so much more disruptive and destructive. 

I have issue with the fact that I am allowed to take my pet on as a carry on on a plane, but I am charged $80+ dollars each way for this "privilege", and then I can't open the bag to give my dog some air or a drink of water, or hold him on my lap. I have issue with parents being allowed to hold their screaming child on their lap, but I can't hold me quiet, sleeping puppy on mine. 

I never said children shouldn't be allowed places, in fact I don't think anyone has. I think most people (as I said earlier) were just venting their frustrations about ill behaved children in comparison to their dogs. 

The only point I was attempting to make was that the people quoted were just venting, and we all have a right to be frustrated and annoyed with anything and to talk about it. 

lucida.ann, thank you for the healthy and civil debate. I disagree with you on so many levels and feel strongly about over-population, and the damage the huge populations have done to our earth. However, I think this is the time in a debate when we know that neither person is going to change their beliefs, we shake hands and walk away.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> You know, even tho dogs can go almost every where in France, the majority of people don't take them. I have yet to see a St Bernard in a french restaurant. The ONLY time I would take Alex with me to a restaurant would be when traveling because I don't want him to stay by himself in a hotel room.
> 
> QUOTE





> But suppose a person kept a large snake for a companion that they regarded as their child the same way some people regard their dog as their kid. Would you want to sit at the table in the restaurant next to it, caged or not? *What if that pet was a rat that a person was keeping in their pocket? Would you want to be surprised by it rearing it's head out of the pocket while standing next to it's owner in a grocery store aisle?* People have phobias about animals, and some people are terrified of dogs. They should be able to go places that they know they won't have to encounter animals in the same manner that people should be able to go to places they won't encounter children in.[/B]


Now, I would like to see this : a person in a restaurant with his mouse or rat picking out of his chest pocket.





















This would be hilarious to me. I would have a ball just watching everybody running from a little mouse. Like the small beast would eat the big beast ! Ya right. If you are wondering, no, I don't have a mouse as a pet, even tho I am not afraid of them. And I would not eat in a restaurant where the mice are running in the kitchen either.
[/B][/QUOTE]


LOL @ the thought of a pet mouse peeking up out of the mommie or daddie's shirt pocket in the buffet line!!







:new_shocked:Maltese Jane: are you sure you're not really...Calamity Jane???


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> I am not advocating for our pets to be allowed places they are banned from. I understand why my dog can't go into certain places. I disagree with the people who sneak their pets in to stores, restaurants, malls, etc. I have no issue with those places telling me I can't take my pet to them. But it does annoy me, because kids can be so much more disruptive and destructive.
> 
> I have issue with the fact that I am allowed to take my pet on as a carry on on a plane, but I am charged $80+ dollars each way for this "privilege", and then I can't open the bag to give my dog some air or a drink of water, or hold him on my lap. I have issue with parents being allowed to hold their screaming child on their lap, but I can't hold me quiet, sleeping puppy on mine.
> 
> ...


Over-populations concerns me as well, Deanna, and I don't think we are as far awau from one another on this topic as you think. I don't disagree with *you*. I disagree with some of your statements, but I don't disagree with you. And I don't know at this point that you are never going to change my beliefs, because I honestly don't know what your beliefs are exceptfrom the fact that you think are so strongly opposed to my beliefs. I still think I have plenty to learn about your perpective before I can determine what impact, if any, they will have on mine. I am really not adverse to hearing more about why you think and feel the way you do on the subject of children.


----------



## dolcevita (Aug 3, 2005)

I have issue with the fact that I am allowed to take my pet on as a carry on on a plane, but I am charged $80+ dollars each way for this "privilege", and then I can't open the bag to give my dog some air or a drink of water, or hold him on my lap.

I completely agree--they know they can get away with it, because you don't have a choice if you want to bring your dog with you when you travel. Plus, airlines in general don't seem to care about their customers. It's just another injustice among many that they inflict on us. Flying is such an unpleasant experience now that I don't do it as often as I use to.


----------

