7 ms·

If we're being honest, many people would prefer not to be forced to share space with other humans, either

majormajor 4y ago
Yeah, and it's easier for me to deal with that as a result: I can pay extra and get a first class ticket to get (depending on the plane) either some more space or A LOT more space to myself. Would be nice if airlines would make it just as easy to buy some more space for my pet. Pay more to buy the row out, pay more to get on a limited selection of "pet friendly" flights, probably other ideas could work too...
- dwighttk 4y ago
  pet friendly flights seems like the best bet here... I was sort of assuming this was a pet friendly airline, not just a plane that you can put your pet on.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- bscphil 4y ago
  > Yeah, and it's easier for me to deal with that as a result: I can pay extra and get a first class ticket to get (depending on the plane) either some more space or A LOT more space to myself. I see people bring crying babies into first class all the time. I would dispute that most people really have an option to avoid "nuisance" contact with other people. (Not an option for me either way, I have never had a first class seat.)
amelius 4y ago
Humans are not as unpredictable as most pets.
- smt88 4y ago
  This is untrue of babies and small children, which are more common on flights than pets.
  - blooalien 4y ago
    Hell, it's honestly untrue of entirely too many adult humans these days, too. Humans have just become plain unpredictable in general (unless you predict "crazy"). :(
- lijogdfljk 4y ago
  Heh, the last flight to florida i was on someone had urinated on the seat. if only.
imgabe 4y ago
You’re not forced to go on an airplane. If you don’t want to be around other humans, stay home. The comfort of other humans is more important than anyone’s selfish desire to drag their pet to each and every place they happen to go.
- turkeygizzard 4y ago
  I think a similar argument could be applied to babies on planes
  - imgabe 4y ago
    Babies are people. Dogs are not. We prioritize people over dogs. It’s really not that complicated.
    - turkeygizzard 4y ago
      Right, but if you just replace "pet" with "baby" in your comment, the argument is still relevant. I'm not saying either way is wrong, but I don't think you can immediately conclude that it's fair to bring a baby on a plane that disturbs the 30+ people in immediate proximity while obviously unfair to bring a small pet on board
      - imgabe 4y ago
        It's not still relevant because a baby and a dog are not equivalent. A baby has rights a dog doesn't. A baby might disturb people, so might an adult, but both are humans and you have to take the risk of being disturbed by humans because society is made of humans. Society is not made of or for dogs. Dogs are optional. The OP was not talking about small pets, which are already allowed. They're talking about buying a separate seat for a large dog. It is utterly insane to expect anyone to spend a cross-country flight with an 80lb Labrador next to them slobbering all over them.
        turkeygizzard 4y ago

Yeah, and it's easier for me to deal with that as a result: I can pay extra and get a first class ticket to get (depending on the plane) either some more space or A LOT more space to myself. Would be nice if airlines would make it just as easy to buy some more space for my pet. Pay more to buy the row out, pay more to get on a limited selection of "pet friendly" flights, probably other ideas could work too...

dwighttk 4y ago
pet friendly flights seems like the best bet here... I was sort of assuming this was a pet friendly airline, not just a plane that you can put your pet on.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bscphil 4y ago
> Yeah, and it's easier for me to deal with that as a result: I can pay extra and get a first class ticket to get (depending on the plane) either some more space or A LOT more space to myself. I see people bring crying babies into first class all the time. I would dispute that most people really have an option to avoid "nuisance" contact with other people. (Not an option for me either way, I have never had a first class seat.)

amelius 4y ago

Humans are not as unpredictable as most pets.

smt88 4y ago
This is untrue of babies and small children, which are more common on flights than pets.
- blooalien 4y ago
  Hell, it's honestly untrue of entirely too many adult humans these days, too. Humans have just become plain unpredictable in general (unless you predict "crazy"). :(
lijogdfljk 4y ago
Heh, the last flight to florida i was on someone had urinated on the seat. if only.

imgabe 4y ago

You’re not forced to go on an airplane. If you don’t want to be around other humans, stay home. The comfort of other humans is more important than anyone’s selfish desire to drag their pet to each and every place they happen to go.

turkeygizzard 4y ago
I think a similar argument could be applied to babies on planes
- imgabe 4y ago
  Babies are people. Dogs are not. We prioritize people over dogs. It’s really not that complicated.
  - turkeygizzard 4y ago
    Right, but if you just replace "pet" with "baby" in your comment, the argument is still relevant. I'm not saying either way is wrong, but I don't think you can immediately conclude that it's fair to bring a baby on a plane that disturbs the 30+ people in immediate proximity while obviously unfair to bring a small pet on board
    - imgabe 4y ago
      It's not still relevant because a baby and a dog are not equivalent. A baby has rights a dog doesn't. A baby might disturb people, so might an adult, but both are humans and you have to take the risk of being disturbed by humans because society is made of humans. Society is not made of or for dogs. Dogs are optional. The OP was not talking about small pets, which are already allowed. They're talking about buying a separate seat for a large dog. It is utterly insane to expect anyone to spend a cross-country flight with an 80lb Labrador next to them slobbering all over them.
      - turkeygizzard 4y ago