3 ms·

> There really needs to be safe, affordable options for pet/dog owners to travel. Why? Are you suggesting some form of subsidy? Transporting live animals is ex

by DeRock 6y ago

> There really needs to be safe, affordable options for pet/dog owners to travel. Why? Are you suggesting some form of subsidy? Transporting live animals is expensive, and pet ownership (let alone flying with them) is not a human right. If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost.

pdonis 6y ago
> If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost. Right now the problem for pet owners (of which I am one) is that there are no acceptable options, even at a significantly increased cost. Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option unless your pet is small enough to fit in its carrier under your seat, which very few pets are. Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children; similar options for people traveling with pets, even if they cost more, would be helpful.
- DeRock 6y ago
  > Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option Well, whats your suggestion then? If there was a better option, it feels like the airlines would have taken advantage of that opportunity. My guess is that the alternatives are too logistically/operationally expensive, and the pet owners aren't willing to bear that cost. > Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children I see a lot of this sentiment in the comments, comparing infants and pets. One is essential to the continuation of our species. The other is a comfort, choice and privilege. It makes sense that our willingness to accept and subsidize is completely different between the two. You don't get a dependent tax deduction either, just because you have a dog.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > whats your suggestion then? A poster upthread said he would be quite willing to purchase a second seat for his pet if the airline would let him. So would I. > I see a lot of this sentiment in the comments, comparing infants and pets. One is essential to the continuation of our species. The other is a comfort, choice and privilege. Air travel is also a comfort, choice, and privilege. Suggesting that airlines could, for example, sell people a seat for their pet is not equating infants or children and pets. It's a business suggestion, that's all.
adkadskhj 6y ago
> Why? Are you suggesting some form of subsidy? Transporting live animals is expensive, and pet ownership (let alone flying with them) is not a human right. If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost. Not at all lol. What is the option though currently, renting a private jet? edit: To think of it differently, the airlines have chosen, and that choice of theirs resulted in deaths of pets, repeatedly. They want to let pet owners pay for tickets but not give them the safety of traveling without killing their pet. If they're going to allow pet travel it should have safety regulations just like people - that don't result in pets being left on a 130deg tarmac for literal hours, and dying. The "free market" should not get to decide things that kill people, pets, etc.

by DeRock 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost. Right now the problem for pet owners (of which I am one) is that there are no acceptable options, even at a significantly increased cost. Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option unless your pet is small enough to fit in its carrier under your seat, which very few pets are. Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children; similar options for people traveling with pets, even if they cost more, would be helpful.

DeRock 6y ago
> Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option Well, whats your suggestion then? If there was a better option, it feels like the airlines would have taken advantage of that opportunity. My guess is that the alternatives are too logistically/operationally expensive, and the pet owners aren't willing to bear that cost. > Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children I see a lot of this sentiment in the comments, comparing infants and pets. One is essential to the continuation of our species. The other is a comfort, choice and privilege. It makes sense that our willingness to accept and subsidize is completely different between the two. You don't get a dependent tax deduction either, just because you have a dog.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > whats your suggestion then? A poster upthread said he would be quite willing to purchase a second seat for his pet if the airline would let him. So would I. > I see a lot of this sentiment in the comments, comparing infants and pets. One is essential to the continuation of our species. The other is a comfort, choice and privilege. Air travel is also a comfort, choice, and privilege. Suggesting that airlines could, for example, sell people a seat for their pet is not equating infants or children and pets. It's a business suggestion, that's all.

adkadskhj 6y ago

> Why? Are you suggesting some form of subsidy? Transporting live animals is expensive, and pet ownership (let alone flying with them) is not a human right. If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost. Not at all lol. What is the option though currently, renting a private jet? edit: To think of it differently, the airlines have chosen, and that choice of theirs resulted in deaths of pets, repeatedly. They want to let pet owners pay for tickets but not give them the safety of traveling without killing their pet. If they're going to allow pet travel it should have safety regulations just like people - that don't result in pets being left on a 130deg tarmac for literal hours, and dying. The "free market" should not get to decide things that kill people, pets, etc.