Flight diversions due to medical issues with passengers are common. However, a Delta flight recently diverted because a four-legged traveler wasn’t feeling well, as reported by Matthew at Live and Let’s Fly. Was that unreasonable?
In this post:
Delta flight diverts to Minneapolis over sick dog
This incident happened on Monday, May 26, 2025, and involves Delta flight DL694, scheduled to operate from Detroit (DTW) to Los Angeles (LAX). The flight was operated by an Airbus A321, with 181 passengers and six crew members onboard.
Roughly an hour into the flight, a dog became sick, and the crew asked if there was a veterinarian onboard. There was, and that person helped to assist the dog. The decision was ultimately made for the flight to divert to Minneapolis (MSP), so that the dog and its human friend could be let off the plane, and receive treatment.
The flight was initially scheduled to depart Detroit at 8:28PM and arrive in Los Angeles at 10:31PM, with a block time of 5hr3min. With the diversion, the flight ended up arriving in Los Angeles at 12:56AM, 2hr25min behind schedule. While enroute on the second segment, the captain reportedly updated passengers, to state that the dog would be okay.
Delta issued the following statement in response to the incident:
The safety of our customers and people comes before everything else at Delta. That’s why Delta flight 694 diverted to MSP to ensure a cabin pet that became ill received proper care.”
Is a diversion for a pet unjustified?
Matthew makes an interesting argument regarding this diversion. He states he’s not a dog owner, but recognizes that a lot of people love their pets. He says he’s not opposed to diverting flights for sick dogs, but:
But I also note that a diversion costs a lot of money…extra fuel, extra crew time, and potentially overnight accommodations and meal vouchers for passengers who may have missed onward connections.
Because bringing pets onboard airplanes is an elective act, I believe that Delta should send a bill to the dog owner. Why should Delta have to pay for the choice to bring a dog onboard? Why should any airline have to stomach the cost for an accessory that becomes ill onboard?
Putting a price on the head of a dog is difficult…continuing the flight if it would have resulted in the death or permanent injury to the dog is inhumane. But those who take their dogs onboard planes should be prepared to pay up if they do want to divert when the dog becomes sick.
I have a very different take on this. First of all, I don’t follow the argument that “bringing pets onboard airplanes is an elective act.” I mean, unless you’re being trafficked, getting on a plane is also an elective act for humans. Most diversions due to human medical issues are for people who are in higher risk categories, yet they elect to get onto planes. Should we also charge them for diversions?
If you were to charge people for medical diversions in situations like this, that seems downright cruel. The average American has savings that’s in the four-figures. A diversion can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Should people be given the option of whether they want their pet to live, or whether they should be bankrupt?
Say you took that approach, and the person decides they can’t afford the diversion. Imagine the dog then dies onboard. Do you really want to be on a plane with a dead dog and a crying dog owner for hours? That doesn’t sound pleasant to me either!
Lastly, to what end would a passenger be reimbursing Delta? To boost the carrier’s bottom line and share price, so the airline can engage in more stock buybacks? It’s not clear how that would create any level of justice for anyone.
So I unequivocally commend Delta for this diversion, as I think it was the right move. While I know some people don’t like the service dog culture in the United States, the reality is that not all dogs travel that way. The airline also generates millions in revenue per year through pet fees. This is a small way that’s counteracted.
For that matter, look how rare this is. Dozens of flights around the world divert every day for medical issues. When’s the last time we heard of a flight diverting due to a sick pet in the cabin? That even furthers the point of why a pet owner shouldn’t be on the hook for this, since it’s not like it’s a recurring issue.
Bottom line
A Delta flight from Detroit to Los Angeles diverted to Minneapolis after a dog in the cabin became sick. While a delay like this is of course inconvenient for everyone, it was ultimately the right move, and the dog was okay after receiving treatment. I commend Delta for its action here.
What do you make of this pet diversion?
Animals don't belong on airplanes. Period. BUt hUmANs aRe AniMAls... No, humans are civilized, or at least they are supposed to be. Living with an animal means living like an animal. I don't want to be near your emotional support llama.
Support animals, where they really are not and not fuzzy fake, begrudgingly fine; but I sincerely doubt there are that many.
I keep seeing “humans>pets argument.” I agree that given a chance to save a human life or pet life, you pick the human. But this is not the case. The equation should be regarding a human’s TIME…not life. So in that case pets>human’s convenience. Dont like it, tough shit.
Thank you for diverting this flight and helping the dog/owner. In some cases the animal is family and is desired to be treated as such and is very important.
The one time there's an article about one of the big three DOING SOMETHING TO SAVE A LIFE and the conversation degenerates into "Let the dog die."
Your two hour delay and your inconvenience are worth nothing. If it was YOU should have driven, not the man with the dog. The life of the pet IS worth something.
Good on Delta.
Imagine if they treated seating paying passengers as well as this dog.
Pet all dogs.
Once the dog is onboard and sick, of course you should save the dog. But that doesn't mean everything is working as intended and there aren't lessons to be learned.
Firstly, the emotional support animal nonsense is out of control and should be banned. I don't know if that was the case in this instance, but banning ESAs will certainly reduce incidents like this in aggregate (and alleviate some of the other unreported incidents that...
Once the dog is onboard and sick, of course you should save the dog. But that doesn't mean everything is working as intended and there aren't lessons to be learned.
Firstly, the emotional support animal nonsense is out of control and should be banned. I don't know if that was the case in this instance, but banning ESAs will certainly reduce incidents like this in aggregate (and alleviate some of the other unreported incidents that commenters have cited).
Secondly, this is why we need an EC 261 law. If passengers had to be compensated for the delay, it would be less of a debate.
And to preempt responses about how a sick pet isn't within the airline's control, it is a statistical inevitability due to airlines' policies of allowing pets to fly in the first place. As has been posted in the article and comments, allowing pets is the airline's decision and the cost of such diversions is built into their operating model. It would be a simple matter to account for such diversion compensation too. Given how rare they are it wouldn't even be a rounding error in the airlines' calculations, but it could mean a great deal to the affected passengers.
Matthew is right. This affects dozens if not hundreds of people at a time and - unless pets are clearly specified in the contract of carriage - would give grounds to request compensation from Delta by the passengers. Yes, it's sad, but humans > pets.
In fact, they should be put in the hold and that's eat.
There are some seriously selflish people posting today. Look, some people abuse the service animal policy. But the vast majority of animals fly when people are relocating. For most people, flying with pets isn't fun and they don't do it frivolously. It's not fun for the animals either. Every time I've relocated and had to fly with my pets, I find it incredibly stressful as I try to reduce the stress on them and not...
There are some seriously selflish people posting today. Look, some people abuse the service animal policy. But the vast majority of animals fly when people are relocating. For most people, flying with pets isn't fun and they don't do it frivolously. It's not fun for the animals either. Every time I've relocated and had to fly with my pets, I find it incredibly stressful as I try to reduce the stress on them and not disturb the rest of the plane. But you know what is more stressful? Putting them in the ****** hold where i have to worry about some newbie NOT loading them in the heated and pressured part of the hold, them being left in the sun on a hot tarmac or out in the cold or some sadist hurting them. Or them simply being incredibly stressed experiencing flying without their people.
I put up with your misbehaving children, crying babies, body odor, cologne, videos without headphones and encroaching on my personal space weekly. You can put up with my pets every five years or so.
Next time just drive. And shut up. Asshats without headphones are not an invitation for you to force your animal in my space.
@Antwerp
The aircraft cabin is not your space unless you fly private.
AD, you're correct and Antwerp, well, your continue your run of classy behavior. You're probably a big fan of that puppy killer DHS Sec.
You want your dog on board? Fine. I want to vape as well....I need that for emotional support. And I want to cuddle my oversize teddy bear. No room? Not fair. My 5 ft tall teddy needs a seat. And give me vodka. Lots of vodka. I need it to get through the day for my anxiety of flying. No, I'm not drunk, I need it simply for personal reasons. I've been prescribed vodka by...
You want your dog on board? Fine. I want to vape as well....I need that for emotional support. And I want to cuddle my oversize teddy bear. No room? Not fair. My 5 ft tall teddy needs a seat. And give me vodka. Lots of vodka. I need it to get through the day for my anxiety of flying. No, I'm not drunk, I need it simply for personal reasons. I've been prescribed vodka by my alternative doctor from Russia.
People, this is insane. Just stop. You sit next to me with a freakin dog wearing a Louis Vuitton leash and a fake support tag and I am going to make a scene. Count on it. No different than if you lit a cig next to me. It's a plane, not a kennel. Get out of my space. Yeah, get off my lawn as well.
Looking forward to the OMAAT post about you getting banned from an airline lmao
I have never seen the logic of allowing anything but a guide dog onboard in the cabin. Of course there are also the fake comfort animals that should be totally eliminated.
Pet owners who bring pets onboard should be advised that if they want to divert the cost will be x$ for all expenses. We all carry travel insurance. Pet owners should be advised in future that if their pet causes damage or a...
I have never seen the logic of allowing anything but a guide dog onboard in the cabin. Of course there are also the fake comfort animals that should be totally eliminated.
Pet owners who bring pets onboard should be advised that if they want to divert the cost will be x$ for all expenses. We all carry travel insurance. Pet owners should be advised in future that if their pet causes damage or a diversion then they are responsible. They would also be advised about pet insurance would be required.
The MASSIVE cost should not be borne by passengers just because Charley wants fifi onboard. Making ends meet for airlines is hard enough. The passenger should get insurance or pay a kennel fee.
The obvious answer is that the pet should be in the hold where it belongs.
Fine. You pay up if a plane ever needs to be diverted for your medical emergency then
In some countries airlines do not allow pets period. In some places airlines will make passengers pay a pet fee. This could be an easy solution for this, as someone has mentioned. Consider the real reason as an organization Delta diverted - because in part because it looks good. Now people praise them for diverting. Some people disapprove because of the cost to divert or the animal vs human. If the dog got more sick...
In some countries airlines do not allow pets period. In some places airlines will make passengers pay a pet fee. This could be an easy solution for this, as someone has mentioned. Consider the real reason as an organization Delta diverted - because in part because it looks good. Now people praise them for diverting. Some people disapprove because of the cost to divert or the animal vs human. If the dog got more sick and/or died then Delta would have a lot of bad comments. I think the person is correct in pointing out that it does cost the airline a lot of money to divert. I am not saying whether it was appropriate to divert or not or if the owner should be billed. I wonder the statistics of pets in the cabin and real service animals such as for the blind or deaf because I wonder if airlines would loose a lot of revenue for banning them except for proper service animals.
Pets, animals, etc should NOT be allowed on planes. I love dogs, but they should not be allowed on planes! This is absolutely ridiculous.
Aren't animals considered "property" legally? The particulars of the incident are not available. But I think it was ridiculous to divert, especially since they were reasonably close to the arrival airport. It's an ANIMAL, not a human life. Sorry, but that's just a fact.
Anyone suggesting that an individual should have to pay all the associated costs of a plane diversion is just a bellend.
Agreed. Ultimately, the decision to divert is made by the airline, not the individual passenger, so the airline should bear the cost.
Airlines are free to insure against this risk if they wish.
The US cultural norm is that pets are family and to be treated as such. Anybody in the US who doesn’t vibe with this norm is a sociopath, incel, or any number of negative descriptors.
I’m surprised to see so many heartless bastards on here. So your time is worth more than someone’s pets life? Yes, I understand in the life hierarchy that humans are above animals. But we aren’t talking about another human’s life we are sacrificing; we are talking about an hour or so. Sorry for the inconvenience, but shit happens. We’re saving the dog. : )
Sorry for the inconvenience, said the FA to the person who was travelling to meet their dying father or mother. Sorry for the inconvenience, said the FA to the person who now has to pay extra for car rental or hotel. Sorry for the inconvenience, said the FA to the person who was travelling to a time sensitive event. But hey, you were saving the dog. :)
Your dog, your problem. Next time, drive or put it in the hold.
@Grzegorz
Same thing happens when humans cause a diversion. If you want a 100% guarantee your flight won't divert, you should drive.
@Grzegorz. Can we be honest? What are the odds that someone is on their way to a dying loved one at the exact same time a plane is needed to be diverted because of a sick dog? I may be wrong but I think most people fly for business or leisure/fun.
A 2 hour flight, 1 hour into journey the dog is sick. Would have been just as quick to continue the flight to LA, but airlines are too scared of being sued. Gd help America!
Ban all but service dogs on flights. Leave the rest at home. Agree with ErikOJ.
Absolute bollocks, Lucky. Give me a break.
So, arriving at 1 AM. Can I sue the dog owner if the rental car counter is closed and I have to taxi to Thousand Oaks? Or if my room was given away since I was a no show and I had to pay a walk up rate (in addition to being charged as a no show)? I have no issue with the dog being taken care of if there is no cost to me. Or are such items the airline's responsibility, i.e. a room at a LAX hotel?
Can you sue? De minimis non curat lex.
Whenever you fly, your plane may be delayed or diverted for any number of reasons. Travel insurance is widely available, so it's up to you whether you insure against this risk or not.
Why is this any different than a medical emergency, weather delay, etc.? Are you going to sue someone who has a medical emergency that creates an identical situation?
Dogs are gifts and deserve to be saved. Anyone whinging about this is a monster.
+1000 and I am not a dog owner (as equity partner I don’t have the time)
But you seem to have a lot of time spill nonsense in travel blogs.
You could easily care for a dog if you didn’t post here man.
You do not have the right to require me to pay for your happiness or whatever. Put the pet in the hold. Or carry pet insurance that covers the cost if the pet creates a problem or in this case causes 181 people to be inconvenienced and the airline to pay Thousands of dollars for your pet.
Is narcissistic a proper description of your attitude?
A narcissist says everyone should pay for them.
It’s a dog. Get a new one
> It's a dog. Get a new one.
You're an Internet idiot. Off yourself. We'll get a new one.
If an airline allows an animal into its cabin, and that animal needs urgent medical attention, the plane should divert.
Separate and apart from that plain vanilla rule, what animals an airline should allow into the cabin is a fair question. Delta allows dogs, cats and household birds and limits the total number of pets on each flight. It does not allow wild birds as customers found out on Saturday (bye bye pigeons...)
Emotional...
If an airline allows an animal into its cabin, and that animal needs urgent medical attention, the plane should divert.
Separate and apart from that plain vanilla rule, what animals an airline should allow into the cabin is a fair question. Delta allows dogs, cats and household birds and limits the total number of pets on each flight. It does not allow wild birds as customers found out on Saturday (bye bye pigeons...)
Emotional support parrots perhaps on planes? Can laugh about that but here in NY the courts took disputes over emotional support parrots seriously - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/nyregion/nyc-parrots-apartment-court.html
With all of this I am always reminded of Denis Leary's famous bit on only wanting to save the cute animals. Crude bit, but fair point.
Pets are not human, despite our emotional attachment to them. Diverting and delaying an entire airplane full of people for a sick canine is absolutely ridiculous.
First, pets may not be human, but they are family. Second, can you imagine the PR disaster Delta would have had if they hadn't diverted and the dog did die? Both morally and financially, Delta made the correct call.
It's a no brainer call to divert.
As Pete points out, pets are not human. True. Delta could have a different policy with respect to whether or not to allow dogs, cats and household birds in the cabin. But if it is going to allow them on flights it has to care for them when things go wrong.
Nowhere was it suggested that this was a service dog. But what if it was, Delta was...
It's a no brainer call to divert.
As Pete points out, pets are not human. True. Delta could have a different policy with respect to whether or not to allow dogs, cats and household birds in the cabin. But if it is going to allow them on flights it has to care for them when things go wrong.
Nowhere was it suggested that this was a service dog. But what if it was, Delta was required by federal law to let it on the aircraft, and it got sick. Is someone really suggesting that a trained service animal should not be given appropriate medical attention?
If you go and read Delta's policies on trained service animals (which specifically do not include emotional support animals) and pets (which include emotional support animals) there really isn't much wrong from a policy perspective (unless you believe that no pets other than trained service animals should be allowed in the cabin at any time). If folks are pretending that animals are service animals to save on fees, and jump through the airline's service animal paperwork hoops, that's between them and the airline I suppose, but a bit irrelevant if the animals are allowed on in the first place.
The issue that some may rightly have is that the policies on animals are not appropriately enforced. For instance, even for trained service animals, Delta says they must "fit within the foot space (“footprint”) of your seat and not intrude into the aisles or space of other customers". That's the policy. Obviously folks have seen plenty of instances where that policy is not enforced.
@Dusty "they are family"
That is the crix of the issue - some think so; others most definitely disagree.
Not going to comment on whether the diversion was justified. However there’s a lot of debate between whether animals belong on airplanes. Service dogs are allowed under the ADA—which as it’s currently written— anyone can bring a pet onboard as a service animal. Emotional support animals are considered pets and not covered under ADA—airlines would’ve put a stop to that a long time ago. Airlines aren’t being lax here, they’re complying with the law. If...
Not going to comment on whether the diversion was justified. However there’s a lot of debate between whether animals belong on airplanes. Service dogs are allowed under the ADA—which as it’s currently written— anyone can bring a pet onboard as a service animal. Emotional support animals are considered pets and not covered under ADA—airlines would’ve put a stop to that a long time ago. Airlines aren’t being lax here, they’re complying with the law. If you don’t want pets masquerading as service animals or you think there should be a higher burden of proof for the pet owner, talk to your representative in congress.
If you have the same emotional attachment to your pet that you do to your children, then you have a problem.
Agree to disagree
Matthew, Matthew, Matthew. You know who it wasn't an elective act for? The damn dog.
Unless it's a legitimate service dog, all animals should be banned from the passenger cabins and carried in the cargo hold only.
This trend of taking dogs everywhere is getting ridiculous. Hopefully Trump will be issueing an executive order on this sometime soon.
Trump is a dumbass, but this time your dumbass isn’t wrong. Maybe you are not as stupid as you look and vote
Pets who pay fees should have diversions for free. Collectively, the fees for people include a kind of built-in "insurance" for all the exigencies that might arise during course of travel because that's just normal operations. Pets who travel on fees are paying for the same thing.
What if a dog is unruly? Divert and kick out the dog?
Should dogs have health certificates certifying that they are fit to fly?
Only if the dog is drunk or barks in a way humans understand as I have a bomb.
However, dogs seem to get away easier than humans if the dog touches the flight crew.
As a guy who is much loved by his dog and a retired crew member I would be 100% ok with it. We take care of our entire customer, not just the peeps. I worked a flight where one of our FA’s experienced a sudden cardiac emergency and we diverted to get her to a hospital and after we left I had passengers screaming at us for diverting for “one of the waitresses.” I wanted to slap them into the last century.
"As a guy who is much loved by his dog and a retired crew member..."
What retired crew member loves you? :) :) :)
Matthew at LALF is absolutely correct on this. The reality is that the entire service dog thing has gotten completely out of hand. Airplane cabins were not made for this. Flights were not designed for this other than for animals to be transported in cages beneath. The result is that these incidents, mark my words, will increase. As will those being injured by dogs and requiring diversions. Unless that dog is absolutely providing serious service...
Matthew at LALF is absolutely correct on this. The reality is that the entire service dog thing has gotten completely out of hand. Airplane cabins were not made for this. Flights were not designed for this other than for animals to be transported in cages beneath. The result is that these incidents, mark my words, will increase. As will those being injured by dogs and requiring diversions. Unless that dog is absolutely providing serious service to its owner there is no reason it should fly in the cabin and there is no reason the airline and the passengers should be made to pay for it. The owner should be made to pay. Period. Make them sign a waiver to this prior to being ticketed and I promise you that fake service dogs on flights will decrease by 90%. And the rest of us will not have to endure the nonsense of being crammed into a row with a large dog at our feet slobbering over everyone.
One last point, dogs serve even more of a liability for diversion as you can't predict their discomfort in the air or reactions to the setting. Further, if they get sick, they can't talk to you. A person can voice their pain and help doctors to decide how critical it is. With dogs, of course at any sign of ailment, a Vet will probably say it needs immediate attention out of an abundance of caution.
Save the rant. Nowhere in the article does it say it was a service dog or a fake service dog. And that's not the point.
It's the entire point. It's just not one you agree with. Which you are entitled to or not.
It's a dog. If planes need to divert for sick dogs, then don't allow them on the plane. Anyone who equates a dog's life to a humans should be used instead for animal testing.
You sound fun at parties! (Not)
You sound professionally successful! (Not)
I can assure you that I'm the life of the party and had more professional success than you pretend to have.
Yes, they should charge pet owners... in the form of insurance. If every animal on board was charged a $50-$100 fee per flight (EXCEPT REAL SERVICE DOGS), then it would not be too bad on owners. They used to be charged $500+ for their pets. Now they claim ESA and get it for free. The $50-$100 is still a deal.
BUT, the money should go to the passengers... maybe $100/per passenger per hour... up...
Yes, they should charge pet owners... in the form of insurance. If every animal on board was charged a $50-$100 fee per flight (EXCEPT REAL SERVICE DOGS), then it would not be too bad on owners. They used to be charged $500+ for their pets. Now they claim ESA and get it for free. The $50-$100 is still a deal.
BUT, the money should go to the passengers... maybe $100/per passenger per hour... up to $1000. Reasonable compensation. (And no, the dog owner and anyone on their ITN or family members would not be eligible!)
How do you know this was ESA?? Presumably this paid the normal pet fee
Completely unjustified. Never mind the $ cost to the airline, take into consideration the inconvenience to all the fare paying passengers. (Humans!) Can’t agree with Delta on this one.
You’re a sociopathic monster. Go to hell and get bitten by 15 dogs.
You sound totally stable mate
They did the right thing. It's as simple as that.
I don’t click on Matthew Klint’s articles anymore. After the whole Swiss thing, making a gazillion posts about a news story he manufactured by setting the absurd conditions, and then coming back to ultimately say “I won’t tell you what happened,” and then with his highly opinionated takes on internet complaints about other people’s behavior that sound like what a grandmother would say about people on the street, I decided his articles weren’t worth my...
I don’t click on Matthew Klint’s articles anymore. After the whole Swiss thing, making a gazillion posts about a news story he manufactured by setting the absurd conditions, and then coming back to ultimately say “I won’t tell you what happened,” and then with his highly opinionated takes on internet complaints about other people’s behavior that sound like what a grandmother would say about people on the street, I decided his articles weren’t worth my time or effort (or the revenue of my click).
I blame the vet. Should have said “Fido is sick, but he’ll be ok until we get to our destination”
I love it when the bloggers debate each other's articles and perspectives and pull the audience along in hopes of tipping the debate.
Newsflash. Ben and Matthew both missed the point which is that customers SHOULD BE charged when they cause a diversion because of KNOWN reasons.
If a woman is pregnant and flies into her 9th month against the advise of a doctor and the flight has to divert, she should add - or...
I love it when the bloggers debate each other's articles and perspectives and pull the audience along in hopes of tipping the debate.
Newsflash. Ben and Matthew both missed the point which is that customers SHOULD BE charged when they cause a diversion because of KNOWN reasons.
If a woman is pregnant and flies into her 9th month against the advise of a doctor and the flight has to divert, she should add - or whoever is a "co-conspirator" in her pregnancy.
If a 70 year old guy has a history of heart disease and his doctor advises him to avoid altitudes and then he has chest pains just as they are heading over the Atlantic to Europe, he should pay.
and if a dog had a medical issue or the owner fed him a hamburger from Steak and Shake and the dog isn't used to such food, the owner should pay.
Air travel may be common but it is not the biological norm for people or animals and people need to assume risk if there are clear signs that they might not be up for it.
In an ideal society I agree but real life is way too messy to deal with this in a way that makes sense. As you said air travel is not biologically normal so any air travel has some risk. This is in addition to the fact that many people travel specifically to get medical care. Logistically if this is a known financial risk for passengers 'at risk' of diverting a flight then insurance agencies will...
In an ideal society I agree but real life is way too messy to deal with this in a way that makes sense. As you said air travel is not biologically normal so any air travel has some risk. This is in addition to the fact that many people travel specifically to get medical care. Logistically if this is a known financial risk for passengers 'at risk' of diverting a flight then insurance agencies will step in and an already strained healthcare system in the US will only blow up. The vast majority of people on the planet do not have the financial means to deal with a medical emergency, let alone a diversion on top of that
Ben and Matthew beat Timmy to it.
Fluffy Tim still never understood his role in society.
BEN and Matthew love it when the readers debate each other's articles and perspectives and pull the audience along in hopes of more page clicks.
Tim, you are the bait.
don't mow us over with your original thought.
you just repeated what I said.
and I have always said that I support both Ben and Matthew's efforts to build their brand.
Since there are multiples of times more responses from other people than me, you clearly have a pretty jaded view of reality.
This time, I totally agree with you.
Although the article doesn’t say, I’m going to surmise the vet that assisted informed the dog owner and flight crew that continuing the flight was a risk to the dog’s life. It also doesn’t state whether this was a cabin pet or a service animal, and although I value the lives of both equally, a [real] service animal involves a lot of training and is a significant investment in time and money for the owner....
Although the article doesn’t say, I’m going to surmise the vet that assisted informed the dog owner and flight crew that continuing the flight was a risk to the dog’s life. It also doesn’t state whether this was a cabin pet or a service animal, and although I value the lives of both equally, a [real] service animal involves a lot of training and is a significant investment in time and money for the owner. I’ve taken 12-14 flights with my dog in the past year (cabin pet, not a SA). He always just curls up and goes to sleep in his carrier - if he didn’t I would be quite concerned and think something was wrong.
Uhh Matthew, flying is also a choice.
His argument that dogs are piece of luggage because they didn't have a "ticket"? Maybe, but that logic should apply to lap child too?
I guess Matthew stored his children when they're infants in an overhead compartment and gate check if it's full.
Matthew's logic is often against common sense, not that it's wrong.
He graciously accept Tim Dunn to rain fluff all over his...
Uhh Matthew, flying is also a choice.
His argument that dogs are piece of luggage because they didn't have a "ticket"? Maybe, but that logic should apply to lap child too?
I guess Matthew stored his children when they're infants in an overhead compartment and gate check if it's full.
Matthew's logic is often against common sense, not that it's wrong.
He graciously accept Tim Dunn to rain fluff all over his blog.
He wanted to bring his kids to warzone Ukraine and Syria.
We need more people like Matthew to challenge society and distracting society with his abs.
For all intents and purposes, cabin pets also have a ticket, and for what the airlines charge to fly with a cabin pet ($99-150 here in the US) it can be as much as a second ticket anyway.
I don’t know how it works on other airlines than these two, but on both AA and NK when you add a cabin pet to your reservation, the system creates a linked PNR secondary to the human...
For all intents and purposes, cabin pets also have a ticket, and for what the airlines charge to fly with a cabin pet ($99-150 here in the US) it can be as much as a second ticket anyway.
I don’t know how it works on other airlines than these two, but on both AA and NK when you add a cabin pet to your reservation, the system creates a linked PNR secondary to the human passenger(s). The secondary PNR prevents the first one from checking in until the agent verifies the pet is eligible for travel and any associated fees have been collected. So Matthew can, with all due respect, cram a ham in it.
"...cram a ham in it."
I'm totally stealing that.
loving the 'ham' comment! LOL
Agree with your Matthew comments!
“Do you really want to be on a plane with a dead dog and a crying dog owner for hours?” Over diverting? Absolutely 1000000000%.
That being said, tough situation. Can’t put a price on life human or pet.
my goodness: some of the replies. Of course the dog (which presumably has rights since it's on the carrier legally and they accepted him/her for carriage) should be cared for once the vet recommend they needed immediate medical attention so diverting isn't an issue. The assholes who are part of the "let him die" chorus need psychological/emotional help. I also suspect they're supporters of the current president.
I detest Trump. And I detest the one-sided perspective of people like you
If you read Matthew's blog, he's been crazed over animals at airports for quite some time. It's his burr up his butt, I suspect. He needs to relax. I'm kind of over his blog anyway.
Not to get nitpicky, and I'm on your side of the argument, but the reason you see this less often is because of simple probabilities. There are a lot less pets than humans flying, so you are bound to see a lot more human diversions than pets. The service dog thing is a different argument to be made. While I'm on the side that this is being abused, that's on the airline to enforce. Once...
Not to get nitpicky, and I'm on your side of the argument, but the reason you see this less often is because of simple probabilities. There are a lot less pets than humans flying, so you are bound to see a lot more human diversions than pets. The service dog thing is a different argument to be made. While I'm on the side that this is being abused, that's on the airline to enforce. Once the pet is onboard, they're entitled to the same compassion. There's a reason they call it "souls on board", not people. On the other hand, if you passed your pet as a fake service dog and the dog bites another passenger, is disruptive or behaves in any way that becomes clear they're not a service dog, you should definitely be on the hook for damages.
Interesting. Is that really how it works — souls on board = humans AND animals? Seems like it would be cause for confusion if you needed an accurate count during/after an emergency.
Are you saying that the "souls on board" includes animals? That would really surprise me.
I think the phrasing is intended to make it unambiguous that the count should include passengers, crew, lap infants--all humans.
Yes, you are right. I misspoke. That's not the reason. Souls does mean all humans. I meant within the context of the diversion, not an evacuation. A dog that is flying legally (whatever we decide that to mean within the context of the fake service animal thing) should still be treated with compassion and care. Remember, they didn't choose to be on the flight.
I thought "souls on board" was a thing because some people don't have souls.
1) Build in extra time for air travel - cancellations and diversions happen for all sorts of reasons. If this flight were landing during business hours, I am sure some business traveler would be complaining about missing a meeting for a dog - but the way travel is these days, that traveler should have probably gone in the night before
2) Pet owners bringing their pets on board are going to expect the pilot...
1) Build in extra time for air travel - cancellations and diversions happen for all sorts of reasons. If this flight were landing during business hours, I am sure some business traveler would be complaining about missing a meeting for a dog - but the way travel is these days, that traveler should have probably gone in the night before
2) Pet owners bringing their pets on board are going to expect the pilot and crew to be responsive. Pet owners are a growing, and disproportionately affluent, segment of travelers. If Delta refused the diversion and the dog died, imagine the negative press for the airline. The right business decision was made
3) Airlines need to get more creative in general in accommodating pet travel. I know margins are low but there seems to be money to be made here
It annoys me greatly that after seeing so many (well behaved) dogs on the metro and regional rail networks in Italy and Spain, Amtrak's policy and many US metro policies mirror US airlines and make it difficult to impossible to take public transit with a non-service dog that doesn't fit in a purse. I'd personally be fine with stricter controls on adopting dogs/ensuring the owner is licensed and gets the dog trained after adopting, etc,...
It annoys me greatly that after seeing so many (well behaved) dogs on the metro and regional rail networks in Italy and Spain, Amtrak's policy and many US metro policies mirror US airlines and make it difficult to impossible to take public transit with a non-service dog that doesn't fit in a purse. I'd personally be fine with stricter controls on adopting dogs/ensuring the owner is licensed and gets the dog trained after adopting, etc, to allow dogs on public transit/commercial carriers.
Don't allergic people have rights? Not only those on the flight, but those who might have an asthmatic or other attack even on a later flight because of the dander and hair. And, no, drugs do not solve the problem for some. Keeps these animals out of the passenger compartment, except for seeing eye dogs, the way it used to be. Even for seeing eye dogs, there should be plastic coverings on the floor so...
Don't allergic people have rights? Not only those on the flight, but those who might have an asthmatic or other attack even on a later flight because of the dander and hair. And, no, drugs do not solve the problem for some. Keeps these animals out of the passenger compartment, except for seeing eye dogs, the way it used to be. Even for seeing eye dogs, there should be plastic coverings on the floor so the dander and hair can be removed. Not only that, but too many pets are biting people on flights.
Also, what if a person missed a connecting flights? Rental car? Lots of airlines are cancelling your ticket if you miss a connecting flight on a separate ticket. What if they missed a meeting? 100s of people's live should not be affected because of someone's pet. Leave it at home with a friend or put it in the hold.
@Nevsky
Few people have allergies so bad that they can't sit in the same aircraft cabin as the dog. Moving seats is usually an option, and aircraft cabin air filters are going to remove any dander going through them. And honestly, aircraft should be getting deeper cleaning than just picking up trash in-between segments to begin with. As a dog owner I can tell you a plastic sheet on the floor isn't going to...
@Nevsky
Few people have allergies so bad that they can't sit in the same aircraft cabin as the dog. Moving seats is usually an option, and aircraft cabin air filters are going to remove any dander going through them. And honestly, aircraft should be getting deeper cleaning than just picking up trash in-between segments to begin with. As a dog owner I can tell you a plastic sheet on the floor isn't going to meaningfully affect the amount of hair or dander left behind.
With regards to diversions, it's handled by the airline (and should be handled by the passenger) the same way a diversion for a human medical issue or disruptive passenger should be. There's no meaningful difference. You are NEVER guaranteed that your flight will not divert for some reason or another, that's a risk you accept by flying public. If you can't accept that risk, drive or fly private.
While I'm not on board with (pardon the pun) diversion for animals or bringing your pet pigeons, for that matter, I don't know why people are worried about the cost to airlines. It's their decision to divert, Delta is a big boy; they can handle the cost. This kind of thing is baked into their operating budget or insurance. In this pet diversion case, I'd be more concerned about folks missing their connections, day of planned activities, meetings and appointments.
Anyone that thinks that DL is going to absorb the cost of diverting is naive.
A diversion is an OPERATING COST and OPERATING COSTS are covered by OPERATING REVENUES.
They forecast a certain amount of diversions which add costs but the notion that any business is just going to incur costs that others cause and not pass it along to consumers sounds just like those people that think that tariffs will just be absorbed...
Anyone that thinks that DL is going to absorb the cost of diverting is naive.
A diversion is an OPERATING COST and OPERATING COSTS are covered by OPERATING REVENUES.
They forecast a certain amount of diversions which add costs but the notion that any business is just going to incur costs that others cause and not pass it along to consumers sounds just like those people that think that tariffs will just be absorbed by companies.
Stock buybacks are the product of having enough cash on hand or projected cash flow to be able to buy back stock; it is the product of an operating profit - except, of course, in the case of American over the past 20 years that bought back stock based on debt issued.
Passengers will pay more for diversions just as they will for every other added cost.
tbh matt has always been an edgelord jagoff
Any air travel is an elective act.
If you have a stroke midflight, and they have to divert to save your life, should you then be on the hook for that expense?
It's one thing to charge diversion costs for a crazy person who attacks the cabin door or smacks around a flight attendant - that person chose those actions - but it's quite another to charge costs for an involuntary medical (or in this case, veterinary) emergency.
Even that’s iffy. You don’t really have that much control whether you experience a mental health episode. Healthy ppl don’t generally try to jump out of planes mid flight…
Stop bringing animals onboard unless there's a certifiable physical issue-like it was 30 years ago. If you can't leave your home without Fido stay home.
@ George Romey -- So airlines allow dogs under a certain weight in the cabin in pet carriers. Not every dog is a service animal. Virtually every airline allows pets, so perhaps the better take is to fly private if you have an issue with pets on planes, because that's how the industry works. Also, you do understand that some people move to different places and might want to take their pet with them, for obvious reasons.
You have it backwards Ben. The better take is for people with pets to fly private. They should not impose the burden of traveling wirh animals on other people.
Exactly those with dogs should fly private. Anyway this is a true definition of first world problem where dogs are essentially equal to human beings.
What burden? Most people who bring pets on an aircraft have well behaved animals. As much as people love to point to the highly publicized incidents where dogs bite somebody, that sort of thing happens far less often than drunk or belligerent people starting fights or harassing other passengers/crew. I'd also point out that from a financial standpoint it's less burdensome for you to fly yourself on JSX or some other private/semi-private carrier, than for...
What burden? Most people who bring pets on an aircraft have well behaved animals. As much as people love to point to the highly publicized incidents where dogs bite somebody, that sort of thing happens far less often than drunk or belligerent people starting fights or harassing other passengers/crew. I'd also point out that from a financial standpoint it's less burdensome for you to fly yourself on JSX or some other private/semi-private carrier, than for a pet owner to fly themselves plus the pet. If you don't want to deal with pets, put your money where your mouth is.
Allergic people should have rights over a pet. Same for those who have schedules to meet or people waiting for them at the airport.
Agreed Regis. Ben has it backwards indeed.
My sister had a sneezing fit last week on a UA flight, because someone sitting behind her was allowed to bring their Fido in the cabin.
Ridiculous! You can't fly without your pet, travel private or drive or stay home.
@Justin Dev
I got nauseous once because the person sitting next to me brought some horrendous hot wings on from the terminal and started chowing down next to me. Does that give me the right to demand people not bring terminal food onboard?
Let me put this simply, if you don't want to deal with the public, fly private. Pet owners and people with bad taste in food are both part of "the public".
Oh, now we’re supposed to let it go because people are moving places? Can I bring my pet snake because I’m moving places also? How about bringing my piano and beds in the cabin since I’ll be moving?
@ML
Sure, bring your snake as long as he's in an approved carrier.
But piano and beds? Do you hear yourself? These aren't living things, they won't physically fit in the cabin, and it'd probably be far cheaper for you to ship them on a truck. None of that is the case with living animals. Absolutely asinine comment.
@Dusty
I have no idea why you arbitrarily decided to draw the line at “living things.”
@ML
Probably because the article is about pets, not furniture, and you'd never get through security with a mattress to begin with? If you can't understand that, it's wonder you manage to operate the device you're posting from.
@George Romey you're arguing a different issue.
I'm myself a pet owner but this topic conflicts me quite a bit. But @Dusty's comment made me remember a recent situation on board AV A320 'business' class (gasp), on a ~6hr route.
A couple in row 2 was travelling with a rather tall(ish) but slim dog (I guess the dog met the 'weight' criterion, although in fairness, a size limit might be necessary too). And, as it's becoming more and more common, the...
I'm myself a pet owner but this topic conflicts me quite a bit. But @Dusty's comment made me remember a recent situation on board AV A320 'business' class (gasp), on a ~6hr route.
A couple in row 2 was travelling with a rather tall(ish) but slim dog (I guess the dog met the 'weight' criterion, although in fairness, a size limit might be necessary too). And, as it's becoming more and more common, the dog was not in a carrier (and I've also witnessed some passengers even refusing to leash their dogs). There were no signs that the dog was a service animal either (e.g., special vest, tags, etc.).
For those unfamiliar with AV's A320 J cabin, seats are technically in 3-3 rows, but the middle seat is replaced with some kind of console/table. But, if you look at them from the back, you'll see 3 backrests, with the corresponding empty space under each seat.
Long story short, the dog was occupying some of that space under the middle seat of row 1. After the meal service ended, drama ensued. The passenger in the window seat of row 1 reclined (and we all know there's barely any recline in AV's A320s), but the couple in row 2 got angry because the seatback of passenger in row 1 was now touching the dog's head. They claimed that the passenger in row 1 was hurting their dog by reclining. Row 2 couple said to row 1 passenger that he should not recline, to which he replied something along 'you are reclining your seat. Why shouldn't I?'. They all yelled at each other. Then, the FA came and yelled at the passenger in row 1, and that was how the dispute ended.
As I said earlier, to the best of my knowledge, the dog was not a service animal (there was no vest or any other identifying element). So, I think all that drama could have been avoided if the dog had stayed in a carrier. But carriers (and leashes) also seem to elicit strong opinions nowadays, which makes feel pessimistic about these situations in general...
@hbilbao
Sounds like the dog owners were flipping out over nothing. It might have been surprised if the seat suddenly came back, but once the seat isn't moving there's no issue, since it doesn't sound like the dog's head was pinned or anything.
I do agree with the frustration over the dogs not being leashed. I see this constantly where I live, and some of the dogs who are walking off-leash with their...
@hbilbao
Sounds like the dog owners were flipping out over nothing. It might have been surprised if the seat suddenly came back, but once the seat isn't moving there's no issue, since it doesn't sound like the dog's head was pinned or anything.
I do agree with the frustration over the dogs not being leashed. I see this constantly where I live, and some of the dogs who are walking off-leash with their owners are reactive and don't have great recall. Leashes at minimum should absolutely be enforced in public places that aren't designated dog park areas, regardless of how well trained the dog may be.
That was exactly my thought too, @Dusty. And, to your earlier point, the dog was very well behaved. But I can't say the same about the humans involved in this specific incident.
So, all this time, have airlines just been paying for all the extra costs emerging from medical (both, human and veterinary) diversions? Don't they have some kind of insurance to cover for these unplanned events?
@ hbilbao -- I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that they have insurance for that, under most circumstances. Instead, it's just built into operating costs. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheaper to self-insure.
The fact that it would have been inhumane to let the dog die stops this argument. People and businesses face decisions that define who they are. Kudos to Delta for doing the right thing.
Well put
When the airline cares about its passengers BEST FRIEND -- YES __ well done DELTA!
"Because bringing pets onboard airplanes is an elective act, I believe that Delta should send a bill to the dog owner."
Having trouble finding the line between that quote and 'because bringing yourself onboard airplanes is an elective act, I believe that Delta should send a bill to you.'
Can you imagine the headlines if they hadn't diverted and the dog died? And what about sick passengers who cause diversions - not passengers who become sick on the flight, but ones who know they're sick before they board? Slippery slope here folks.
As hard as it may be to understand: Dogs are not people. Only people are people. The fact that such diversions are rare doesn't change that fact. It is then not unreasonable to ask the owner to cover the cost.
The only people who would say something as heartless and ignorant as what you just said are incels.
Billing the owner is heartless. Saying that dogs aren't people isn't. Full disclosure, I'm a dog owner, but I treat my dog like a pet, not as a person. I personally find it disgusting that people let pets on their beds, their furniture, that they dress them as people, and that they call themselves dog "dads". And no, just because you love your dog doesn't make it ok to let them sleep on a hotel...
Billing the owner is heartless. Saying that dogs aren't people isn't. Full disclosure, I'm a dog owner, but I treat my dog like a pet, not as a person. I personally find it disgusting that people let pets on their beds, their furniture, that they dress them as people, and that they call themselves dog "dads". And no, just because you love your dog doesn't make it ok to let them sleep on a hotel bed that I have to use later. Doing it at home I find it gross, but I don't care. Doing it at a hotel, that just makes you selfish and inconsiderate.
@Michael
If you think dogs are disgusting, you should see what toddlers get up to.
I'm not sure why you have an objection to dogs on hotel beds (Full disclosure: I've never owned a dog.) As we all know, people do various activities, which involve various bodily fluids, in hotel beds. These are at least as gross as anything from a dog.
If a hotel bed is dirty, your issue is with the hotel's housekeeping, not the previous occupants of the room.
If you’re ever unwell on a flight, I hope they make a decision not to inconvenience everyone else.
Airlines are also within their rights to bill customers for diversion costs, however don’t unless it’s in cases in disruptive ones.
Nobody wants to be on a plane with a sick dog for multiple hours. Nope.
Sending the owner a bill would so expensive. Not only would DL have to forgive it, DL would have to give the owner/dog extra for the mental anguish and then to quiet the National PR debacle they’d have to donate to some pet charities.
Right call by DL all the way around.
Good for Delta. It could have been a puppy going to its new home - article did not say and if the vet said get the dog help - then get the dog help. Its not like this happens a lot.
I’m fully supportive of this diversion because it was the right thing to do. I’m proud of Skadden for standing up for what’s right and inspiring me to do the same every day while also remunerating me to the tune of $6MM a year.
I wonder when Skadden is going to send you a cease and desist for inappropriately using their logo.
I wonder when you’re going to lose your virginity
Agree with Ben, for the same reasons. Anyway the concept of "pay for diversions" is kinda silly. If I'm told I must pay, you can bet I'll litigate the "price". Good luck with that, airline.
Compassion and burden sharing are rarely the wrong call.
If the airline retains a firm half as good as Skadden, you’re screwed