Many of my friends in the animal rescue movement have told me they think worrying about how our pets (and all other animals) fly is nothing more than a luxury.  It’s hard not to see their point, since right here in the U.S., we still euthanize a dog or cat every 11 seconds simply because that animal is homeless.  Yes, it would seem that there are more pressing problems than getting Jack and Fluffy from Point A to Point B via safely via air.  BUT… but.  I can’t help but come back to this thought:

It’s all the same problem.

How could that be?  Clearly, creating safe and humane flight conditions does not have the same urgency that keeping an animal in a shelter ALIVE has.  Well, usually it doesn’t… except in a case like Jack’s.  Jack, of course, is now tragically gone because safe and humane conditions were not made a priority in transporting him.  And we can’t forget that he’s not the only one — at least 197 other DoT-defined “pets” have lost their lives as a result of their interaction with the airline industry since 2005. (And we have no idea how many others may have died who did not fit the very narrow DoT definition of “pet”.)

Of course, that number – 197 – is nothing more than a faint shadow of the 28 million dogs and cats that have been euthanized in the U.S. since 2005 (and that is often regarded as a conservative estimate).  To put this in perspective: imagine killing everyone who lives in the states of New York and New Jersey between 2005-2011.  That’s how many dogs and cats have been PTS during that time.

So, given the undeniable enormity of the euthanasia problem, and the relatively minor number of animals affected negatively by the airline industry over the same period, how can I possibly think these are the same problem??

And the answer to that question is simple: both the number of animals that are PTS every day and the way animals are treated by the airline industry are branches that are connected to the same tree.  And that tree is not an oak tree, nor an elm tree, nor even a palm tree.  The name of that tree is DISRESPECT FOR ANIMALS’ LIVES.

As a nation (I’m speaking of the U.S. here, but maybe you feel comfortable saying the situation is the same in your home country), we do not respect animals’ lives.  Indeed sometimes even what we think of as “animal welfare organizations” (think the Humane Society or PETA), have a  history of believing that homeless animals were better off dead.  From that perspective, the problem is that animals exist and that people are irresponsible.  Since we can’t fix human irresponsibility, the animals are better off if they don’t have to live under the conditions created by irresponsible humans.

I am left asking what has become the inevitable question in thinking about how we treat animals:  REALLY?!?

Imagine that we transfer this “animal logic” to dealing with another vulnerable group, human children.  Two irresponsible people get together, and a baby is conceived.  After the baby is born, the birth mother can’t handle the situation and drops the child into a dumpster.  Someone hears the child crying, picks it up, and takes it to a government facility.  Five days pass.  No one comes to claim the child.  The child is “put to sleep” – since no one wants the child, and the child probably isn’t going to have a very good life anyway.

I, personally, am grateful that this is not how our culture deals with “unwanted” children – because I WAS one of those children.  I do not know my birth parents, but I lived in foster care and the orphanage system for the first 10 weeks of my life, until I was released to my parents as their child.  Yes, I was adopted.  But I know there were many others in that same situation at that time who were not so lucky – especially children of color and those with disabilities.  Many of those humans lived out their childhoods in the foster care system.  For most kids, it’s not at all a good start.  And I wouldn’t really call it “respectful.” But it is a step up from not being allowed to live.

RESPECT FOR LIFE seems like a simple matter, but it isn’t.  As a nation, we disrespect animals’ lives every day by killing them for the crime of being homeless.  And as Jack’s story showed us, “respect for the dollar” is a much higher priority than “respect for life” is for the airline industry.

But are we going about trying to solve the problem in a “back-ass-wards” way??  Shouldn’t we be directing our efforts toward ending the killing, instead of ending the inhumane travel conditions??

And this is why it is crucial that we see all these issues as being the fruits of the same tree, the tree of disrespect for animal life.  If we can create a world where all animals are treated with dignity and respect on planes, that changes the tree of disrespect.  It kills one of its branches.  If plane travel is a branch where we as human beings must say “my pet, my four-legged child, this life that is allied with mine, must also be treated with dignity and care,” that creates one less place where disrespect is acceptable.  And with every place where disrespect for animals’ lives is no longer acceptable, the strength of a new tree, the tree of RESPECT FOR ALL LIFE, grows a little stronger.

Every day, I feel like Jack gave me an incredible gift — the gift of a very specific problem that has several potential reasonable solutions that would benefit animals and their guardians.  Jack catalyzed me into action, the action of cutting into this one branch of disrespect, and making air travel a safe place for the furry kids.  And when we get this fixed, we will have learned much and have weakened the tree of disrespect.  We will have taken a step in the right direction!!

Making conditions for our four-legged children safe on planes will not change the world all by itself, but it is a step in the right direction.  And we have to take every step we see as possible if we are going to live in world where all the animals get the respect and love they deserve.  The same respect and love they give us – unconditionally!!!

Doing a google search about pet travel last weekend (because it’s really just about the only thing I think about now), I ran across a website that had the following statement: “Air travel is as safe for pets as it is for people.”   And again, I was back to my new favorite question:  REALLY?!?!?  Are you KIDDING me??

From the beginning of 2005 through the end of  2010 (72 months), 122 people were killed on commercial airlines in the United States.  In three of those years (2007, 2008, and 2010), there were NO human airline fatalities.  Obviously this is very  good news!!  During the period from May 2005 through April 2011 (72 months), according to DoT Pet Incident Reports, 188 animals were killed.  THAT MEANS 50% more PETS than humans died on planes!!  AND,of course that doesn’t even really tell the whole story.  Over 100 more animals were reported lost or injured during the same period.  And even that is not the whole story… as I wrote about earlier, this only covers the very narrow class of “pets” that the DoT is willing to recognize!!

The website where I found this erroneous statement about pet safety has a relationship with IPATA – The International Pet and Animal Transportation Association.  Now, as we all know, animals transported through IPATA members are not going to be covered by DoT Pet Incident reporting.  But, maybe these folks know something we don’t know… maybe their members (professional pet shippers) are able to create some form of safety for our fur-kids that we as pet parents are not able create because we are just “amateurs.”  Maybe Jack would have been safer if Karen had used an IPATA-affiliated shipping service instead of just caring for Jack and Barry herself??  I decided to read more about what IPATA is and see what they do.

This dog probably isn't having much fun, but is it better than flying as checked baggage?

And here’s what I found: IPATA is nothing more than an association for pet shippers.  They do not maintain specific “standards” for pet shippers beyond those required in the shippers’ country of origin for licensure and insurance purposes and completion of a webinar that they provide (which they call Pet Shipping 101).  If an individual is looking to transport a pet and wants to be reassured about the safety of this process, they direct the person to their FAQs page.  And this is where things get truly bizarre.

In answer to the questions “Are cargo holds safe for pets? Is it safe to ship my pets as cargo?”, IPATA replies “An Ann Landers column and comments in subsequent editorials, pretty well covers the subject.” That seemed a little strange to me – a professional organization presents not their own viewpoint, not academic research, but AN ANN LANDERS COLUMN to answer the most basic question a pet parent might have about their service????  Very strange.  But let’s see what Ann Landers had to say about the subject.

The columns they provide begin with a letter from “Animal Lover in Memphis,” who is defending the actions of a woman who snuck her cat onto the plane, saying “I wouldn’t send a cockroach by air cargo.”  The column was titled “Airline Cargo Hold is No Place for an Animal.”  IPATA then prints the response their past-president had to the column (Ann Landers does not print this).  Then they show the Ann Landers column that was responding to the first column, headlined “Cargo Hold Is OK for Pets.” In that column, Ms. Landers prints several readers who respond to the original writer, including “Pilot in Bainbridge Island, Wash.” who says “I am a pilot for a major airline. At least one cargo hold in every plane is insulated, and the temperature and pressure controlled. In most aircraft, that cargo compartment has the same ventilating system as the passenger compartment… Most of us have pets of our own, and so we take good care of those in our charge. I’ve never had to take a pet off the airplane for drunkenness or unruly behavior, which is more than I can say for some passengers.”

Wow.  That’s really great.  Some unidentified “pilot” (who could be just an airline shill) is reassuring Ann Landers that he takes good care of the pets in his charge.  That’s great!!  Now how do I make sure this guy is piloting my plane, and not some uncaring pilot??

And more importantly, how do I get this guy to go do baggage handling so I can make sure my pet makes it onto the plane?? It’s true – Barry was fine ON THE PLANE.  Too bad Jack never made it that far.

As you can read for yourself, Ms. Landers goes on to quote several more readers who wrote in to protest the idea that animals may not be safe in cargo.  But again, we have NO IDEA who these people are, or what their motive is for taking the time to write to Ms. Landers.

But still, even if we believe all these people are just well-meaning readers, look at the date of the column: August, 2000.  Since that time, 16 U.S. airlines have filed for bankruptcy.  And the airlines have been under tremendous pressure to provide increased security because of the effects of the terrorist actions of 9/11/01.  Have these changes affected the safety of pet travel??  I would hazard a guess that maybe they have, but it would be just a guess.  It seems to me IPATA might want to take the time to make its own statement on these issues, rather than just continuing to provide the unverified – and DATED – opinions of people who write in to Ann Landers.

I called the company that owns the website that I referenced in the first paragraph, the one that said “Air travel is as safe for pets as it is for people.”  It’s a small company, and I spoke to someone there about the problems I had with what I had read, about Jack, about how any problem an animal has while in their care is not subject to any DoT reporting requirements.  She was a nice lady, and clearly an animal lover.  And she was shocked.  She said she was going to read the material on our website…but she wasn’t the person who could change the website.  She took my number and said her manager would call me after the first of the year.

I’ll be interested to see if they make changes.  I’ll report back in mid-January, after I talk to her supervisor.  All we can ask for, to continue to honor Jack, is that people have the opportunity to know the truth.  And the truth is this: unless your pet is with you at all times, pets are NOT AS SAFE AS PEOPLE when traveling by air.  In some circumstances, pet parents may have to take that risk.  But let’s not pretend the risk isn’t real.

Since the New York Times published the story about the cocaine smuggling ring that operated out of the American Airlines baggage department at JFK for almost 10 years (and check out the DEA report here), I have been angry.  Very very angry.

It’s not that I think that Jack was lost because of cocaine smugglers.  It’s not that I think that no one looked for Jack in the ceiling because there was cocaine there (indeed, if there had been cocaine in the ceiling during the period Jack was lost, I think there would have been a much higher chance he would have been found).  I don’t even think the problem is that the current baggage handlers were so busy smuggling cocaine that they wouldn’t look for a lost kitty.

Graphic by Broadcast Jones.

I’m angry because, as Adam Hartung at Forbes.com has also pointed out,  AMERICAN AIRLINES JUST DOESN’T GET IT.

American Airlines has been consistently named one of the worst airlines in the U.S., as has its subsidiary, American Eagle.  Parent Corporation AMR recently filed for bankruptcy, and after  2 months of dealing with AA employees in various capacities, it is clear that these folks are beaten down and absolutely dejected.  The fact that AA’s people are overwhelmed and demoralized is (one reason) why a cocaine smuggling ring could go undetected AT A MAJOR AIRPORT for so long.

During the search for Jack, one of the things AA stressed repeatedly is that no outside searchers could go into the baggage area because of security concerns.  Fair enough, I thought at the time – the 3rd weekend that Jack was lost was the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and tensions were understandably high.  And this was New York City, after all.

BUT.  But but but… before, during and after the 9/11 tragedy the smugglers and their cohorts had been running their operation our of JFK airport!!!  Despite the “heightened security” and all the other measures that passengers have had to endure for the last 10 years, nothing substantial changed for the smugglers.  Increased security had NO IMPACT on a group of people’s ability to SMUGGLE COCAINE?? REALLY????

But, in AA’s mind, it would seem it is not the baggage handlers that are the problem.  Clearly, the fact that the baggage handlers got caught is a problem.  But for AA — IT IS THE CUSTOMERS THAT ARE REALLY THE PROBLEM.  And especially problematic is the fact that customers think it is reasonable to have their things — and especially  their animals! – returned to them in the same condition as they were in when travel began.  From AA’s perspective, that seems to be too much to ask.  Indeed, this disregard for passengers and their belongings was (is?) a part of AA’s culture at JFK: according to the Times, “[Baggage handlers] stowed drugs in secret panels inside planes; stole laptops, lobsters and fine clothing flown as freight; and rifled through passengers’ belongings for perfume, liquor and electronics.‘Everybody did it.’ That’s a line that a lot of the witnesses said…”

In my mind, this constitutes MAJOR misconduct among baggage handlers over a 10 year period.  From AA’s perspective, clearly this was not really a big issue.  If this had cost AA money, it would have been fixed.  But because passengers have almost no recourse when checked baggage or cargo is LOST, stolen, or damaged, this really isn’t a problem AA saw as a priority.

And Jack was part of the “checked baggage or cargo that was lost, stolen or damaged.”  After 3 days, it was clear AA wasn’t going to look for him.  We told them we would find others who would search… but that still wasn’t enough.  AA fed us the line about “security.”  In their eyes, a bunch of “crazy cat ladies” in their 40s and 50s had the potential to constitute a “terrorist threat.”

And now this cocaine smuggling news breaks.  And all becomes clearer: the real problem was not “security.”  The problem was that AA didn’t want to be bothered.  That was the message that was sent from Dallas-Ft. Worth to everyone in the organization.  And it is the message the corporate bigwigs had sent down long before that.  If it wasn’t, the cocaine smugglers wouldn’t have gotten away with their business for almost 10 years.  And so a beautiful boy named Jack remained lost for 61 days and eventually died from the effects of this ordeal.

IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.  Wenty went missing and Alaska Airlines promised to do whatever it would take to find him – they grounded a plane to search it and even offered to disassemble a luggage conveyor.  They notified ALL the employees at SeaTac quickly, and a baggage handler for United – quite a distance away from Alaska Airlines terminal – found Wenty and she was returned to her family within 100 hours.

Of course, it took 66 hours for AA to just call Karen about the situation.

What to do??

First off, don’t fly American Airlines.  Whether or not you’re flying with pets, expensive jewelry and perfume, or with nothing at all – just don’t give them your money.  Protest their negligent, disrespectful corporate philosophy by taking your money somewhere else.

Secondly, tell everyone you know.  Tell them about Jack, tell them about the cocaine smuggling ring, tell them about the fact that pets aren’t safe when they travel in checked baggage or cargo with any airline.  Talk about what has happened to airline travel and its impact on us as people and on our pets.

Third, (if you’re in the U.S.), contact your Senators and your member of the House of Representatives.  Tell them that deregulation of the airlines should not mean that passengers have no recourse when their baggage – and especially when their pets!! – are not treated respectfully.  The airline business has a variety of regulations it must adhere to that insure our safety: why isn’t the safety of our pets (and our stuff) on the priority list as well?!?

Finally: hang tight with us here and on the Facebook page.  We are creating pages that will be posted SOON with information about how to keep pets safe when you travel, and what options are available when you have to travel by air and your fur-kids simply won’t fit under the seat.

My last word: OY. Nothing else even begins to cover how much this upsets me.  Well, nothing else that would have a G-rating.