Stuff reports on an interesting story that’s getting quite a bit of attention, which raises the question of how much airlines should be held liable for things outside of their control…
In this post:
Couple sits next to farting & slobbering dog on 13-hour flight
This incident happened in June 2023, and involves a couple from New Zealand traveling on a 13-hour Singapore Airlines flight from Paris (CDG) to Singapore (SIN). The couple had paid for premium economy, and upon boarding, discovered that a dog was accompanying the passenger in the seat next to them. As the traveler explains:
“I heard this noise – a heavy snorting. I thought it was my husband’s phone, but we looked down and realised it was the dog breathing. I said, ‘I’m not having this sitting next to us the whole trip.’
The traveler overhead the dog’s owner say to someone else that he gets anxious, and that’s why he needed his dog with him, but it appeared to be the dog who was anxious. When this situation was brought to the attention of a flight attendant, the couple was told that the only available seats to change to were in regular economy.
So the couple stayed put for the time being, but about halfway through the flight, the dog’s presence became intolerable due to the smell. The couple claims that the dog was farting, and occupying their legroom, as the dog didn’t fully fit into the owner’s seat space. As the traveler explains:
“The passenger couldn’t have the dog out in the aisle because they couldn’t get the trolleys through, so it had to come in further, which meant his head was under my husband’s feet. My husband was in shorts, and was getting the dog’s saliva goo on his leg.”
At this point, the passengers once again brought this to the attention of the crew, and they were able to move to seats in the front of economy. The claim is that these seats have been reserved for crew rests, but Singapore Airlines has proper crew rest compartments on all long haul aircraft, so I’m confused by that claim. The crew assured the couple that an incident report had been filed, and that they could expect to hear from the airline.
Couple demands refund, but airline only offers vouchers
A week after the trip, the couple hadn’t heard from the airline, so at that point they reached out to Singapore Airlines customer relations. Two weeks later, the airline sent an apology, along with a gift voucher for NZ$125 per person to the airline’s KrisShop website.
The couple responded by saying that this compensation didn’t reflect the difference in service that they got from not being able to fly in premium economy. Then over three weeks later, the airline responded by offering a travel voucher worth NZ$200 per person.
The couple found this to be unacceptable, and are now seeking a full refund for this leg of the journey, though the ticket had been booked through Air New Zealand. The couple argues that they didn’t receive the experience they paid for.
A spokesperson for the airline has apologized to the couple, and issued the following statement:
“Singapore Airlines endeavours to notify customers who may be seated next to an assistance dog prior to boarding the flight. We sincerely apologise that this did not occur in this case, and will work with our airport teams to ensure that this lapse does not occur in future. In circumstances where customers seated next to an assistance dog request to be moved, Singapore Airlines will assist to re-seat customers within the same cabin where space permits.”
It’s not entirely clear whether the dog was traveling as an assistance dog or as an emotional support dog. Singapore Airlines banned emotional support dogs as of April 1, 2023, but honored previously made bookings. Based on the dog’s skills and behavior, it sounds like this may not have been an assistance dog, but who knows.
My take on this Singapore Airlines dog incident
On the one hand, I totally get how this couple’s experience was greatly diminished by sitting next to a dog. I mean, a 13-hour flight can be incredibly stressful for a dog, and it sounds like this dog may not have been particularly well trained for these purposes either. As much as I love dogs, I can appreciate how someone else’s dog farting, snorting, and slobbering the whole flight, could be very unpleasant.
On the other hand, to what extent is that the carrier’s responsibility? Singapore Airlines has published policies, and unless those policies were broken, I’m not sure the airline had much control here. While snorting noises and farting smells aren’t great, those aren’t expressly prohibited when it comes to carrying dogs. Keep in mind that governments regulate the kinds of assistance dogs that airlines must accept, and often they’re not allowed to create size limits.
In fairness, I’ve also sat next to travelers who farted and snored a lot, which isn’t particularly pleasant either. But I’d never expect an airline to make me whole for the way in which that changes my experience.
I think the only thing the airline should have done differently is to notify the travelers that there would be a dog seated next to them. However, would that have changed anything? If there were no other seats in premium economy available at the time, would they have somehow changed their travel plans to avoid this?
Personally I think Singapore Airlines’ response is mostly reasonable. Perhaps the airline could offer a somewhat more substantial “gesture of goodwill” to reflect the extent to which the experience was diminished. However, I think requesting a full refund for that flight is not a realistic expectation.
Bottom line
A couple had an unpleasant flight on Singapore Airlines, traveling from Paris to Singapore, when they were seated next to a dog on the 13-hour journey. The dog was apparently snorting, farting, and slobbering for much of the flight. There were no other premium economy seats the couple could be accommodated in, so they ended up voluntarily downgrading to economy for a portion of the flight.
The airline offered the travelers some minor compensation in the form of flight vouchers and shopping vouchers, but they are requesting a full refund.
What do you make of this Singapore Airlines incident?
Same problem when you have a strong allergy with cats .... did the airlines will protect you on the next girst available flight?
Actually itsmy biggest fear when travelling
Perhaps the Dog was emotionally disturbed , and needed the owner for human support ?
A low threshold for service animals is yet another manifestation of the woke mind virus. If it happened to me I would simply deplane before takeoff. I was terrorized by dogs as a child and have a life long dread as a result. The mental scarring !!! One person's service animal is another person's phobia.
Snoring dogs and people should be put out of the door mid-flight. Maybe the dogs can't help it...they didn't choose to fly but human snorers are a complete menace...usually they have packed in a lot of free booze and sink into oblivion ruining their fellow passengers journey.....so selfish.
Why wasn’t the passenger with the dog moved? Furthermore, my son has a phobia of dogs and he would not have been able to manage the flight sitting next to one.
Just to add on - some of these emotional support animals owners do not have a real condition. They just got the documentation by faking so they can fly their pet uncaged in the cabin through this loophole.
Last year there was a couple who brought 2 corgis from SFO -SIN and it went viral online. On FB comments, in retaliation to people who called him out for bringing dogs at expense of other...
Just to add on - some of these emotional support animals owners do not have a real condition. They just got the documentation by faking so they can fly their pet uncaged in the cabin through this loophole.
Last year there was a couple who brought 2 corgis from SFO -SIN and it went viral online. On FB comments, in retaliation to people who called him out for bringing dogs at expense of other passengers, the dog owner confirmed that they were indeed just regular pets and they were relocating so he went through this loophole in order to bring the pets on their flight in the cabin. He was all self righteous because he got all the legit documentation and argues he played within the rules (even though he is obviously abusing this loophole).
I'm not sure if it's a coincidence or not but a month later SQ announced that they will be banning emotional support animals the following April. I reckon it's because they know people like the above are abusing the system in order to fly with pets.
Therefore I have no sympathy for the dog owner in this current case of being emotionally damaged whatsoever that he legit needs the dog with him 24/7 uncaged. He could very well be one of those people who are also abusing the loophole
I wish there were more dog and pet friendly flights.
Why is it always that difficult. Offer the same economy seats on the back of the plane; may be an entire row to the person with the pet. He/She will have to oblige as it is causing inconvenience to Cash paying PE passengers. Its that simple.
You think it is reasonable to hold Singapore Airlines responsible. They did what they could do. They moved the passengers. They took them to point a to point b safely. I agree that they should be provided a voucher for goodwill but not a full refund. Do people get a full refund from a restaurant because of other guests?!?!
So since the crew acknowledged that there was a legitimate issue while still inflight, I think the reasonable thing to do was to move to J one person from the couple - the one who sat immediately next to the dog.
In these stories about dog disputes, they never move the dog-and-human to another seat or another cabin. It's always the innocent bystanders who get moved, or drooled on, or mauled in the face.
They're going to catch heat for downgrading someone, so I guess they'd rather downgrade rule-abiding bystanders than be seen as being unkind to someone with a phony "disability."
Definitely a refund as there’s a price difference between premium economy and economy class fares
Sgd160 in form of Kris shop vouchers is pathetic
SQ - u can definitely do better
There is no dog on earth that is going to hold on for 13 hours, so how are its toilet needs handled? Especially as a dog is likely to relieve itself, “as necessary”. I agree with an earlier poster, if there were two seats free in economy, put the dog and owner there, more comfortable for the dog as well. It is outrageous that the dog owner suddenly inherits 3 seats in Premium Eco.
...
There is no dog on earth that is going to hold on for 13 hours, so how are its toilet needs handled? Especially as a dog is likely to relieve itself, “as necessary”. I agree with an earlier poster, if there were two seats free in economy, put the dog and owner there, more comfortable for the dog as well. It is outrageous that the dog owner suddenly inherits 3 seats in Premium Eco.
Dog owners must realise their animal most likely will be imposition on others, it’s not like a bag that can be shoved under the seat and ignored. It's an imposition that can easily be accommodated in the hold. I travelled next to a cat in small cage once, it yowled, screeched and kept pissing out the back of the cage, super unpleasant, and not hygienic. If it was a support animal it didn’t do much supporting, just stressed the hell out of the owner.
Many dogs stay inside for 12 hours or more while their owners are at work or out. They're more capable of holding it for 13 hours than we are.
I think animals that are not true service animals should fly as little as possible because many of them (especially cats) find it stressful. However, it's also true that the cargo hold can be dangerous and some baggage handlers are downright mean to animals. My...
Many dogs stay inside for 12 hours or more while their owners are at work or out. They're more capable of holding it for 13 hours than we are.
I think animals that are not true service animals should fly as little as possible because many of them (especially cats) find it stressful. However, it's also true that the cargo hold can be dangerous and some baggage handlers are downright mean to animals. My cats have flown in the cabin every time I've moved. Yes, it's stressful for all of us, but at least I know what's happening with them. And they've never been a problem for anyone else.
Not all animals are well behaved. Some are loud. Some smell. And that's true of people too. I can't tell you how many people have walked past me during boarding that I've hoped would keep moving. And most of them do.
Cats don't get drunk on planes and act inappropriately with their seatmate. Dogs don't get into verbal altercations with flight attendants. And most of the time you never even know they were on the plane or even across the aisle.
The best thing to do is never fly this airline again.
NO DOGS IN CABIN….Except Guide Dogs for the blind,
On a recent Swiss flight in business, Bkk zrh,there was a dog who also farted and filled the cabin with a foul aroma!
On complaining to Swiss, they simply advised their policy allowed 1 dog in the biz cabin.
While certainly just general bad luck - the key to this claim and compensation is that the dog took up the personal space of the traveler making the complaint. If you bring a dog on board, it needs to stay entirely within the confines of your seat - if it can’t fit underneath the seat / on the floor at your seat, without spilling over in to the aisle or a neighboring seat, it shouldn’t be accepted for travel. Period.
It is always astonishing to the dog loving community that everyone doesn't love their dogs as much as they do. SIA was clearly wrong by not informing the passengers that they would be sitting next to a dog. Some people have allergies and some have phobias about dogs. Just because their could have been an overly large, bad smelling/farting person in the next seat doesn't mean that having a dog that presents similar issues is...
It is always astonishing to the dog loving community that everyone doesn't love their dogs as much as they do. SIA was clearly wrong by not informing the passengers that they would be sitting next to a dog. Some people have allergies and some have phobias about dogs. Just because their could have been an overly large, bad smelling/farting person in the next seat doesn't mean that having a dog that presents similar issues is okay. Even if airlines can't restrict the size of service animals, they need to verify that the passenger with the service animal has booked enough space for the animal. Here, the passengers didn't get what they paid for, and had a far more stressful trip than anticipated. They certainly had other options to get to Paris had they been properly informed. SIA owes them a full refund.
In reality, most dog owners are not at all surprised and don't expect others to love their dogs. Just like most parents don't expect you to think their child is special, and most people don't expect strangers to care about their personal lives. And yet, there is a growing minority...
SIA should have informed passenger on a dog accompanying next seat passenger .
I totally agree that paying premium economy should have given this passenger an expected experience .
If there is shortfall , passenger should be accorded a better compensation .
Lastly, are animals allowed on SIA flights ?
The dog was taking up the space of the next seat and that is already unreasonable. They should have moved the dog owner and dog to economy front row where they have 2 seats of space and will not bother anyone. Yes the dog owner may be upset being forced to downgrade but he/she is the problem in the first place if he/she won’t put the dog in cargo. And in economy if they get 2 seats it’s kinda more than what they paid for (one seat in premium)
I've been next to humans who do this for even longer flights.
I feel for the poor dog being stuffed in front of someone's seat for 13 hours. As a dog owner I know all too well how anxiety triggers their flatulence! Not sure what the alternative is in this case (if it's even true...) but if this ever happened on my flight, I'd happily swap my economy seat for the premium one and wouldn't mind paying a bit for the upgrade!
I think airlines have to make sure that if they allow dogs they are legitimate service dogs. Emotional support animals should NOT be allowed. The airlines should also notify passengers if there are going to be seated next to a dog so that they have a choice of modifying their plans.
Completely agree, Doug. I've seen all sorts of nonsense slip through under the guise of "needs".
Clickbait central here, but I couldn’t help myself. That said, on reading the whole situation this really isn’t a hard one to answer:
Obviously nothing is technically “owed” to these pax given SQ’s published policy grandfathered in bookings with ESAs prior to the ban in April, but if the airline is looking to make a goodwill gesture, I would think as a pax in this situation I’d find a refund of the fare difference between...
Clickbait central here, but I couldn’t help myself. That said, on reading the whole situation this really isn’t a hard one to answer:
Obviously nothing is technically “owed” to these pax given SQ’s published policy grandfathered in bookings with ESAs prior to the ban in April, but if the airline is looking to make a goodwill gesture, I would think as a pax in this situation I’d find a refund of the fare difference between PE and regular economy where they ultimately sat to be a reasonable offer. Given the potential for confusion around the ESA policy (a ban in place but certain reservations still grandfathered), I’d also think the airline should be looking to make a reasonable goodwill gesture here.
It’s not really clickbait if you clicked on an article because of the enticing headline, read it and then commented on the ins and outs of the situation it described. That’s just an interesting article.
Under the circumstance listed, the airline should have refunded (in cash, not a voucher) the difference between premium economy and standard economy, plus as a goodwill gesture, a voucher for a free upgrade to premium economy on a future flight.
Absolutely Singapore Air should refund the ENTIRE fare and issue a formal apology. But this situation should never have happened and did happen only because of poorly trained staff!!! Singapore Air is supposed to be a world-class airline...but they sure failed to show that in this situation.
They got to their destination and had a choice of getting front row seats in economy with no dog. Refund the fare difference but in what possible way should they get a free flight?!
I feel like the difference between PE and E + a voucher of 125 SGD. Would settle that for me
Couldn’t have moved the owner and the animal to the other seats? Im assuming the dog didn’t pay.
At the very minimum they should refund the difference between economy and premium economy.
The problem is in many instances their cheapest PY and Y have minimal fare differences.
Surely airlines have historical data to show what fares were available on the purchase date. Or consider a ticket purchased today under similar conditions (e.g. Thurs, >60d out, 7-day stay, etc).
If they don't have this data, they should be obligated to refund the difference to the cheapest economy fare.
What an irresponsible bratty owner, hate it when these passengers think they'd get away with these just because stupid-ass humans think everything a dog does is okay, I'm baffled by the reactions on Facebook and X criticizing the complainant instead. If this happened in my country.... I wouldn't even want to talk about it
What an irresponsible and bratty comment. So reading between the lines, you're saying if a dog happens to have been put next to someone on a plane (it's not like it asked for it), and dares to fart like pretty much every mammal does, it should be killed...? What a lovely world you must live in.
Way to jump to conclusions about "killing" the dog, Andrew.
Unless this is a service dog, it should not be in the cabin. Plain and simple. They are a passenger airline, not a traveling zoo.
The hell are you talking about? I'm referring to the fact that they'd be publicly shamed for life for inconveniencing others and being an insensitive jerk. Do you think Koreans, or other Asians still murder and eat dogs?
SQ will do nothing other than harass the complainer with apologetic phone calls that always come at 2 AM, regardless of location on earth or phone country code.
I think because a passenger could easily be farting and belching which could impact the experience of neighbouring passengers, the airline should not be responsible for this. These are the risks you take when you take any sort of public transportation, if you want to diminish the risk you need to pay even more for Business or First, the airline isn't liable for other passenger behavior.
It’s not a risk in public transport. It wasn’t a 20 minute bus ride. Airlines in fact do have a liability under the Montreal convention and can potentially claim damages, even if the airline wasn’t directly liable.
No, if you take public transportation you have to put up with fellow passengers. This isn't the comfort of their own home, if someone farts you have to tolerate it, its not the airlines problem that you couldn't handle it. End of the day, all these people are doing is just complaining about an unruly passenger. It's not the airlines obligation to step in and refund what they paid.
It is potentially liable for not receiving the comfort expected in a premium cabin.
In addition they went and sat in economy hence a downgrade.
Therefore if you sat next to a disruptive passenger in business class disturbing your trip and and sat in premium eco as the cabin was full, the airline shouldn’t offer anything?
I guess you would be the first one demanding to be compensated.
If a passenger didn't shower and smelled bad or someone had particularly bad gas and started ripping ass in the cabin, would Singapore Airlines be liable? The answer to that question would clearly be no, but because the bad smells originated from a dog in this case they are entitled to a refund? It makes 0 sense.
Not directly liable however can be compensated if in a premium cabin for loss of enjoyment if it meant not being able to work or sleep.
This is covered in many countries under consumer acts. It is therefore better the airline refund the fare difference which ex the EU or to the EU on an EU carrier would be 75% of the value of the sector affected.
Therefore by your reckoning, passengers on...
Not directly liable however can be compensated if in a premium cabin for loss of enjoyment if it meant not being able to work or sleep.
This is covered in many countries under consumer acts. It is therefore better the airline refund the fare difference which ex the EU or to the EU on an EU carrier would be 75% of the value of the sector affected.
Therefore by your reckoning, passengers on that Delta flight that had to turn back to Atlanta because of the incident involving diahorrea should not be entitled to anything. Apparently it was a child so you wouldn’t feel guilty asking to be compensated? Of course not. Especially Americans.
If the person was slobbering on my leg like the dog did then I would want a refund. It’s not just the farting, the saliva on leg is disgusting. Maybe you’re used to dog saliva slobbers but not everyone enjoys that biohazard ♀️
Singapore Airlines crew on a 13 hour flight don't use economy seats for crew rest!
Minimum Singapore should refund in cash the difference in price between PE and Y given pax had to change seats and were not offered J seats.
They shouldn't have been upgraded to Business though.
Just because somebody complains about things doesn't mean they're entitled to an upgrade. In this case, this issue was not the carriers fault so no compensation is necessary.
Whining kiwis in shorts - no
Well , I think that if airlines check the size of the dog, and ensure that the right number of seats are bought to cover the dogs size by, in economy at the end of the aircraft, I don’t think there would be a problem.
I don't see how this is different from sitting next to a crying, screaming baby all flight. Sometimes, you have pleasant seatmates, and sometimes you don't. It's just part of flying.
The difference is that babies are people, flying to get somewhere, whereas dogs are there for the comfort of their owner. You cannot increase your comfort at my expense.
People bring their babies on vacations or moves. People do the same with pets. Babies are often even less able to control themselves than the animals are. At the end of the day, you're on PUBLIC transit. If you can't bear to be seated next to a screaming infant, flatulent dog, or smelly adult, maybe you should be flying private.
And FWIW in this case, why is everyone acting like a legitimate service dog couldn't...
People bring their babies on vacations or moves. People do the same with pets. Babies are often even less able to control themselves than the animals are. At the end of the day, you're on PUBLIC transit. If you can't bear to be seated next to a screaming infant, flatulent dog, or smelly adult, maybe you should be flying private.
And FWIW in this case, why is everyone acting like a legitimate service dog couldn't also have gas, drool, or have issues fitting within the confines of an economy seat's legroom? It doesn't sound like this dog was poorly behaved at all, everything described that detracted from the plaintiff's "experience" is animal physiology. Yes, seeing eye dogs drool and fart too, and golden retrievers (very common breed for the job) can get pretty big.
IN THIS HOUSE WE BELIEVE
DOG LIVES MATTER
DOGOWNER’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
NO CANINE IS ILLEGAL
EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOGS ARE REAL
DOG’S LOVE IS LOVE
OWNING A DOG IS EVERYTHING
An interesting dilemma. Personally I would have expected more from Singapore Airlines. The couple entered into a contract and paid for a certain level of comfort, they did not get that so the airline I believe should be more accommodating. To some extent I am with the couple.
That’s true under many countries consumer acts who would be on the side of the passengers. Therefore at the very minimum a refund of the fare difference between y and PE.
I am sure that my comments will upset the dog lovers that read on from here, but dogs should be in the cargo hold, not farting in a seat next to full fare paying passengers.
The world has gone mad with everyone claiming that they need their pet next to them as emotional support. I don't need to pay thousands of dollars to sit next to a farting, snorting, stinking dog because you won't...
I am sure that my comments will upset the dog lovers that read on from here, but dogs should be in the cargo hold, not farting in a seat next to full fare paying passengers.
The world has gone mad with everyone claiming that they need their pet next to them as emotional support. I don't need to pay thousands of dollars to sit next to a farting, snorting, stinking dog because you won't put it in the cargo hold.
What about my emotional support because of the stress of sitting next to an animal that I was not advised about before boarding? What if I have an allergy issue caused by dogs? What are my rights.
Disgusting treatment of fare paying passengers by Singapore Airlines
I flew LHR to DFW with AA in Business. I realised there was a dog in the seat in front of me, I’m pretty allergic to dogs, but didn’t have my allergy medication in my hand luggage. Yes, I know you should carry all important medication with you, but I wasn’t expecting there to be a dog next to me on the plane.
The crew said business was full and simply refused to reseat...
I flew LHR to DFW with AA in Business. I realised there was a dog in the seat in front of me, I’m pretty allergic to dogs, but didn’t have my allergy medication in my hand luggage. Yes, I know you should carry all important medication with you, but I wasn’t expecting there to be a dog next to me on the plane.
The crew said business was full and simply refused to reseat me in anywhere but economy, also telling me that I wouldn’t get a refund as it was my choice to switch seats. I would’ve argued it’s not my choice to sit next to a dog and it’s the dog owners choice to fly with a dog. The dog had no visible proof of being an assistance dog, and at worse was a pet, at best, an emotional support dog. But it appeared the dog and their owner trumped my personal needs and desire to not spend the flight sneezing, with itchy eyes and generally being miserable.
I asked the crew if they would ask anyone to switch with me so I wasn’t so close to the dog. They refused saying they didn’t want to inconvenience other passengers. Luckily as this point someone had overheard us and offered to switch with me. So we switched and all was good. But it left a bad taste in my mouth so to speak, and made me wonder whose rights take priority in this situation. Humans paying $5k or dog.
If you’re travelling it’s definitely your responsibility to carry antihistamines and any other meds you may need.
Anyone can make up some random excuse about allergies etc. This is especially true of Americans who will claim suffering for several hours and emotional damages.
If you travel frequently it shouldn’t be a surprise when you see a dog ( or cat).
Furthermore how did you know it wasn’t a hypoallergenic dog ?
If you chose to fly there’s no refund.
Disagree I’m afraid. I’m U.K. based, I travel very regularly but animals are not allowed on British Airways, a lot of the US airlines are exceptions to this. So I was incredibly surprised to see an animal on a plane.
Whilst I don’t need my medication on a day to day basis, for example encountering animals whilst out and about. 10 hours in a close space to one requires medication and is akin to...
Disagree I’m afraid. I’m U.K. based, I travel very regularly but animals are not allowed on British Airways, a lot of the US airlines are exceptions to this. So I was incredibly surprised to see an animal on a plane.
Whilst I don’t need my medication on a day to day basis, for example encountering animals whilst out and about. 10 hours in a close space to one requires medication and is akin to me having an animal in my house. As an U.K. based traveller isn’t really something I even thought I’d encounter on a plane and in the last ten years of flying transatlantic at least 5 times a year it was my first and still only experience of an animal in the cabin.
BA does carry service dogs.
Flying pets in and out of the U.K. is very restricted due to government regulations, especially in the cabin. There are very limited cases and airlines that allow this and as far as I know, only for assistance dogs. However frequently you fly, this a rarity for someone flying to/from the U.K.!
Animals belong in the hold. No debate.
In fact on the contrary, some humans should definitely be in the hold.
'On the other hand, to what extent is that the carrier’s responsibility? Singapore Airlines has published policies, and unless those policies were broken, I’m not sure the airline had much control here.'
The airline has full control over its policies. If they let dogs that are too big to take other passengers' space, that is their responsibility whether it is policy or not.
They have a responsibility to craft a policy that does not...
'On the other hand, to what extent is that the carrier’s responsibility? Singapore Airlines has published policies, and unless those policies were broken, I’m not sure the airline had much control here.'
The airline has full control over its policies. If they let dogs that are too big to take other passengers' space, that is their responsibility whether it is policy or not.
They have a responsibility to craft a policy that does not take away from other guests and if they wanted to, they absolutely could have prevented this.
@ Grey -- Keep in mind that many governments regulate that service animals must be allowed in the cabin. In many countries, airlines aren't allowed to restrict the sizes of these dogs. So airlines are put in a tough spot.
I appreciate that, but if the airline cares about passengers, they can ensure that big dogs are given enough space that they don't impact other passengers.
Several non-premium airlines give very large passengers an extra seat for free and it seems to be possible for the airline to absorb those costs. It seems like an airline could do the same with service animals.
Yeah, at a bare minimum the pax paid for their space (premium econ, so space was important to them), and they did not receive that space. That's the crux of the issue IMHO. Whether it was the airline's "fault" that the dog intruded into the space or not, the simple fact is that the airline simply did not deliver the product that it sold. That's why compensation is due.
@Ben, service animals should be mostly welcome in the cabin. But if they have a size that means they encroach on other people's space, extra space needs to be assigned. Whether that is an example extra free seat for the person with the service, or they have to pay for that seat can be a matter for discussion. But just like I don't accept a passenger of size raising the armrest between seats for them...
@Ben, service animals should be mostly welcome in the cabin. But if they have a size that means they encroach on other people's space, extra space needs to be assigned. Whether that is an example extra free seat for the person with the service, or they have to pay for that seat can be a matter for discussion. But just like I don't accept a passenger of size raising the armrest between seats for them to be comfortable, I would not accept my space being taken away by another passenger's dog.
2 minutes before the door closes get up and leave, force the airline to get your luggage out and cause a significant delay, with lots of lost connections. That'll make the crew and ground staff more pliable to find a good solution for all. There is likely an option to make a roll forward so the dog and owner can get a more roomy business class seat, and everyone will be happy.