The Canadian Medical Association Journal argues that pets shouldn't be in the cabin with passengers. (iStockphoto)

Pets travelling by air belong in the cargo hold, not the cabin, where their dander could irritate passengers' allergies, states an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) released Tuesday.

Three top doctors — deputy editor Matthew B. Stanbrook, editor-in-chief Paul C. Hébert, and Thomas Kovesi, a pediatrician at the University of Ottawa — put their names to the editorial, which chastised airlines for putting the preferences of pet owners above the well-being of passengers.

"I love pets, and I understand how much they matter to people, but pets are not people, and when there is an issue with people's health, people have to come first," Dr. Stanbrook, said in an interview with CBC News.

Air Canada reversed its ban on small pets, including cats, dogs and birds, in the airplane cabin in July 2009.

The apparent motivation was competition from WestJet, which reportedly has pets on about 25 per cent of its flights.

The editorial is timed to put pressure on the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is about to rule on whether people with allergies should be considered disabled under the Canadian Transportation Act and appropriately accommodated while travelling.

The agency is currently reviewing four complaints from passengers who suffered serious allergic reactions while flying within the past year.

Last spring, a Regina passenger flying with WestJet required medical attention after suffering a severe allergic reaction to a dog on board.

Ottawa urged to get involved

The editorial argues that if the CTA does not rule to protect allergy sufferers, then the federal government should get involved.

"If the agency does not rule for the passengers, the House of Commons standing committee on health, which heard a briefing on this issue last fall, should take up the cause," wrote the authors.

"People with allergies should be able to fly without placing their health at risk and must not be prevented from travelling for fear of being confined close to a pet."

The editorial makes the point that allergic reactions are an avoidable health risk, and that in rare situations, some reactions can be anaphylactic, which is especially problematic when an individual is on a plane without access to emergency medical care.

About 10 per cent of people have allergies to animals. A 1998 study done in New Zealand identified clinically relevant concentrations of cat allergen on 100 per cent of sampled airplane seats on domestic flights and 16 per cent of seats on international flights.

Seating passengers with allergies away from pets is thus not a viable solution since pet dander remains on seats long after the pet and its owner have gone, the CMAJ editorial argues.

The editorial's authors said there is a precedent for giving rights to certain passengers. They point to a recent decision by the CTA that said people with allergies to nuts should be considered to have a disability under the Canada Transportation Act and must therefore be accommodated.