Foreign Service Officers peeved over new United pet policy




The fur, at least, has been flying ever since.













About Author


  1. You had a choice to work for a company (US govt) which fortunately does allow you some stipet of reimburshment. If you worked for another company, you would not have this benefit. You b/y choice wanted a pet. No one put a gun to your head to order you to own a pet. Your choice, your liability. You govt people are overpaid anyway.

  2. It’s already too late for United to recover from this. They lobbied Congress to require us to use a designated American carrier and then when they have a monopoly on most routes for government employees they start treating us badly. Congress needs to disqualify carriers like United from even bidding on government contracts if they treat foreign service employees this way. The fact that we are often called on to advocate for United when they are fighting foreign carriers for routes is ironic. I will never fly United again.

  3. Action Pet Express totally supports ALL efforts to change the
    current United pet policy. The ONLY reason UA adopted to
    old CO policy is so they can make more moeny. IPATA has
    much to do with this as well.
    Jerry M

  4. Ditto what Jay Casey said. Congress should start putting some rules in place before an airline is even allowed to bid.

    As for the very first comment that US Government employees are overpaid, that may even be true in some cases, but most people joining the Foreign Services after they’ve been around the block for a few years are actually taking a pay cut. When you work for a private corporation usually your international moving expenses, including pet shipping, are included in your relocation package, FYI (and if not, you’re not negotiating enough — with the government there’s no negotiation, as it’s all what Congress sets).

  5. Alan Oslick on

    For expats in Mexico, UA is claiming that the Mexican government is requiring that no pets go in the cabin. Expats in Merida, Yucatan have documented that CO has been claiming that back to a 2007 Mexican regulation that does not apply to flights crossing international borders. Further UA is claiming that customs broker clearance, which is costly, is required for all pets flying into Mexico. UA is apparently the only line making these assertions.

    From the FedLine article, I see UA is using another line of argument with FSO’s.

Reply To jerry Mishler Cancel Reply