We read all the time about flight diversions for sick human passengers onboard, but a Delta Air Lines flight diverted due to a sick dog onboard.
Sick Dog Forces Diversion Of Delta Flight Bound For LA
Delta Flight 694 was traveling from Detroit (DTW) to Los Angeles (LAX) on Monday, May 26, 2025, leaving Detroit at 8:28 pm. About an hour into the flight, a dog in the cabin became “unwell” and flight attendants asked if there were any veterinarians onboard.
There was. A veterinarian stepped up, volunteering to provide emergency care. A decision was made to divert and the Airbus A320 made an emergency landing in Delta’s Minneapolis (MSP) hub to let the dog and its owner off.
Medical professionals met the flight to offer immediate treatment to the dog at Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport.
The diversion resulted in a 2.5-hour delay for the 181 passengers and six crewmembers onboard, with the flight taking off again at 10:30 pm and arriving at LAX at 12:55 am.
I found Delta’s statement quite interesting:
“The safety of our customers and people comes before everything else at Delta. That’s why Delta flight 694 diverted to MSP to ensure a cabin pet that became ill received proper care.”
Ok, but is a dog a customer or a person?
The captain kept the flight updated, announcing over the PA system while enroute to Los Angeles that the dog was going to be okay.
Should Flights Divert For Dogs?
I’m not a dog owner, but contrary to what many of you think, I’m not a dog hater…not by any means. I think the rampant abuse of fake service animals on airplanes cries out for reform, but I recognize that “man’s best friend” is a precious family member for many travelers.
Thus, I’m not opposed to diversions for sick dogs.
But I also note that a diversion costs a lot of money…extra fuel, extra crew time, and potentially overnight accommodations and meal vouchers for passengers who may have missed onward connections.
Because bringing pets onboard airplanes is an elective act, I believe that Delta should send a bill to the dog owner. Why should Delta have to pay for the choice to bring a dog onboard? Why should any airline have to stomach the cost for an accessory that becomes ill onboard?
Putting a price on the head of a dog is difficult…continuing the flight if it would have resulted in the death or permanent injury to the dog is inhumane. But those who take their dogs onboard planes should be prepared to pay up if they do want to divert when the dog becomes sick.
image: Aero Icarus
Why on Earth would a simple diversion to offload someone result in a 2.5-hour delay? Especially at an un-congested airport like MSP and with the same crew …
Perhaps the dog was infected with a dangerous disease and the airplane needed to be disinfected .
Perhaps the dog itself was dangerous and needed to be restrained by the police .
Perhaps the dog became sick after tasting it’s owner’s food , and the passengers’ food needed to be replaced .
I wouldn’t be surprised if the crew would have run out of time if they continued the flight given that it was the end of the day.
MSP is north of the route a flight from DTW to LAX would have taken but it is a DL hub and crew base.
Ben is right that there comes a point that diversions for predictable causes should be born by the customer and that applies to humans as well. Maybe the dog had no health issues before the flight but that is not likely to have been the case.
Ha, Ben seemed to take issue with my analysis about who should bear the cost…
yeah, I love it when you and Ben (and anyone else) spar and take the readers along for the ride.
I am in between you two…
pets are valuable and living so are more than just luggage.
Passengers do have to assume responsibility for their actions and their ability to travel. Dogs and cats don’t make the decision to get on planes; their owners make that decision for them.
Not everyone or every animal is suitable to fly. If it is known in advance that a human or a pet should not travel or has a risk factor that caused the diversion, then they should bear the cost.
Realistically, that won’t happen but that is the way it should be.
mandatory insurance requirement for all animals
Many reasons. The first one that comes to mind is that they landed heavy and the plane had to be inspected before taking off again. Remember, they had just taken off from DTW and going to the west coast. Happened to us on a WN flight from TPA-MDW that required a medical diversion to JAX.
Delta collects ~$50m annually in pet fees, 250,000 x $200. It seems like they’ve already accounted for emergency costs in that charge.
Bad logic because the cost of service is not accounted for.
It is a medical emergency and should be diverted. Don’t think airlines are losing any sleep on losing money on diverting flights for dogs though.
Said this before and will always stick by this: you shouldn’t really need to travel with your pet in the first place unless it’s a truly certified service animal or you’re transporting it for a legitimate reason.
@ Nun — Excellent point.
Unanswered questions…
1. Was the dog a fake service dog?
2. Should dogs get clearance to travel from a vet and a required letter? Yes, if there is a chance of diversion.
3. Should the captain refuse diversion? No
4. What did the owner fo when let off? Did the dog go to the dog ICU?
5. Is the dog a customer? No, dogs ate property. Did the dog buy a ticket? If yes, better justification for diversion.
As for #5, even if the owner had paid the $199 or whatever it costs to bring the pet onboard, that does not constitute a “ticket.”
It might not be a “ticket,” but at least it shows that the owner isn’t trying to pass off their in-cabin pet as a service animal when its not and so long as their pet fits and stays in its carrier, I have no issues. That said, regardless of how the pet got on board, its a biohazard to fly with a sick dog from DTW-LAX. Sure the delay might be annoying, but its better than pressing forward and having to fly with its mess is gross.
Also, I don’t agree with the notion of making the pet owner pay for the diversion. So long as they complied with Delta’s rules about in-cabin pets, accidents happen. I’ve never been on a flight where a pet had an accident, but I have been on a few where a baby/toddler have had them (including one that was so severe that it required a diversion). I wouldn’t expect the parents of that child to pay for the costs of the diversion any more than the pet owner. Bringing children on a flight is “optional” as well.
Matthew, I fully agree with your sentiment and believe the dog owner should be on the hook for the costs. But, I would note that a human boarding an aircraft is also an “elective act,” and by the same argument should also be subjected to paying the costs if an emergency health issue leads to a diversion.
@ML: I would distinguish between humans traveling (the very point of commerical air transport) and dogs (not necessary…a carry-on item). I.e., you chose to bring the unecessary item onboard, you bear the consequences when something goes wrong.
Other folks should spare me the canard that a baby or older human being are on the same level as a dog.
If Kristi Noem was on board, no diversion would have been necessary
LOL.
Very funny. Took me a bit to remember the reference.
A great reply.
And if RFK Jr. was on board he would have asked Kristi “you gonna finish that?”
I’d feel sooo much more at ease knowing that Kristi was traveling with her registered & disclosed firearm onboard ! … lol
Well didn’t they divert to offload some pigeons? Perhaps the owner did offer to pay for this ( my dentist paid an incredible amount for his dog’s cancer treatment and cancelled his office hours until it was over). But this does not account for the loss of time for others.
The pigeon incident happened while still on the ground.
Imagine if Delta hadn’t diverted and the dog died. The PR backlack should have been brutal.
Indeed.
Flying is an elective act. So people who get sick onboard should also pay for the diversion?
What a weird argument you’re making just because you’re against dogs on planes. I’m surprised you have a degree.
If you can’t see the differnece between a human and a dog, which is like a peice of luggage, then you’re incredibly delusional.
I’m fully supportive of this diversion because it was the right thing to do. I’m proud of Skadden for standing up for what’s right and inspiring me to do the same every day while also remunerating me to the tune of $6MM a year.
Oh look, it’s the fake lawyer with a micro-penis who lives in his mother’s basement. We’re all laughing at you, loser.
Matthew,
I few months ago you wrote about a service dog that bit a passenger and the plane had to be diverted. Was the service dog/owner allowed to continue on their destination ? This one the owner should pay for the injury and diversion
Agreed.
Local news was curiously one of the only places to cover that incident. It’s not as simple as saying a fake service dog bit someone. A fake service dog, again according to Colorado Springs local news, mangled a ten year old boy’s genitals.
Wish airlines would go back to putting pets in cargo where they belong. Sorry not sorry.
No non humans in the cabin!
Ultimately the choice to divert was made by the captain. While I personally think DL should just eat the cost of diversion, I’d be curious if they even have grounds to recover anything from the passenger.
Generally when we see an airline try to recover after a diversion, you have an unruly passenger who is violating FAA regulations, and probably the carrier’s CoC too. This didn’t happened here. A dog fell ill, seemingly unexpectedly. Sure DL could send a bill, but I don’t think they have any mechanism to enforce collection. I think their only recourse would be to ban the passenger.
Thanks, that’s an ridiculous false equivalency I despise. Yeah, your furry baby is the same as a human.
How is it a false equivalency? I mentioned that airlines only try to recover damages when passengers violate FAA regs or the Carrier’s Contract of carriage. In this case they did neither and I don’t see what grounds the carrier would have to recover any damages. One might ‘feel’ that the passenger should pay Delta back, but I don’t see how Delta could successfully force them to do that.
Sorry, replied to wrong post.
Let’s assume this person followed all the rules (i.e., paid the fee, had in a closed carrier, unless it’s a real service animal.)
Delta and most other airlines charge $150 for an in-cabin pet. This can be more than the cost of a human ticket that comes with an actual seat, baggage allowance if elite, etc. On Delta, it’s $150 to lose your carry-on baggage allowance, and of course your legroom.
Sure it’s mostly a deterrence fee, but this could also be a fee to cover any unexpected costs of transporting the pet, whether aircraft cleaning, emergency, etc.
I am surprised Delta chose to divert or publicly solicit veterinarians, but given that it happened, I don’t think the pet owner is on the hook for diversion costs. Delta just raised their in cabin pet fee cost $50 in the last month so perhaps they have more pet $ to cover unexpected expenses, and I guess Delta can get credit for caring.
Now if this was a fake service animal…
+1. Realistically, it does not strike me as workable for every person who travels with a pet to be taking on a remote-but-plausible risk of a bankruptcy-level event. A rational actor would just not travel with pets.
Sure, you could perhaps get travel insurance — although I’m not sure there are travel insurance products that would cover this? — but it also just creates a huge amount of friction for an event that no one seems to be able to think of another example of. Airlines already collect a pet fee, and I tend to think this should just be considered part of that.
If a non human on my flight is ill. I will glady help euthanize it. However, my imaginary friend should be safe. An extra landing and takeoff involves an increased risk than not diverting. So, I (a hypothetical pax) should have my schedule delayed, but I must also accept a higher risk of death? Next time I’m in a plane, I will request a return when I see there’s a fly in the cabin. All lives are equal.
Curious if Trupanion or other pet insurance companies offer travel insurance w emergency medical coverage ?
Putting ire on the dog owner is one thing, but I also think some attention needs to be brought to the veterinarian who was on board. Since HIPAA doesn’t apply to dogs, I’d like to know what was wrong with this dog that necessitated the need to divert.
Moreover, what kind of assessment did this veterinarian perform on the dog in flight? Did he have a blood pressure cuff and stethoscope? Did he have a heart monitor with him? Doubtful. So basically he made a calculated decision that the dog needs immediate medical attention just by looking at it.
Right.
Dogs are better than people!
The whole humanization of pets thing is waaaaay out of hand. People spend many tens of thousands of dollars on things like MRI scans, chemotherapy, joint replacement surgery, fertility treatment… It’s absolutely outrageous. Inconveniencing an entire planeload of humans for the sake of a sick dog is scandalous. It’s a dog, FFS.
Curious. Arriving at 1 AM at LAX rather than 1030 PM…human or dog problem. What is Delta’s responsibility if the car rental arena has closed and/your hotel room was given away because one is a ‘no show’? (I’ve had the latter happen…popular locale on a busy weekend and had no way of contacting the property to advise of my late arrival.)
Any individual. Human or animal getting on a plane is an elective act. Charge every passenger for diversions!
Cannot agree with Delta at all. Look at cost for humans – what if someone was travelling to meet a dying family member?
Barbaric!
Or don’t accept animals in the cabin at all. Simples.