Distraught owner furious at ANA after dog dies from heatstroke during transport

prior to boarding a flight to one of the offshore islands (not specified).

As opposed to one of those onshore ones? Agree with Chibachick insofar that the article invites fun making (like I just did) for something that is serious to someone. It is careless of the airline to let this happen, daft of the family to even think of bringing a dog on a plane (how much stress is that?).

Popo went Gaga because of Nana!

When will this story go the way of the baked pooch? Enough, already.

keep the memory of the beloved dog and tell the dog every night that you loved him so much.

That's exactly what I do however, in his case, I believe "contaminated water" was to blame...

Having taken my dog on a flight from Australia to Japan (JAL), I can say that it's all one risky experience. I'm sure they would have signed a waiver to allow Popo on board and assumed he would be safe. They paid for the service after all. Who pays for a service and suspects that they won't actually receive the service? In my case, multiple vet checks were needed and I had to buy my own crate. I made sure I got one that had a lot of ventilation and a big water bottle. Pet carriers for smaller dogs here seem to be more cutesy than practical, so I wonder if the poor thing didn't have enough air. They're basically plastic coffins with tiny holes.

It's funny that some posters are blaming the owner for taking the dog with them on vacation. Does it matter? I mean, what if they were moving from one location to another? Whose fault is it then?

Basically, Ana looked at Popo as a piece of baggage - not a living entity.

The rules are actually put in place by the USDA, and must be followed by the airlines. Almost across the board, you will be compensated at the rate of a lost suitcase.

"Airline Liability Limits

Whenever you ship a dog, you run the risk that the dog will be injured. What you may not realize is that unless you buy extra liability coverage for a dog you ship by air, and something does happen to the dog, you may get stuck with the airline's decision about how much it will pay for your loss - no matter how much you lose.

International flights. Claims for damage that occurs during international flights are covered by special rules. (See "International Travel," below.) How Liability Limits Work

The "NOTICE OF BAGGAGE LIABILITY LIMITATIONS" on the back of an airline ticket says that the airline's liability for loss, delay or damage to baggage is limited to a certain amount unless the passenger declared a higher value for the baggage and paid an additional fee to transport it. Remember, your dog is classified as baggage (carry-on or excess) unless you ship it air cargo. Similar liability limits also apply to air cargo.

Airlines can't declare themselves free of all financial responsibility for their carelessness toward baggage. They can and do, however, limit their liability to $2,800, the minimum required by the federal government.

The theory is that passengers agree to the liability limit in exchange for getting to pay the relatively inexpensive baggage rate to ship the dog. The airline can charge the low rate because it doesn't risk being liable for a huge amount of money if something goes wrong. "

The airline industry is one of the most competitive in the world, with many companies operating in or near bankruptcy. Planes on the ground are assets earning no revenue; fast turn-arounds are essential to survival. This means unloading and loading an aircraft as quickly as possible, and this means that Rover will be stashed in a location optimal to speed, not to survival. The baggage handlers know this; more, they know their supervisors know this. Whatever fee is charged for handling live animals is insignificant to any takeoff delay.

I am sorry, but that is the reality. Checking your pet is a roll of the dice, particularly in summer. This is one reason why my dog will never, ever fly.

I saw on the news another pet died over the weekend.

Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

Do you think they lay your suitcase down gently? Do you think it is is held in air-conditioned containers? I always get "fragile" tags put on mine because I know for a fact that suitcases get chucked - and yes, the staff DO have toss competitions.

No one is suggesting that the crate with the dog in it got tossed around. It was left too long in a place where it was exposed to too much heat.

Calling someone's beloved deceased pet an 'overgrown rat' says more about you than it does about the owner, the breed of dog, or the staff supposedly responsible for delivering the dog safely.

If they treated my suitcase like that I'd be suing.

Well you better start suing! Do you think they lay your suitcase down gently? Do you think it is is held in air-conditioned containers? I always get "fragile" tags put on mine because I know for a fact that suitcases get chucked - and yes, the staff DO have toss competitions. Indeed a pet shop be treated differently but I figure it was the heat that killed the overgrown rat, not the staff.

I feel so so sorry for the owner of the pet. I lost my pet (13 years old Chihuahua) recently. I know how she feels. It is a very painful experience-that is something the people who have never owned a dog cannot imagine. The dog was really part of her life. However, I sincerely feel that the family should have left the dog at home under someone's care. The dog doesn't understand the family's vacation. It is a selfish mind of the dog owner to bring the dog to everywhere he/she goes just because the owner wants to be with the dog. It is more safe for the dog to be home. In any case, I am very sorry. I made a mistake myself. I feel that I could have saved my dog from dying. We all learn by a mistake. All you can do at this point is to keep the memory of the beloved dog and tell the dog every night that you loved her/him so much.

My point was that this is not another 'just in Japan' thing. The disclaimer is the same in the US, that they accept no responsibility. Nothing 'misleading' about that.

The disclaimers airlines use are not the same. I've already posted links to ANA and JAL disclaimers and they are different. The ANA one is unconditional, whereas the JAL one isn't.

Would an unconditional disclaimer be acceptable in the USA? If so, show me one.

The article you borrowed from led with a story about a couple who upon the death of their dog, were offered a refund, compensation of sorts (a new dog- crass but not entirely thoughtless), and medical costs.

The ANA article leads with a story about a family being returned a dead dog.

See any difference?

Just to balance my argument, some up-to-date stats which show that pet incidents have actually been increasing since that ABC news report...

http://www.thirdamendment.com/animals

Just quoting that small section is a bit misleading.

My point was that this is not another 'just in Japan' thing. The disclaimer is the same in the US, that they accept no responsibility. Nothing 'misleading' about that.

"shuffled off this mortal coil" what the hell is that supposed to mean?

It's an excerpt from the famous soliloquy in Shakespeare's "Hamlet" that begins "To be or not to be..." and means to expire.

"shuffled off this mortal coil" what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Himajin,

The same for most US airlines. You have to sign the disclaimer.

I'm no way defending US airlines, but there are five pages to the ABC news article you quoted which go into far more detail about how US airlines deal with pet travel and fatalities. Just quoting that small section is a bit misleading.

A lot of the deaths were attributed to high risk breeds which, as a result, most airlines now wont accept. Autopsies can be held to determine cause and possible culpability.

The family in this article took their deceased dog to a vet themselves to ascertain the cause of death. Bravo ANA...

The ANA disclaimer leaves absolutely no chance of repercussions for the airline, even if they were directly at fault.

Even JAL doesn't sink that low, stipulating 'in the case of natural causes' in their disclaimer, which I'm sure other airlines stipulate too.

http://www.jal.co.jp/dom/service/pet/pdf/bull.pdf

All in all, this is of no comfort to bereaved owners, but from the facts presented it appears that ANA accept payment but not responsibility.

The silent down-voter strikes again!

Why would they even consider taking a dog on a plane. Ridiculous.

I have to agree. Pets in general should never be forced to travel long distances unless there is absolutely no other option. Let's say that a dog has the intellectual capacity of a two-year-old human child. Would you suddenly haul a small child out to the airport and shove it on a plane, away from its parents? How could you make it understand that the separation is only temporary? My heart breaks for Popo. That family really should have made alternative arrangements.

As for the tweeting thing, it sounds strange but that's what many people do these days. My friend tweeted her way through a suspected medical emergency. She needed advice and reassurance, and she got it.

Poor Popo.

This is the disclaimer the family concerned probably signed. It's certainly a piece of work

The same for most US airlines. You have to sign the disclaimer.

" During a four-plus year span from 2005 to 2009, U.S. airlines killed, injured or lost 224 dogs, according to the Department of Transportation.

And just like with arrival times, baggage handling and customer service, some airlines were much better than others at ensuring your pets arrive alive.

Continental led the pack with 58 deaths, injuries or lost pets between May 2005 through December 2009, according to the DOT. It was followed by Delta (including now merged Northwest) with 43 incidents, Alaska Airlines at 36, American Airlines at 33 and United at 17."

I find the airline's classic refusal to accept any responsibility absolutely disgusting (but also highly typical). They should be taken to court and sued.

The dog must have looked quite sick (if still alive) when they transported him from the tarmac (after waiting there in the heat) into the airplane... did none of the crew notice at that time? Think, "Hey, this dog needs attention right now." Or, "Why is someone transporting this deceased dog?" Did they just think, "Man, someone's going to get a nasty surprise!" It should have been aerated enough to see in.

Why would they even consider taking a dog on a plane. Ridiculous.

tmarieAug. 16, 2013 - 05:07PM JST Because the dog WAS cargo. I think anyone who has ever seen how cargo is transported knows it isn't the best thing to do for a dog. Do I think ANA is at fault? Certainly. However, the owner agreed to allow her pup be treated like a suitcase and unfortunately, the dog paid the price in the end.

If they treated my suitcase like that I'd be suing. I try and keep my valuables and electronics in my carry-on, but I often have gifts and perishables in my check-in baggage. I always warn the airline if there's something unusual in my baggage, and always make a note on the baggage slip so I have proof that they knew. Thus far I've never had a problem. Airlines are actually normally pretty good about things.

This was a mistake, and ANA should accept responsibility for it. I'm fine with indemnifying airlines from accidents... accidents happen sometimes despite the most careful precautions. Placing a living being on blazing hot tarmac under a reflective surface for hours? That's gross negligence, and indemnity doesn't cover that.

is the first thing you do, if your animal is distressed, to tweet a help me message about it? What about using your voice instead?

Right...

I live in Japan and if I took my dog to the UK, I'd necessarily have to put him in cargo because of, wait for it, British laws which I find shameful.

The part of my comment that you quoted had nothing to do with Japanese people, Japanese law or, indeed, Japanese airlines.

So speaking of animals, I do believe that's the wrong high horse you're on there.

This, I find shameful. If I were to return to England with my dog ( I wouldn't take him for a holiday) then I would have no other option than to trust a bunch of complete strangers, who apparently wont hold any liability, to do their job properly and with care.

Yes, you certainly need to be careful around these wild animals we call Japanese people. The super friendly people in the UK will, without a doubt, roll the red carpet out when you approach their airlines with your pooch. Especially on those super humid days that they experience every summer.

I feel sorry for the pet and its young owner, but in the current continuing spell of extreme heat when people die every day of heat exhaustion, one needs to be aware of the risks of entrusting a pet to an airline, not knowing the exact procedures of how the animal is treated. Having 2 young daughters who love animals I can imagine the pain Popo's owner feels.

Because Japan isn't the USA and pets aren't allowed in the cabin on domestic flights, as I highlighted in my post before yours.

Since it was a short flight, why did they not carry P with them in a carry-on? That is how I brought my cat from the USA. I did not trust the idea of tossing the cat to the unknown of the cargo bay.

tmarie,

Although Canada and the USA are progressive in allowing small pets in the cabin, Japan is not. Neither ANA nor JAL allow pets in the cabin so, domestically, you are left in a bit of a corner.

Even my home country, the UK, a professed pet loving country, doesn't allow pets to enter the country by any other means than 'cargo' (unless you have a private/chartered jet- money always talks)

This, I find shameful. If I were to return to England with my dog ( I wouldn't take him for a holiday) then I would have no other option than to trust a bunch of complete strangers, who apparently wont hold any liability, to do their job properly and with care.

Human nature being human nature, I don't think I would trust them.

The irony of ANA's repeated use of the word 'Harmless' haunts me even now, just thinking about it.

Help, someone,” she tweeted just after 3 p.m

Darn it girl, you're already 15 years old. That is not how you call for help.

Bookowls, ANA DID do what it said it would - it transported the dog. The customers signed an agreement that stipulated that ANA would not be held responsible if the dog died. The dog died but was transported. in the eyes of ANA, they followed through on their agreement. And yes, many people DO take their pets on holiday but very few people take their dogs on holidays where they need to be transported via cargo. Why? Because it is not good for the dog - be it stressful, temperature issues or time. Cars are not the same as planes. A shame that this poor pup had to find out the hard way.

There are some very senseless and idiotic comments from posters regarding this story. Fact is, a customer paid for a service and that service was not fulfilled correctly. Many people take their pets on vacation and this girl had every right to do the same. As for ANA, I stopped using their services years ago thanks to the crappy attitude of a customer service rep.

I understand people being outraged and all, but i stand by my comment that Popo could have died of anything. Just because heatstroke is the most likely cause, doesn't mean it was definitely so. Is the remedy people are expecting that ANA buy the owners a new Popo? surely Popo is irreplaceable......

The dog was treated like a lump of cargo, instead of being given the care and consideration merited by a living creature.

Because the dog WAS cargo. I think anyone who has ever seen how cargo is transported knows it isn't the best thing to do for a dog. Do I think ANA is at fault? Certainly. However, the owner agreed to allow her pup be treated like a suitcase and unfortunately, the dog paid the price in the end.

Honestly, going on a holiday by plane and taking the dog? Silly. A lovely puppy hotel is a much smarter choice. OR, take the small pet on the plane. I don't know about ANA but Air Canada and many other airlines will allow a small dog or cat on the plane with you in a small carry on kennel to be placed under the seat during take off and landing. Transporting any living animal on a plane is cruel - more so if it is just for a short holiday. Moving is one thing but a holiday? Insane, more so in this weather with the tarmac heating up like it does.

RIP pup. You didn't deserve to die.

To all those chastising the owner of the dog, what would your position be if you checked your bag with ANA. Inside your bag was your laptop, and you made them aware that there were sensitive electronics in the bag and they put a fragile sticker on the bag and promised to treat it with care. You then got to your destination and you found your laptop fried (literally) because someone left it on the tarmac for who knows how long and the computer overheated and died.

... and what would you say if they then pointed at a standard waiver of liability and claimed they didn't owe you a cent for the damage?

When you entrust an airline with cargo and pay for it to be delivered to its destination they have the option of refusing the cargo. If they accept the cargo they accept responsibility for delivering it undamaged to the destination. Popo was cargo. They accepted the cargo and accepted payment. They had a responsibility to deliver that cargo in good condition.

I was once thinking about using ANA or JAL for taking my dog to England.

This is the disclaimer the family concerned probably signed. It's certainly a piece of work, and dissuaded me from EVER EVER using ANA.

http://www.ana.co.jp/dom/checkin/rakunori/pets/image/pet1204.pdf

Clearly states ANA or anyone connected with them cannot be held liable for the "Death or wounding of my pet(s)" (no mention of accidental/ deliberate) and are also "harmless" for any costs incurred, as well as being "indemnity [sic] for ANY and ALL losses". I take it they mean indemnified.

Scoundrels.

And as for JAL? No, no, no, no...

That's goddog asinine!!

kurisupisu: "The Japanese know well the dangers of heat and the reaction on the body."

Sure they do! Only, what.... 40,000 + hospitalized recently for heat stroke? If a carrier cannot guarantee the safety of something it carries, it needs to refuse to carry it or pay the price if things do not go well. It sounds like Popo was exposed to above ambient temperatures when the temperatures were hitting 40 in many parts of Japan. Add a lack of air flowing through, and being confined in probably a plastic container, and not too many things would survive.

Glad that they used the word damn in the first sentence. Its tragic that the pooch died.

Animals just like people respond individually.

There will never be a perfect system that responds best to all.

Disappointing to see the word "damn " in the first sentence.

kurisupisu: The Japanese know well the dangers of heat and the reaction on the body. In the summer secondary school students go on laps of their schools in close to 40 degree heat; Koshien high school baseball tournies do the same. Suits and ties are still de tiger in many companies

And yet everything you said after the first sentence seems to suggest that, even though the weather is pretty much the same every summer here, far too many Japanese do not seem to know well the danger of heat and the reaction on the body.

I'm very sorry for the dog and the family but I would think long and hard about taking a dog or cat on an airplane. If it were not absolutely necessary, I wouldn't do it. Regardless of the weather, why put an animal you love through that stress and trauma?

”ANA’s PR spokesperson was later quoted as saying that the dog had been in good health prior to check-in, at which time he had also been given water, and the carrier was therefore “not at fault.””

Ummm, actually that would indicate the airline IS at fault. If the dog had some previous condition or something, they might not be at fault. Poor Popo.

Popo could have died of anything.

The vet speculated that the dog had very likely been kept in an overheated room. His body temperature was a remarkably high 47 degrees Centigrade.

the dog had been placed in a spot beneath a plane that had “just pulled up from a blazing sky” and therefore agreed to the possibility that reflected heat was the likely cause.

It isn't rocket science.

The dog was treated like a lump of cargo, instead of being given the care and consideration merited by a living creature. It is of course possible for animals to die in transit with no blame being apportioned to the carrier, but that assumes the animal is treated during transport with due care. The cop-out clause in the contract notwithstanding, the owner did not sign up to have a health animal treated with gross neglect to the point of death. If the airline could not guarantee that every care would be taken in view of the extreme heat of the day, they should have refused to take the animal. 'just a little gommenasai' would certainly not cut it if it were my dog. I would be breathing flames.

Though after reading this article, I doubt that I will ever under any circumstances entrust a beloved animal to an airline carrier service.

@ kurisupisu

The Japanese know well the dangers of heat and the reaction on the body.

I know you mean well, but the data from 2013 alone -- such as cases of heatstroke on a 24-degree day -- paints a different picture. Popo the quadriped slave, er, animal forced companion, should have been spared this abuse by its owner.

Popo could have died of anything. Of course owner is upset and of course looks like ANA might have played a part in Popo's demise, but if they are not contractually liable not sure why they should pay up or anyone should lose their jobs. Maybe just a little gommenasai??

Ian Duncan

the girl's family has signed an agreement not to demand ANA's culpability in the pet's death or seek further compensation through a lawsuit.

Why would they do that, if they're furious?

That's part of the agreement when you want your pet to go on an airplane with you; the parents didn't sign the agreement after Popo kicked the bucket, but before they got on the flight. It's not made clear in the article, of course.

Dogs / pets are transported by airlines all the time! The owner was not stupid or at fault at all! The Airline was at fault. Do I think someone should lose their job... no. Do I think something needs to change... like waiting to put any pets on the Airplane last and not have them outside on hot days for extended periods.... Yes. ANA needs to change some things.... there are millions of pet owners out there right now that are not thinking good things about ANA.

The risk is in the hands of the owner. Too bad Japanese yards aren't big enough so you can leave the dog at home and have a neighbor feed it while on vacation.

any airline will not take culpability in the event of death of any pet. Thats a responsibilty that the airline will not take. They will transit the pet, with a minimal fee, but will be held in a crate and placed in a small room along with other pets and stacked in layers. Even though the place is well ventilated and airconditioned, the stress of travel will kill even the most healthy animal given the right condition.

Sue the owner for stupidity.

the girl’s family has signed an agreement not to demand ANA’s culpability in the pet’s death or seek further compensation through a lawsuit.

Why would they do that, if they're furious?

I'm with Cleo. If it were my dog, I would be beyond upset.

I'm surprised how many posters are blaming the owner and even calling her stupid.

dog vs stupid owner= stupidity wins

The Japanese know well the dangers of heat and the reaction on the body. In the summer secondary school students go on laps of their schools in close to 40 degree heat; Koshien high school baseball tournies do the same. Suits and ties are still de tiger in many companies.

Popo just didn't have enough gaman!

Expect ANA to have sympathy?

Not likely.....

Elbuda,

I work in the freight biz & almost NOTHING gets transferred to the belly of an aircraft in an air conditioned vehicle, simple reality, both parties screwed up & a dog made the ultimate sacrifice for their STUPIDITY!

I don't enjoy writing the above but its simply true, as per usual in Japan few wish to take responsibility for their actions

If the family have agreed not to sue, ANA must be paying pretty steep compensation.

ANA doesn't have to pay one yen. The dog owner (=one of the parents) signed :

I... specifically agree that ANA, ... shall not be liable for any and all losses, damages or expenses incurred by myself, my heirs,....and assigns arising from or in connection with the following event(s) or accident(s), as relevant: the death or wounding of my pet animal(s).

If ANA gives them anything, that will be a voluntary gesture.

because the airline accepts payment for transporting a living creature, it should be obliged to take whatever precautions necessary to ensure its safe arrival.

Some companies simply suspend the pet service during Summer months. To be safe, that's what they should all do. But it seems ANA only refuses the bulldogs and let the freedom of choice to their customers. After all, it's not so hot every day, and the weather maybe too hot for your dog and not too hot for my iguana. Or you think you can risk to lose a pet sometimes, and it's less a bother for you than rescheduling the whole family's trip. They let you judge.

You could "question the common sense of" anyone doing anything" if you want to play silly buggers

That was the dog owners that chose to book a flight at noon (from what is said) on the usually hottest period of the year.

Aug 12 happened to be blazing hot and Popo’s owner is blaming reflected heat from the tarmac for her dog’s demise.

But not blaming herself ? When she saw the day was even hotter than average, she still decided to take the dog to the airport and make it travel in spite of the tarmac risk.

ANA is a MAJOR airline, they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER! Take these pets in airconditioned trucks etc...right into the belly of the airplane in this horrible heat! So I agree with Cleo, and I am seeing here way too many, cold, heartless comments about this poor little dog. RIP Popo chan

Both parties are idiots, sorry, but in the brutal heat of typical J-summers two things should happen, first airlines should NOT allow pets on board period during July/Aug +/- depending on origin/destinations involved, this is pretty common practice.

Second the parents should have had the common sense NOT to even contemplate flying with their dog, especially with such a tiny breed.

So both parties are to blame & have to answer to the 15year old, but hey at 15 the kid should have had some common sense as well.

Unfortunately common sense is not so common on these isles

It's only a dog right?

dead dog because of stupid owner...airplane is airconed for the dog but we have to taxi the dog to the plane and thus it has to be exposed to nature on that time. The dog will share the same heat as the luggage. Get real. They don't handcarry them to the plane.

stuff happens, especially in pups, to be sure chihuahuas are susceptible to heatstoke. could have been any number of things. Time for Popops owners to get a real dog bred that can handle the heat.

I find this article pretty disgusting actually. We are talking about a live animal, a family who loved him, and a total failure of duty of care on the part of the airline. Why the disparaging and jokey remarks? Its no joke for the young girl who found him.

ANA’s PR spokesperson was later quoted as saying that the dog had been in good health prior to check-in, at which time he had also been given water, and the carrier was therefore “not at fault.”

Isn't that backwards? If the dog was in good health when it was handed to the airline and near dead when it was handed back to the owner, isn't that a pretty strong indication that something went wrong while the dog was in the care of the airline?

The carrier also confirmed that Popo was the only canine casualty in the previous month

Still one too many.

A 15-year-old's pet. I would be livid if it were mine. If the family have agreed not to sue, ANA must be paying pretty steep compensation. It still won't be enough.

Poor Popo, and poor little girl.

Poor Popo... I absolutely agree that: "because the airline accepts payment for transporting a living creature, it should be obliged to take whatever precautions necessary to ensure its safe arrival." That's common sense.

You could "question the common sense of" anyone doing anything" if you want to play silly buggers and not make use of modern conveniences, but taking a pet on vacation domestically is hardly an outrageous idea.