NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/pets/3625

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 13.1 KB | 295 lines

Newsgroups: rec.pets
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!cs.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!NewsWatcher
From: [e-mail] (Kip D. Hauch)
Subject: In-cabin pet carriers - LONG
Message-ID: <hauch-191192001557@128.95.214.222>
Followup-To: rec.pets
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Univ. of Washington Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:17:13 GMT
Lines: 283



If you have a small pet, most likely a cat, and travel by air
you might want to read this following LONG post.

Most major airlines not only allow pets in the cargo hold,
but will also allow small pets in the cabin provided they
fit in a carry-on sized carrier (Delta, Am West being
exceptions).  Animals in the cargo hold require additional
pressurized cargo space and special handling, so the airline
charges a $45-50/one-way fee.
However, if you take your small pet as carry-on, you use
no extra space in the cabin or hold, and receive no special
service... yet the airline still charges the $45-50/one-way
fee.  Why?  Remember, by comparison children under two, who
do not occupy an additional seat fly free.

Below is a LONG (4.5p) letter that I recently sent to an
unamed airline making the case that IN-CABIN pet carriers
should not be subject to a fee, and should simply be counted
as any other piece of carry-on baggage.

OK asbestos suit and gloves are on,  let╒s hear it!
╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤╤

Dear XYZ Airlines Customer Service,

XYZ Airlines allows its passengers to transport pets under a
variety of FAA and XYZ rules and regulations.  Passengers
with small pets may elect to transport them in the cabin (as
opposed to the cargo bay) in an FAA approved, carry-on
sized, in-cabin pet carrier.  XYZ charges a fee of
$45.00/each╩way for the passenger to be allowed to carry an
in-cabin pet carrier.  My question is simple:  Why does XYZ
charge this fee for in-cabin pet carriers?

I have pondered this question now for several years,
especially as XYZ raised this fee from $30 to $45 some time
ago.  I have posed this question to literally dozens of XYZ
agents, over the phone and in person.  Not a single one has
offered an explanation; each one has stated, in effect, that
they didn╒t understand this fee and could not justify it.

Quite some time ago and as part of a different matter I
posed this question of in-cabin pet carrier fees to XYZ.
Unfortunately, your answer to this particular question was
very unsatisfactory.  In the intervening time, I have posed
this question to dozens of my friends, colleagues, fellow
travellers, and even strangers.  I have invited a
debate/discussion on the topic and wish to present here the
many facets of this matter as I see them.

Why does XYZ charge a fee for in-cabin pet carriers?

Facts:    XYZ airlines charges a $45.00 /each way fee for
the transport of live animals, regardless of whether the
animals are transported in the cargo hold or in the cabin.
The charge is billed as an "Excess Baggage Ticket".
Arrangements for pet travel must be made in advance.  FAA
and XYZ regulations limit the number of animals allowed per
aircraft "cabin".  The XYZ reservation agent notes the
request in the record at the time of entry and confirmation
is made on a space-available basis.  The in-cabin animals
must be small enough to fit comfortably in an FAA approved
in-cabin carrier (i.e. be able to stand and reposition
themselves, carrier must be of under seat carry on size).
Other than confirming the available space, no services are
afforded to passengers with in-cabin pets.  (Note by
comparison, that animals transported in the hold require
additional space in the pressurized section of the cargo
hold, often require special baggage handling between
terminal and tarmac, and are subject to other restrictions
regarding the outside temperature conditions at each stop in
the flight.)

XYZ's official position(as related in a letter of 2/22/91):

    "The fee was established in part to offset the
additional personnel and computer costs required for
processing requests for confirmed pet space on our flights.
Additionally, the fee is consistent with that charged for
carriage of animals in the hold to ensure that passengers
transporting pets are treated equitably, regardless of the
size of the animal."

Discussion:     Several points here are worthy of
discussion, and each will be addressed individually,
starting with the two points presented by XYZ above.

1)    "..to offset the additional personnel and computer
costs required for processing requests.."

I was disappointed that XYZ offered this excuse as I find it
very difficult to believe.  Using this same logic, it would
seem that requesting special meal service should cost even
more than reserving a seat with a pet carrier.  Such a meal
request entails, not only that the request be noted in the
record, but that the request be forwarded to the food
service, a special meal be purchased or prepared and the
meal be transported to the plane, the flight crew notified,
and the crew specially service the customer in flight.  The
complicated reservation system monitors the available
seating (passenger load and capacity), passenger seat
preferences, window/aisle, smoking/non-smoking, special meal
requests, etc.  Frankly, I am surprised that XYZ would admit
that its reservation and operations systems are so
inefficient that something as simple as keeping track of the
number of reserved pet carriers per cabin actually entails
significant "personnel and computer costs" leading in part
to a $45.00/one way fee.  In fact I believe such costs are
likely negligible to your operation; but if XYZ insists
otherwise then:   *How does the estimated cost of these
"additional personnel and computer costs" associated with
reserving space for an in-cabin pet carrier compare with the
$45.00/one╩way fee charged?  Does this seem reasonable to
you?*

2)    "consistent with that charged [...] in the hold to
ensure that passengers are treated equitably, regardless of
the size of the animal"

There is no a priori reason that passengers transporting
pets in the cabin and in the hold should be treated
equitably.  Pet carriers are treated, as excess baggage.  If
I were to take a large steamer trunk on a flight, in excess
of my baggage allotment or that required special handling, I
would expect to pay extra fees for this service as compared
with one who carried aboard a cosmetic case that fit under
the seat in the cabin.  Note that travellers with children
are not treated equitably with regard to size either.
Children under age two, who are able to share a seat with an
adult, and hence do not take up any additional cabin space,
travel free, while older children who require more space are
charged accordingly.

*Why then,  is a pet carrier that takes no additional space
in the cabin or hold charged a fee?*

Perhaps, XYZ is attempting to make another point:
that some pet owners might be tempted to stuff larger
animals into cabin-sized carriers to avoid a fee, if the fee
for in-cabin carriers was abolished.  Every XYZ agent that I
have spoken with has correctly stated and stressed XYZ╒s
existing policy regarding the humane treatment of animals in
pet carriers; namely that the animal must be provided with
sufficient space to stand and reposition itself during the
long flight.  Given the limited size of a in-cabin carrier,
this does preclude all but very small animals from the cabin
anyway.  If there is to be a difference between the fee for
in-cabin vs. in-hold pet carriers, XYZ would simply have to
continue to enforce their existing humane treatment rule, as
is currently the case.  This encompasses no additional
effort on the part of XYZ.

Several points that I have made earlier have gone without
reply. I repeat them here.

3)    Special service

No special services are afforded to travellers with in-cabin
pet carriers.
    No special boarding privileges
    No special food during the flight (nor should there be)
    No other special in-flight services
    No special seat on the plane (e.g. one with extra room, etc)
As far as the flight crew is concerned I am no different
from any other passenger with a piece of carry-on luggage
that must be stowed under the seat.  As far as I know XYZ
incurs no additional cost nor expends any additional effort
associated with my transport of a in-cabin pet carrier.

*Compared to the transport of any other carry-on sized piece
of baggage, exactly what special service is provided that
warrants this $45.00/one╩way fee?*

4)    Inconvenience to other passengers

Some have suggested that the fee is meant to deter
passengers from taking pets on-board as they might provide
an inconvenience to other passengers.  First, the fee is not
needed as a deterrent as the size and number of pets allowed
per cabin is already limited by FAA and XYZ regulations.
Second, pets are of no undue inconvenience to to other cabin
passengers.  I think it fair to say, for example, that far
more passengers have been inconvenienced by infants who
travel free of charge than by pets in the cabin.  While it
has never happened, I fully expect to be relocated should I
or my pet prove to be a source of allergens that offend a
nearby passenger.  I doubt that a flight crew would be so
quick to relocate a passenger whose strong perfume, or other
odor were equally as offensive.  Personally, I have
travelled many times on XYZ with my pet in the cabin and to
my knowledge have never inconvenienced a single fellow
passenger or crew member.  Most have been completely
oblivious to the presence of my pet, the remainder were
pleased to have her aboard.

5)    Excess baggage

One might be tempted to argue that the pet carrier is excess
baggage beyond that allotted each passenger.  Indeed the fee
that is charged is billed as an "Excess Baggage Ticket."
However, when I asked if I could substitute the pet carrier
for my carry-on allotment I was told there would still be a
fee.  I understand why there is a fee for pet carriers in
the hold as these require special space in a pressurized
cargo compartment, special handling by XYZ personnel and are
indeed excess or special baggage.  However in-cabin pet
carriers are treated by XYZ no differently than any other
piece of carry-on baggage.
*If XYZ treats the in-cabin
carriers as baggage, and bills the fee as baggage, why not
count the in-cabin pet carriers as any other piece of carry-
on and apply the excess baggage fee ONLY if the passenger
exceeds the carry-on allotment?*



I would simply suggest the following:

* that XYZ do away with the fee for in-cabin pet carriers.

* that the fee remain intact for larger animals that require
special handling and additional, special pressurized space
in the aircraft╒s cargo bay.

* that the size restrictions, namely that the pet be able to
stand and reposition itself comfortably in the small carry-
on sized carrier, continue to be strictly enforced to ensure
the humane treatment of the animals.

* that in-cabin pet carriers be counted against the carry-on
allotment as any other carry-on piece would.

* that in-cabin pet carriers continue to require prior
reservation and that the allowable pets per cabin continue
to be assigned on a first╩come/first served basis.

I doubt that it would require the consideration of the
highest levels of management to implement these modest
revisions to an existing policy.  The revenue lost by
removing the fee for in-cabin pet carriers is truly
negligible, yet in so doing XYZ would certainly garner the
goodwill of a segment of the flying public╤ pet owners.

I know that these are hard times for the airline industry,
and if rumor is to be believed, especially hard times for
XYZ.  I would like to think that I support my airline every
time I pay a fare, or recommend to my friends and colleagues
that they use XYZ.  When I pay extra fees for first class
service, or an additional piece of baggage, I understand
that this fee is used to offset the added cost to XYZ.  I
hope you will understand, then, my displeasure in paying a
(rather exorbitant) fee for something that, to the best of
my understanding, does not cost XYZ anything.

I know that the holiday season is especially busy for the
airline industry.  I hope that you will have the opportunity
to reply to this letter before the inevitable deluge of the
Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.  Most importantly, I
hope that you will answer each of the four questions that
appear in boldface, as well as my simple question:

*Why does XYZ charge a fee for in-cabin pet carriers? *

If, in light of the arguments presented here, the answer
isn╒t exactly clear, than I hope that XYZ will consider
carefully my suggestions above, and implement them as soon
as possible.  I think they are certainly reasonable, fair
and workable.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,



A version of this letter was distributed electronically via
a computer bulletin board service (USENET) to roughly 65,000
persons at research, educational, government and private
organizations worldwide who read the interest categories:
air travel and pets.  I will be happy to publish your reply
in a similar manner.