Dogs on planes (in the cabin)

chucknorris

Pollycat wrote: »

Or maybe there aren't. :cool:

Whether they are or not is irrelevant, the point was (and still is) that whilst some airlines allow smaller dogs in the cabin, larger dogs are not (although there do appear to be certain loopholes used in the states to do with companion dogs, but again that isn't the point).

Just because a troll starts to argue about the exact weight of the smaller dogs allowed, doesn't detract from the realty that some airlines do allow smaller dogs in the cabin.

Pollycat

chucknorris wrote: »

Whether they are or not is irrelevant, the point was (and still is) that whilst some airlines allow smaller dogs in the cabin, larger dogs are not (although there do appear to be certain loopholes used in the states to do with companion dogs, but again that isn't the point).

Just because a troll starts to argue about the exact weight of the smaller dogs allowed, doesn't detract from the realty that some airlines do allow smaller dogs in the cabin.

Can you please specify which airlines flying from the UK (as I guess that's where you're based) allow small(er) dogs in the cabin.

chucknorris

Pollycat wrote: »

Can you please specify which airlines flying from the UK (as I guess that's where you're based) allow small(er) dogs in the cabin.

Look at my list of airlines (typed previously) and you can look into which airlines fly from the UK. I have no idea why that information would be useful to you, and I'm even more bemused as to why you think that I should put any effort into providing you with that information.

Sorry but I've got better things to do than do than fact find for you.

Hermione_Granger

chucknorris wrote: »

Sorry but I've got better things to do than do than fact find for you.

I don't think you do.

You brought up the subject of dogs in the cabin on aircraft and despite admitting many times that your idea simply isn't feasible, you are still arguing with other posters who are pointing out why it wouldn't work, so you are in effect, arguing against yourself.

chucknorris wrote: »

I know, I was just musing about it. The only real way to do it is by private jet.

chucknorris wrote: »

No it isn't, but you are entitled to your wishful thinking, even though it would be unlikely, but why am I not entitled to my wishful thinking?

chucknorris wrote: »

It wouldn't work anyway, because of the evacuation procedures required in the event of an emergency, I was merely exploring my wishful thinking that I would like to fly with my dog abroad,.

Pollycat

chucknorris wrote: »

Look at my list of airlines (typed previously) and you can look into which airlines fly from the UK. I have no idea why that information would be useful to you, and I'm even more bemused as to why you think that I should put any effort into providing you with that information.

I've got better things to do than do than fact find for you.

The information isn't of use to me.
But it's very easy to post something on t'interweb without backing it up with fact - which you appear to have done.

chucknorris wrote: »

KLM
Lufthansa
TUI (formely Thompson)
Thomas Cook
Turkish Airlines
Blue Panorama Airline (Italy)
Eurowings (Germany)
Air Baltic
Air Canada
Nowegian Airlines
Air France
American Airlines
Delta
JetBlue
Southwest
United
Alaska Air

Plus smaller airlines allow dogs in the cabin.

Ryan Air were considering it back in 2015, but don't seem to have followed through with it.

You can transport your pets on Thomas Cook Airlines flights as cargo in the cargo hold.

And here's the link to back up that statement:

https://www.thomascookairlines.com/en/book-plan/extras/baggage-allowance/sports-and-other-baggage/pets-and-other-baggage.jsp
Your list of airlines appears to be incorrect. :cool:

So, really, there's little point me checking which airlines on your list fly from the UK because there's no guarantee they allow pets in the cabin anyway. :whistle:

chucknorris

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

I don't think you do.

You brought up the subject of dogs in the cabin on aircraft and despite admitting many times that your idea simply isn't feasible, you are still arguing with other posters who are pointing out why it wouldn't work, so you are in effect, arguing against yourself.

Well that's a number of thing that you have raised, let me address them:

Well, today as well as marking student's coursework (which I will be for the next fortnight), I have also already taken my dog for a walk. at about 11.15 am I will leave to play an indoor bowls match, after that I will do my weekly long run (8 miles), then do some more marking.

I am not arguing with anyone, and I can see that I'm just being trolled, don't expect me to play that game any more of getting involved in pointless exchanges.

chucknorris

Pollycat wrote: »

The information isn't of use to me.
But it's very easy to post something on t'interweb without backing it up with fact - which you appear to have done.


And here's the link to back up that statement:

https://www.thomascookairlines.com/en/book-plan/extras/baggage-allowance/sports-and-other-baggage/pets-and-other-baggage.jsp
Your list of airlines appears to be incorrect. :cool:

So, really, there's little point me checking which airlines on your list fly from the UK because there's no guarantee they allow pets in the cabin anyway. :whistle:

I am not here to have pointless arguments with trolls, and I can see that I'm just being trolled, so don't expect me to play that game any more of getting involved in pointless exchanges. Please feel free to continue to waste your time sending me pointless troll messages though :rotfl:

Pollycat

chucknorris wrote: »

I am not arguing with anyone, and I can see that I'm just being trolled, don't expect me to play that game any more of getting involved in pointless exchanges.

You are not being trolled.
Just being told that the information you've posted is not accurate.
There's a big difference.

You are correct, however, in saying that this is a pointless exchange as you are posting inaccurate information in an attempt to prove your point about dogs being allowed in cabins on certain airlines.

chucknorris

Pollycat wrote: »

You are not being trolled.
Just being told that the information you've posted is not accurate.
There's a big difference.

You are correct, however, in saying that this is a pointless exchange as you are posting inaccurate information in an attempt to prove your point about dogs being allowed in cabins on certain airlines.

I am not here to have pointless arguments with trolls, and I can see that I'm just being trolled, so don't expect me to play that game any more of getting involved in pointless exchanges. Please feel free to continue to waste your time sending me pointless troll messages though:rotfl:

Hermione_Granger

I wonder what would happen if when the OP finishes marking their student's coursework and hands it back to them, one accused them of trolling because it was pointed out that some of the information in that coursework was incorrect?