From: hauch@cheme.washington.edu (Kip D. Hauch)
Subject: In-cabin pet carriers - LONG
Followup-To: rec.pets
Organization: Univ. of Washington Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:17:13 GMT



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,  lets 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/eachway 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 didnt 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/oneway 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 XYZs 
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/oneway 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 aircrafts 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 firstcome/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 
isnt 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.  
Xref: sparky rec.pets:3597 rec.pets.cats:13692