|
Airline
responds to breed ban criticism
A LEADING airline which banned five breeds of dog from being
carried as cargo on its services after a Pit Bull escaped from
its cage in the cargo hold of a flight has hit back at criticism
of its introduction of the breed ban. Campaigners have already
denounced the new policy as "Breed Specific Legislation
in the private sector."
American Airlines announced its new policy on August 7th via
an internal Cargo Service Advisory bulletin stated: "Effective
Immediately, the following restrictions are in Place.
American Airlines will no longer accept the following breeds
of dogs:
American Pit Bull Terrier; American Staffor(d)shire Terrier
(sic); Bull Terrier; Dobermann Pinscher; Rottweiler
The statement continues:
"Puppies of these breeds between 8 & 12 weeks of age
may be accepted.
The breed and age of the dog must be indicated on the health
certificate. Crossbreeds containing one of the above breeds,
when indicated on the health certificate are also prohibited."
The message was soon flashed across the Internet via the anti-BSL
group DogHolocaust and led to the airline being deluged with
complaints from dog owners across the world, although predominantly
those based in America. It is American dog owners who would
suffer most from the breed ban, as AA flights are used extensively
for domestic cross-country journeys.
OUR DOGS reported the story two weeks ago, although the bred
ban was "revealed" in a contemporary publication at
the same time.
According to an AA spokesperson the pit bull was held in an
approved airline travel container in the hold of a 757 on a
domestic flight from San Diego to New York’s JFK airport.
Apparently flight personnel did not discover that the dog was
free until the plane landed, and the pilot summoned the dog’s
owner, who was aboard the same flight, to capture the animal.
Apparently the dog had caused "some damage" to the
hold,
although the extent of this was not revealed, but airline staff
took photographs of the damage.
Soon after this, the airline consulted insurers about the incident
and queried which dogs should be banned to prevent such an incident
occurring again – apparently oblivious of the fact that
any breed of dog could escape under similar circumstances.
According to the spokesman, the insurers came up with a list
of breeds which were considered ‘dangerous’ and the
Airline introduced the ban immediately.
Two weeks ago, OUR DOGS contacted Jennifer Pemberton of American
Airlines Cargo division regarding the new restrictions. Ms Pemberton
said:
"American Airlines Cargo recently made a change in its
Live Animal Acceptance Policy to restrict certain canine breeds
which experts consider to be aggressive in nature. We regret
that this may cause inconvenience to our customers who depend
on American for this cargo service. The new policy was adopted
for safety reasons, due to an unfortunate incident involving
an aggressive breed dog. No affront is intended toward the specified
restricted breeds.
Extension
"American
Airlines was the first airline to develop rigid standards
for the safe transportation of animals and this decision is
an extension of that commitment. We have many animal lovers
who work for American Airlines, as well as many employee dog
owners. The objectives associated with our animal acceptance
policy are to transport animals safely. We trust you understand
that safety is American Airlines number one priority."
The statement relayed by Ms Pemberton was roundly denounced
by anti-BSL campaigners and dog owners across the world. One
correspondent to the DogHolocaust List summed up the feelings
of many, saying: "If the airline can ban ‘breeds’
of dog because of an incident with one animal, then why haven't
they banned all Muslims after the terrorist attacks on 9-11?
Same thing. Safety is their number one priority? Laughable!"
OUR DOGS responded to Ms Pemberton with a number of questions
as to the background to their policy, which included a query
as to which ‘experts’ defined the five listed breeds
as ‘dangerous’ and on what scientific basis this
decision was reached.
Ms Pemberton did not respond to the questions or any subsequent
follow-up messages, although when finally contacted late last
week by OUR DOGS, she said that she had been on sick leave
and would refer our questions to Tara Baten in American Airlines’
Corporate Communications Department.
Still receiving no response, OUR DOGS made contact with Ms
Baten on Monday of this week.
Ms Baten’s attitude was extremely defensive and at first
she argued whether the breed ban was "arbitrary"
or not. Ms Baten said: "I will look at your questions
again, but I will only respond if I consider it appropriate...
We get lots of enquiries from people such as you and they
all have deadlines. You may consider your questions to be
legitimate, but we are extremely busy. I shall respond if
I consider it appropriate to do so."
Response
OUR
DOGS then forwarded our questions to Don Carty, head of Corporate
Communications.
Within a few hours, a response had been received via e-mail
from Gus Whitcombe, the Managing Director of AA’s Strategic
Communications department, acting as Ombudsman to the Corporate
Communications section, presumably at Mr Carty’s request.
Mr Whitcombe answered the questions to the best of his ability.
The questions appear here as asked, together with Mr Whitcombe’s
response (and spellings as given):
1) Which "experts" identified the listed breeds
as dangerous?
Although you may think it semantics, no one listed the breeds
as dangerous. Working with groups who have to make similar
tough decisions such as the insurance industry, we banned
breeds associated with aggressive behavior and any animal
of any breed that exhibits aggressive behavior during the
acceptance or boarding process.
2) Were these experts in specific canine disciplines?
I cannot answer without a definition of "specific canine
discipline.
3) On what scientific basis and on what scientific evidence
was this decision made?
Please see answer #1.
4) Is American Airlines prepared for a legal challenge to
the ban?
Absolutely. The safety of a flight - and preserving the lives
of every passenger on board that plane - provides a solid
defense to any lawsuit.
5) How can a breed specific ban be introduced based on one
incident?
Every day, hundreds of thousands of people entrust their lives
to American Airlines and we take the responsibility for their
safety as the most serious aspect of our jobs.
We were very fortunate that this incident did not impact the
safety of flight. However, to further reduce that risk, we've
made a tough decision by banning these animals. We are not
out to inconvenience any group of people. Remember, we're
giving up substantial revenue - the animal transportation
fees and the accompanying passenger fares - by making this
decision. But nothing is going to compromise our commitment
to safety.
As emotional as this issue is, I trust that your readers will
stop and think about what conversation we'd be having if that
plane had gone down.
OUR DOGS will continue to monitor the ongoing situation with
regard to AA’s breed ban. We would be delighted to hear
form any readers who may have been in contact with American
Airlines on this matter, and any response they may have received
from the airline.
|
