Air Canada’s Pet Policy Not Lung-Friendly
June 21, 2009 by Marijke Durning, RN
Filed under Diseases & Conditions
Air Canada has joined other airlines (United Airlines, Continental, and American/American Eagle, for example) in allowing small dogs and cats that can fit in under seat carriers into airplane cabins.
As a pet lover, I know how important our animal friends are, but how safe is this for people with respiratory problems and/or severe allergies to the animals?
Air Canada has said that there would be a limit to the number of animals allowed on each flight, the number depending on the size of the plane, and that the animals would all be in the same section. But for someone with a bad allergy to animals, that still could result in a horrible situation – particularly for long-haul flights.
Traveling by air is very different than any other way – the air in the airplane cabins is not fresh; it’s recycled. This is why many airlines took away the right to have animals in cabins – it was affecting too many customers. So, why did they change their policy now?
Of course, they don’t want to lose clients. But, if someone with allergies checks in and finds out there’s an animal on board (that is *if* they find out ahead of time), what can he or she do? Technically, say Air Canada officials, people who are allergic to animals can request and be granted a later flight. BUT – the flight may be too late to make arranged connections, it could be the next day, it could be full and, most importantly, that flight may have animals on board as well.
The Canadian Lung Association is not happy about this new policy. They issued this statement earlier today:
“We are very disappointed by the decision of both Air Canada and WestJet to allow passengers to bring their pets in airplane cabins. This decision, while understandable in its desire to enhance customer service, unnecessarily puts at risk many individuals who suffer from respiratory diseases such as asthma and COPD.
Air inside airplane cabins re-circulates- it gets recycled through the vents. And airplane cabins are small spaces. This means that even a small amount of allergen- like the hair, saliva or dander of a pet- can spread quickly throughout the airplane cabin. The allergen in the air can reach every passenger on the plane, even people sitting far away from the pet. For people with allergies who have asthma or COPD, pet allergens can trigger wheezing, coughing, and swelling in the airways – otherwise known as an asthma flare-up (asthma attack) or a COPD flare-up. These reactions can be serious and even life-threatening.
The Lung Association is calling on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health to examine this issue when the Committee resumes sitting in the fall. We believe that the risks posed to passengers warrants the Committee’s review of this policy decision by the airlines.
The Lung Association would be most willing to appear before the Committee on this topic of importance to the millions of Canadians who suffer from asthma, COPD, allergies and other respiratory diseases.
In the interim, The Lung Association urges all Canadians with asthma or other respiratory diseases that may be exacerbated by allergic reaction to animals, to ensure their disease is properly managed every day – including when they are planning to travel, and to bring their quick-relief medicine (usually in a blue puffer) in their carry-on luggage”.
For a list of ways to manage your lung disease, please visit www.lung.ca.
I’m a passionate advocate for animals – but I also believe that human health, particularly while flying high above the ground without any means of alternatives, comes first.
~~~~
Images: AirCanada.ca, PhotoXpress.com
I agree, someone with allergies will suffer for this. They should not be the ones having to make accomidations because a pet came aboard. Here’s a question, how many animals have died on a flight when they were in the pet area? I’m not sure that’s why I’m asking. But we all know some allergies are extremely serious and can actually kill or cause loss of breathing.
I am surprised that Air Canada would risk this – the possibility of a huge liability lawsuit is very large. Personally, I cannot fly Air Canada anymore because even if I enter a plane where a cat has been in the last 24 hours or so, I will have an asthma attack. People could DIE from this. Why would Air Canada want to risk this?
Are there any statistics that back up these allegations? That people with allergies have suffered severe attacks because there was a pet on board? And how many such attacks occur per year. I tend to think that unless they were seated next to the pet, they wouldn’t even know the pet was on board. And how many people are there in general, with allergies so severe to pets that flying with them would cause an attack? And how many of these people fly on a regular basis.
Airlines have allowed pets in cabins for decades (I flew with my cat 20 years ago), and surely if it was so detrimental, it wouldn’t be permitted. I would guess that the number of people who wish to take pets on board far outnumbers the people who have the potential for an allergy attack.
My reaction is the exact opposite–I say kudos to Air Canada for finally allowing pets on board. I think your post is a case of overreaction, as is the “warning” from the Canadian lung association. If they are so concerned about our lungs, how about they put pressure on airlines to increase the percentage of oxygen in cabins, and increase the quality of air in general? That is a far bigger problem than allowing a pet on board.
I have a friend that cannot even ENTER a house that has a pet living in it. No matter how much you clean first, no matter if you put the dog out. In fact, someone I know tried to pull a fast one and didn’t tell her about their new “allergy free” dog they had locked up in the bedrooms upstairs. She started coughing and coughing, got red, and suddenly said, “is there a dog or cat in here?” and had to leave immediately. For some people, it’s just that bad.
You are wrong.
Do you think having passengers with pets sit in a pet-friendly section of the plane would help? I know the air is recycled, but if the animals are confined to ONE area, it seems like it wouldn’t be as bad as being close. Also, if a person with severe allergies is sitting near a pet, they could probably switch seats…
I am a severe allergy sufferer and had to be intubated due to being exposed to a cat. I am currently booked on a flight with AC and had booked prior to this policy coming into effect. When I called to ask about being moved should there be a pet, I was told that perhaps I should make alternate travel arrangements!!!
Allergies and asthma are no laughing matter! I try to eliminate everything that might exacerbate my condition but unfortunately, nuts and peanuts are still offered on most if not all flights! People are not told to keep their perfume to a minimum and now pets are welcome on board. No effort is being made for those who suffer from lung diseases and/or allergies. I’m sure people who bring their pets on-board would be very unhappy if the plane had to make an emergency stop at the nearest airport because a passenger was having a severe attack.
I pay for my airline tickets too and my work involves frequent travel. At this point, perhaps they should book charter flights for those who want to carry pets on-board. Or, place the owners on the cargo flights as well, maybe it would solve our dilemma.
As I previously said, I really see this as a totally non-issue. All US airlines have allowed pets on board for decades, and being that we are such a litigation happy society, I can’t imagine them doing so if pets represented any sort of health threat. I travel frequently, and generally don’t know there is a pet on board unless I happen to see it in the boarding area. If a person has such uncontrollable allergies/asthma that being on a plane with a pet in a carrier is going to send them into respiratory arrest–well, they may need to rethink getting their allergies under control.
In Europe everyone brings dogs to restaurants, takes them on trains, buses, etc. It doesn’t seem to cause a problem.
What next? Banning people from wearing perfume on a plane or bathing with a scented soap because it might cause an allergic reaction? Banning food that contains gluten? Not allowing anyone on board who may sneeze once at the boarding gate? Not allowing anyone to eat peanuts because the “scent” may cause an anaphylactic shock?
FYI, Air Canada used to allow pets on board, then changed their policy (undoubtedly due to the tyranny of special interest groups), and they lost a lot of customers.
It’s funny because I seem to remember a time when smoking was permitted on aircrafts. That was indeed banned. Back in the day, we had no provisions for those who were physically challenged but to make things more accessible, we added ramps, elevators. special parking spots and that’s fantastic. Imagine adding stairs, having obstacles and ladders. That’s what pet dander and other allergens do to me. Year round, I suffer from allergies and asthma that by my definition and my treating allergist’s definition are “under control”. That being said, when I encounter a trigger, I have a severe attack, enough to cause damage to my respiratory system and my well-being in general.
It is clear to me that those who do not understand what it’s like experiencing this, will not understand and it would be too much to ask ignorant people like this to understand. It’s like pretending to understand what it’s like not having the use of your legs or arms. On a daily basis, I try to exercise normal activities like normal people. However, I still have to take precautions. The more triggers I am exposed to more likely I am to have an attack. There are more people than you think out there with conditions like this and it’s becoming more and more common. Thats why when I travel and I travel very frequently, I request that my flight be changed if any pets are reserved on board. It makes it a lot more difficult for me and allergic people or those with asthma or COPD to travel anywhere.
At some point, we are going to have to remove the obstacles and and facilitate travel for all. Besides, I don’t think that having your pet on-board is a necessity that warrents having others suffer. It’s a small price to pay for someone who needs the clean air. And most of us who suffer from allergies have tolerated the perfumes and nuts and gluten and the like but now it’s time for a compromise.
Hi Roxanne,
In Europe, they also have smoking just about everywhere, making it very difficult for those who are allergic to cigarette smoke or who have respiratory problems to go to many places where smoking is rampant.
I don’t think that we can compare North America to Europe for many reasons.
As for your question, no, I don’t have studies. The medical community hasn’t targeted this area for study yet but I’m sure that it’s on someone’s mind right now. As it stands, it would be difficult to do a study on this because it would require airlines to keep track of animals on board, who gets sick, where they’re sitting, other possible allergens, and so on. A good study would be invaluable but not easy to do.
What I don’t understand is why you appear to be angry about it.
I have a severe cat allergy, so this would be a problem for me. At the same time, I could never let my dog be put in the baggage compartment, so I understand people wanting to bring their pets on board. I think they should designate certain flights to be available for carry on pets.
I am most definitely angry because unlike smoking which is illegal in public places here (except for designated ares which are easily avoidable), I cannot avoid air travel unless I quit my job. This policy has severe ramifications for me and other allergy sufferers and those with lung diseases like myself. In this sense, it violates my human rights. To avoid pet dander I now have to make a decision, either I travel and risk my health or I don’t travel and is that a fair choice to impose on someone?
As for research, there is actually quite a bit of it on this topic. On the Lung Association of Canada website they have a brief write up on “work-related asthma”. Research has suggested that exposure to an irritant or allergen can actually cause 10-25% of all new asthma cases! http://www.lung.ca/diseases-maladies/asthma-asthme/work-travail/index_e.php
And it doesn’t even need to occur with repeated exposure, it can happen with one-time exposure. The also list pet dander in that list of triggers. Furthermore, people who only experience allergies might assume that it’s fine for them and that they can take an antihistamine and it’s all under control. Those with allergy related asthma have other complications, many that can occur even hours after exposure. http://www.lung.ca/diseases-maladies/asthma-asthme/allergies-allergies/index_e.php
I suggest that before making such a decision (money-related obviously) and claiming that their policy is actually not a big deal for allergy sufferers because we can play musical chairs on the aircraft to avoid pets, they should look a little deeper into the risks and consequences. Like those who are physically challenged, I had no choice in whether or not I have allergies or asthma. My conditions were not self-inflicted. My asthma and allergies were inherited. And by the same token, I will be also traveling with my daughter in the future, I don’t want to expose her to those triggers that may indeed increase the chances of her developing asthma or allergies.
They only way we can reverse this is by being united and appreciating what others go through. I don’t expect everyone to understand but I expect people to be compassionate to the suffering of others. It’s about compromise. We haven’t fought for heavy perfumes to be banned, we haven’t fought for gluten or nuts to be removed (although some companies chose to do so because of a great demand). I think this policy is going overboard and it has been taken too far. We didn’t suffer before when pets were not allowed to be on board. People still traveled by airplane and they would have continued to so so. This is just a monetary decision because of Air Canada’s financial situation. Let’s face it, it brings in more money and every little bit helps, even if it’s at the expense of someone’s health.
Here is another link to Health Canada stating the risk factors for developing asthma. Guess what? One of them happens to be exposure of those susceptable to one of many allergens.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/crd-mrc/asthma-asthme-eng.php#risk
I like seeing pets on airplanes but I, like some of your other readers, also suffer from allergies. It doesn’t seem right to put pets in such confined spaces where one is breathing recirculated air…
Must be something in the Roxanne air today because I agree with Roxanne Nelson that this feels like another one of those exaggerated health scares. I do have terrible allergies, and I do have allergy-induced asthma, and I do have pets.
Typically, when allergies are used as reasons to exclude pets from public areas, I pitch a fit because I’m WAY more allergic to grasses and trees and such, but I don’t expect cities or individuals NOT to plant such things.
I can, however, see in this case how the enclosed environment poses a different challenge.
I don’t think pets belong in cargo (their owners, either). My dogs are too big to travel in the passenger area, and I’d never put them in cargo, so if we travel with them, we drive.
For me, the solution would be either 1) better air quality on planes in general or 2) designated pet-friendly flights.
And, the bigger health issue is why exactly are more people so hyper-sensitized to relatively benign things.
As both a a breathing-challenged person and a pet lover, I just hate to see the pets, their owners or the airlines made into bad guys … when the real issue is much bigger.
There is a very simple solution to this. My nephew normally suffers with asthma around pets. What I do is 4 weeks before a visit I bathe Harley, and then use PetalCleanse once a week. It’s very easy to apply and is safe for pets, actually makes my dogs coat very shiny and looks healthy.
So people traveling with pets could start application of PetalCleanse 4 weeks prior to travel. Everyone stays happy!
Boy! This certainly has unleashed some opinions. Although I have a mild asthma, I admit that it never entered my mind when I saw that airlines were going to allow (more) pets on board. After all, pocket-book dogs have been on board for a long time. My solution when I had a dog was simply not to fly with her. I certainly would not want her to have been in the luggage compartment. I think Roxanne (2) has the right answer. The airlines need to improve their air circulation systems. Besides this issue, there is a serious problem of spreading germs and viruses.
I have five pets, all of which have flown on a plane, and I have to say…I agree that this is a bad move for Air Canada. There are already plenty of airlines who offer this – and for the one off time that I had to fly with the animals (moving from LA to Toronto – didn’t want to go by car again) I flew American. But that didn’t take away any of my loyalty to Air Canada the 99.99999% of the time I’m not flying with pets.
Just to make me happy very occasionally (okay, like never – not going through that again unless I really have to!), they’ve potentially alienated a lot of people.
Marijke, I am not angry about it at all. I just happen to think that this is an over exaggerated health issue (agree with the second Roxanne), and just another scare without real facts to back it up. Which is why I asked if anyone had any stats, especially the Canadian Lung Association, which feels that this is such a dire issue. I would like to know if they have actual documentation of people suffering dire consequences because of a pet on board a plane.
And Marijke, allergies are allergies whether in Europe or the US. People take pets everywhere in Europe, and yet there doesn’t seem to be any elevated incidence of allergic and asthmatic attacks. Smoking has nothing to do with this, so I don’t know why you even brought it up.
Yes, I’m sure that everyone “knows” a person with severe allergies. Someone mentioned a friend who can’t even walk inside a house with a dog in it. Well, should seeing eye dogs and service pets be prohibited from entering stores, public buildings, airlines, etc, because of this person’s severe allergies?
As someone else mentioned, many people have allergies to plants and trees. Should these be prohibited in public areas due to allergies?
Basically, everyone’s health issues cannot be accomodated all the time. Otherwise, everything would be banned. I think improved air circulation and more fresh air on the plane would do wonders. And as also mentioned, the larger issue is the rise of such severe allergies and why are people getting so hypersensitive? And why are their allergies so out of control?
There is now a move to ban peanuts on planes due to allergies. Some schools ban peanuts even to the point of not allowing children to bring peanut butter sandwiches for lunch. I think that this going overboard. What next?
I flew with my cat only once, and that was because I was moving across country and there was no way I would put her in baggage. At the time, the airline allowed one pet in coach and one in first class. You had to make a reservation, and pay extra. I think that rule pretty much holds true, so its not like the airlines are carrying dozens of pets at a time. She stayed in her box during the flight, bothered no one. No one around me was wheezing or choking, and I highly doubt anyone knew that there was even a cat on board.
We can go on and on about this, but I stick with my original comments. Airlines need fresher air for everyone. Better purification is needed for all of us. This is a greatly over-exaggerated health risk, and a non-issue. People who are so hypersensitive that they cannot sit on a plane with a pet on board (inside a carrier) need better control of their allergies, represent a small minority of allergy sufferers, and should not be the ones dictating policy.
Oh, and FYI, I have 2 cats and I also have asthma which is completely controlled. I know what my triggers are, and I would never dream of trying to force rules and regulations to banish things that I am allergic to.
Just another thought–perhaps airlines should offer special services to those with severe allergies. No peanuts, gluten, pets, perfume, special covering on seats to make them dust free, etc. No people with service/seeing eye dogs. I’m not being sarcastic, but it would be the only way to really accomodate health issues without imposing on the rest (the majority) of travelers.
Seems now that airline seats are too small for many obese people, so that is also becoming an issue as well. Airlines with extra large seats that are allergen free. Since it seems that every week there is a new health demand and issue, this would be the only way to accomodate people with health issues that severe.
To some of you who are stating that it’s just hypersensitive people complaining, should I then assume that those who are for his pet policy are just too hypersensitive about keeping your pets on-board. What makes my opinion invalid and yours valid? What makes you people think that all that matters is your pet? It’s actually quite sad to see that you would consider the well-being of your pet more important than the well-being and health of a human being. Anyhow, my point is that many suffer from very sensitive asthma and allergies and as I said in my previous post, it doesn’t mean that their asthma or allergies aren’t controlled. Sometimes people assume that regular allergies and asthma apply to everyone and that it is a choice. I too have tree and pollen allergies that I get immunotherapy vaccines for monthly to help me survive with them. You’re right, I can’t avoid trees and pollens, they are everywhere and I’m not about to ask people to cut down trees (but some cities have when they’ve asked people to remove ragweed on their property or be fined). But then why accomodate physically challenged people? Why should we have special parking for them? Why should we build ramps and have elevators in buildings? We have working legs, why should we have to accomodate the minority? Same for those with babies and infants on an aircraft. Why should we allow them to board first? That’s not fair. They should board like everyone else. The reason we make all these concessions is to facilitate life for those who need it. The difference is that a person with a pet #1 has made a choice to own a pet and sometimes that either means travelling without it or sending it cargo. #2 People with pets are not given altimatums to either fly or not they can still travel with a pet, I was being asked by some of you to make a choice of either flying or not. What will I do to get to my destination, walk? #3 Europe is a different continent and I have family both in France and Italy. If you do go to a restaurant where dogs and cats are allowed, they are asked to remain in a specific section near the terrace and they are closed off to others in the restaurant. And, let’s get real here, restaurants are less confined and have better air circulation than aircraft cabins. Until aircraft cabins take the time to confine those with pets to a seperate room on the aircraft with a separate ventilation system, they should not continue with the policy.
Let’s get real here, airline companies are cheap and looking for money. They aren’t going to change anything in the structure of their aircrafts anytime soon. Therefore, delay the policy. I don’t think that by keeping things as they were will affect anyone for the time being, besides, what did you people do before they were allowing pets on-board?
I had a cat for fifteen years when this cat died of age i got another cat afterabout four yearsi developed a bad allergy to cats i was put on predsoine to try and clear my lungs after the tests proved i was allergic i had to get the pet removed all the other trrigers dust pollen dogs grass pollen bought on the condition asthmai also have two puffers to use if need be,i had been so sick before realized i was allergic i would never want anyone to have go through it…Please change this policy..i am such a cat lover..i cant even go in to my sisters house to visit cause even though she could put her cat in the basement the dander of the cat is there
All those interested in reversing this policy, please visit the Lung Association of Canada at http://www.lung.ca/home-accueil_e.php and click on the link regarding the airline pet policy. Something can and will be done.
Thanks for making our air a little easier to breathe, especially for those of us who love to travel.
So, let’s cut down all the trees, pave over all the grass, cover the world with dust-free covers. Even then, some passive-aggressive schmock will find a way to prevent normal people from having a normal life just because he cannot.
Bomelia, that’s pretty selfish of you, don’t you think? I don’t understand how changing one single policy can make you so passive-aggressive that you need to use sarchasm? Have I offended you in some way? I am not asking for trees to be cut or for dust free covers to be placed anywhere, I am simply requesting (just like physially challenged individuals who required ramps and elevators and parking spots to get around better) that pets not be brought into CONFINED places where they pose a significant risk to many allergy sufferers. I am not being unreasonable as your requests suggest.
Gee, I guess then we should allow smokers to puff away everywhere, including aircrafts and while we are now permitting that, we should also increase our use of non-renewable energy sources like burning coal and start reusing chemicals like BPA in baby bottles and other baby toys. It can’t hurt, I mean how many people actually were harmed among our world population of 6,706,993,152? The number must be relatively insignificant considering how large our population is, what’s one or two more, right?
Well done Air Canada! I will now start flying with you again.
If an animal is put into the hold of an aircraft he or she is at real risk: I would certainly never risk one of my animals there and would go by land if necessary to avoid this.
Compared with this, the trivial problem of somebody having to take a few extra puffs of ventalin isn’t a very high price to pay, is it?
It should also be noted that Air Canada limits the number of animals to one per passenger and four per flight.
If someone has pets and plays with them before they leave for the airport to travel and they don’t change clothes first, they’re going to have dander on them.
Are you going to ban pet owners who don’t shower and change after playing with their pets before boarding a flight?
Dander’s going to be there, whether or not the animal is there. There are those of us who must travel with our service animals. Service animals aren’t any more dander-free than a pet who travels in the cabin.
Step back into RealityLand with the rest of the world.
This is ridiculous! Obviously you have no idea wat allergy sufferers go through. It’s very different for someone to play with their pets before they leave and board an aircraft and actually having an animal onboard and spending a long period of time exposed to the animal.
Besides, if I have to, I will ask the flight attendant or someone to switch my seat if I am very sensitive to someone “wearing their pet” as opposed to having to sit on a plane with the person’s pet, even 20 rows down.
If you’re that uneducated to believe that there is no difference, then it’s just sad. I hope you don’t have a job where you have to think too much.