Qantas wants clearer pet rules

[oz_mark]

Interesting bits about regulations that seem at odds with each other

QANTAS says it is getting an increasing number of requests from passengers who want to bring "comfort animals" on flights to help them cope with stress, but the airline fears it will fall foul of anti-discrimination laws if it refuses.

and

The airline also raised concerns over the rules for exit row seating: aviation laws require people there to be fully mobile, but preventing impaired people from sitting there could be a breach of equal opportunity laws

Qantas wants clearer pet rules

 

[Kendall Roy]

So QF is asking for some common sense.

Sounds fair to me.....

 

[harvyk]

I would like to start off by apologising to all disabled people prior to saying this. Causing you offence is not my intention...

That said, there are things that disabled people just can not physically do. Opening a hatch which weighs about 20 kg is probably not one of them. The last thing I want to see if I have to get off a plane quickly is the person beside the hatch unable to open it due to a physical disability.

That said, there are some able bodied people who wouldn't be able to lift 20kg in an emergency, and they too should not be permitted to sit in the emergency exit rows.

As I said, causing offence is not my intention, but we must also be realistic in what a persons abilities actually are.

 

[dede]

Now all we have to do is to train the pets to open the latches - that might work!

Would this change the airline food offered as well?

 

[v8Statesman]

Would this change the airline food offered as well?

"Tonght in Economy we are serving PAL or CHUM. In Business we have My Dog or DINE."

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

i can just imagine the next time a QF plane hits turbulence.

Imagine it's literally raining cats & dogs.

It's bad enough a lot of people don't buckle up even if the seat belt sign is off, let alone having their pets bouncing around the cabin too.

Then there's the question about people with allergies. If someone with their pet cat causes the person near them to flare up, who's legally responsible?? What if the little yappy dog starts whining or gets snappy.

Then there's the questions of toilet training. I mean, how long is the poor animal supposed to hold on???

I really can't see letting animals into the cabin being a smart idea. Take a valium / xanax or some other relaxant.

 

[samh004]

If you want to take your dog wherever you go in a handbag like Paris Hilton then you should save up and fly private jets. That's the only place for you.

If they allowed cats on board my allergies would go nuts and by the end of the flight I'd be very sick. I can't see how that'd be a good idea.

 

[medhead]

It us a bit disingenuous of qantas to raise anti discrimation laws with respect to exit row seating. All laws are still subject to some fundamental principles including being for the greater good. It has to be fairly easy to show that the safety of all pax on a plane outweighs the anti discrimination laws.

Of course the issue is a bit more murky now that qantas are issuing exit rows on the basis of being able to pay. If there is a problem they should have thought about that before becoming a LCC.

 

[Commuter]

It us a bit disingenuous of qantas to raise anti discrimation laws with respect to exit row seating. All laws are still subject to some fundamental principles including being for the greater good. It has to be fairly easy to show that the safety of all pax on a plane outweighs the anti discrimination laws.

Indeed, safety rules need to come before anti-discrimination laws.

As for pets - if people need 'comfort animals' to travel (as opposed to service animals such as guide dogs or hearing dogs), then I think people need to consider others before imposing it upon others.

 

[Dave Noble]

I really can't see letting animals into the cabin being a smart idea. Take a valium / xanax or some other relaxant.

They seem to have no problems in the land of litigation with allowing dogs in the cabin

Why should it be any more problematic in Australia?

Dave

 

[farstar]

They seem to have no problems in the land of litigation with allowing dogs in the cabin

Why should it be any more problematic in Australia?

Dave

Just because they do something in the US does not mean it is a good idea.

I think it would be good to get the situation clarified so that we won't get people trying to sue if it is a grey area.

I think if I was a very large person I would try to sit near the cabin door emergency exits rather than the over wing ones as the over wing ones don't look too big.

 

[oz_mark]

Indeed, safety rules need to come before anti-discrimination laws.

I agree with this, although as it stands, until tested in court, no one really knows what would happen if it went to court.

I also have some friends that are allergic to cats as well, so I son't think they would be impressed with the idea of allowing cats on board.

 

[2muchplastic]

For me pets should not be allowed in the cabin. Period. There are too many issues, in my opinion, with hygiene (as already mentioned, Fido can't be expected to cross his legs for a DRW-SYD can he? And also the hair and fur left over - increasing turnaround time with extra cleaning requirements?) and safety (and again as already mentioned, poor Fido bouncing around the cabin in turbulence). And halfway through the take off roll is not the time to find out that your darling pooch is a nervous flier!

How would Qantas define a "comfort animal"? Who is to say that when someone turns up at check-in with a Rottweiler and claims it is their "comfort dog", how can they be refused? And how would someone define that a particular person needs a comfort animal in order to be able to travel?

Keep them off I say (and I say this as an animal lover)! Guide dogs for the blind, or hearing dogs are fine, but no more please!

 

[v8Statesman]

Keep them off I say (and I say this as an animal lover)! Guide dogs for the blind, or hearing dogs are fine, but no more please!

I have to say I agree. Guide Dogs etc go through very stringent training, also not all dogs pass this. Quite a few don't make the grade.

Apply this to "fluffy" the companion dog and I may reconsider.

 

[Evan]

They seem to have no problems in the land of litigation with allowing dogs in the cabin

Why should it be any more problematic in Australia?

Dave

Small dogs, but your right, seen it here, very strange to see it, as far as i know the animal's i have seen caused no issues (i only have been flying F for all my flights here and generally board first so i just know they are behind me somewhere...)

 

[oz_mark]

They seem to have no problems in the land of litigation with allowing dogs in the cabin

Why should it be any more problematic in Australia?

In Australia, dogs are generally not permitted in areas where food is served and consumed. Outside of areas such as guide dogs there seems little in the way of accreditation for the appropriate training of dogs.

 

[oz_mark]

If anyone wants to read the Qantas submission, and it covers a lot more ground than the article cited above, the link is http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/87799/sub046.pdf. Other submissions are at the link Submissions - Productivity Commission

The Qantas one is interesting as it gives several examples of conflicts between various laws and regulations.

 

[ejb]

I have to say I agree. Guide Dogs etc go through very stringent training, also not all dogs pass this. Quite a few don't make the grade.

Apply this to "fluffy" the companion dog and I may reconsider.

Hi,

As mrs ejb's dog is named fluffy I can agree that having that barking mad spoilt brat on board would not be good.

But seriously having "normal" dogs onboard is plan silly due to the multiple reasons already covered, plus the fact that you can't reason with a scared dog so they would become very unsafe.

ejb

 

[medhead]

I agree with this, although as it stands, until tested in court, no one really knows what would happen if it went to court.

I would have guessed that there would be a fair bit of case law already about the safety of groups taking precedence over the rights of individuals. But this would be a unique situation as it would be interesting to see what happened in court.

 

[simongr]

But seriously having "normal" dogs onboard is plan silly due to the multiple reasons already covered, plus the fact that you can't reason with a scared dog so they would become very unsafe.
ejb

It is not possible to reason with a scared screaming baby either but we don't ban babies. People travel with colds and flus, I am not allergic to a cold or flu but I don't like to be made sick by other people.

Sorry just two examples of why people shouldn't be allowed to fly on the same basis as pets.

Re "fluffy" not being able to cross his legs SYD-DRW - my dogs sleep through the night from usually 10PM to 7AM without (most of the time) needing a "bathroom break" - that is considerably longer SYD-DRW.

Re the comment saying that people who want to travel with their pets should fly in private jets so they don't upset your allergies - frankly they are your allergies and you shouldn't impose restrictions on people to deal with your issues - you should fly in a private jet by the same standard.

The system works in the US and if adopted here would lead to fewer pet deaths during travel and make travelling easier and cheaper for some people.