U.S. to let airlines limit service animals on planes
reuters.com
reuters.com
I just remember being so blown away that she assumed a stranger would be 100% on board with this tactic as to tell me about it unvarnished that I was stunned into silence.
I love dogs, but you're ruining everything for the people who actually need service animals.
I've never seen any animal in an aircraft cabin, and I fly a fair bit. How does it work even when it is completely legitimate? Do you just ask the animal politely not to go to the toilet for 12 hours or however long? What if they have an accident? How on earth do you clean that up and deal the smell in a cramped space?
It wasn't an excessively long flight (~5 hours), but still, not sure how they could ensure the dog wouldn't need to go to the bathroom in that time.
I'm mildly allergic... it was not a pleasant flight for me at all.
You have the dog do its business beforehand. Same way most dogs are able to stay indoors while its owner(s) are at work for the day.
Same here. It's not life threatening. But depending on the dog it can mean real misery for an extended time.
I usually have medications in my travel kit. But until a pill works it takes an hour and it can be too late.
I wouldn't complain about service animals. But scumbags, who are just too cheap to pay for proper transportation of their pet severely piss me off.
Thankfully it's not such a big issue in Europe.
Also some airports have animal relief areas on the airside.
As for very long flights, I imagine that a service dog can do its business in a small bag or box. Also, a well trained animal will pee or poop on command before a flight and can go for quite a while without peeing or pooping.
It could make sense to require accredited training programs for service animals. Poorly behaved “service” animals are a problem for those who need real service animals.
the ada explicitly doesn't allow any kind of request for documentation or certification either. basically you just have to take people at face value when you ask them if the animal is required because of a disability. and lots of people with ESAs are okay being very casual about that.
(and the reason i can figure out why people with ESAs are okay with bending the truth compared to a trained service animal, is because they tend to be the ones that are VERY upset in two situations that are legal: the one where i negotiate different accommodations because i'm very allergic to dog dander, and the one where they get upset that a misbehaving ESA is being asked to leave the premises. having been around dozens of trained service animals - i've never seen one misbehave the way ESAs can, and everyone is happy with my suggestions due to my allergy since i go above and beyond, rather than making things more difficult.)
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html
If someone does have some type of certification, I assume it’s they’re fraudulently claiming it’s a service animal.
Because they're afraid of lawsuits, or worse — being tarred and feathered on social media.
Yet another part of society that social media has made worse.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/03/lawless-world-of-service-dogs-...
Even the federal government gets ripped off
>The legislation appeared to be a victory for service-dog advocates, but the study almost immediately encountered problems. The V.A. initially partnered with vendors whose poorly trained animals introduced unexpected complications. ... “We relied upon the organizations themselves, all of which professed to be very experienced and to be able to produce high-quality dogs, and unfortunately that did not turn out to be true,” Fallon told lawmakers in a 2016 congressional hearing. “We were not familiar enough with the service-dog community when we embarked on the pilot study. There’s no question that we’ve made mistakes
0. Is this a dog or miniature horse? (only those animals are considered as potential service animals under ADA)
1. Is this a service dog within the definition of the ADA, i.e. has it been trained to perform a specific tasks to mitigate a disability? (cannot ask what the disability is)
2. What specific tasks is it trained to perform? (ex. seizure response, seeing eye, etc.)
However, there is no way for you to "check" if this is true. Service animals need not be trained by any approved company or carry any identification, and you cannot ask about this. The only way out is if someone admits to it not meeting the legal definition or gets caught in a lie while answering these questions.
If, after all that, the animal cannot be reasonably accommodated as it is not being housebroken, being vicious or harmful, damaging property, or making an unreasonable and excessive amount of noise, it can still get shown the door. Likewise, if allowing an animal is inappropriate under any circumstance for safety or regulatory reasons (ex. cleanroom, food service, nuclear exposure, hearing damage potential, etc), you need not allow it. The establishment owner is never responsible for feeding or looking after the dog or procuring one for the person with disabilities. You can expect that service animals be kept on lease unless brief exceptions are critical to job function.
I've done it with cats. They were required by the airline to have a health certificate from a vet stating that they were healthy enough to fly, to be kept in their container at all times, and I had to pay a fee. I think it was $200 last time.
The vet also supplies tranquilizers to give the animal just before the flight. That keeps it calm and helps prevent it from needing to use the litter box.
Coast-to-coast isn't a problem. 12 hours? Animals shouldn't fly intercontinental. There's simply no reason for it.
At one time you could mail a cat. I mailed one from Charleston to New York using Delta's package service. The fee was less because it went into the cargo hold, but it still needed documentation from the vet. I don't know if that's still allowed.
This kills pets all the time due to low temperature. Source: friend who used to work for the airlines.
As much of an annoyance as animals in the cabin are, the cargo hold is not conducive to supporting mammalian life.
People travel and move with their pets all the time. There are procedures for transporting them, including flying separately on cargo flights.
My dog never did his business on a flight (we never flew more than 6h and he was used to staying home way longer then that), but I had baggies ready to go.
i can’t look at dogs on plane the same way after that. must have been terrifying for the dog, and disgusting for the people.
ps - i’ve seen a toddler with poop riding up his back on a plane, too. mom had her hands full with three kids! ive been an obsessed loving dog owner myself, but i don’t like how people try to compare dogs to babies and toddlers. i think it’s demeaning to the “small person”.
And no. The animal goes to the toilet as it normally would
It's disgusting and makes me uncomfortable whenever I'm at an establishment with them that usually doesn't allow pets.
It doesn't matter if you're on board with this tactic or not. What are you going to do? Tell the flight attendant? Will they believe you, or her? Do you think they will want to adjudicate a 'he said she said', when the consequences of adjudicating wrongly might be 'we harassed a person who has a legitimate service animal'? [1]
Are they going to throw the person in question off the plane, with a parachute? Ban them from flying with that airline? Sue them for tricking the airline?
Will taking any of these actions make the flight attendant's life easier?
The person who told you probably expected there to not be any consequences, even if you rat them out, and they are probably correct.
[1] The ADA loves these kinds of situations. I would be shocked if airlines didn't train their staff to uncritically accept claims that a dog is a service animal. The cost of accepting a dog on board are low. The cost of telling a person with a disability to go pound sand can be a six-figure lawsuit.
These days, traveling with an ESA is much harder. You need to actually submit a form signed by your doctor / psychologist / therapist to the airlines 48 hours prior to departure to register the animal on the flight.
I did it on Delta, Northwest (now also Delta), and United.
Which airlines are giving you problems?
1. It's too cold to transport the cat to cargo.
2. My flight gets rerouted, but in a way that's different from my cat's flight.
3. The health certificate must be the salmon copy, not the canary copy.
4. Here is the regulation that I found that says in the state I'm coming from, it's the canary copy that gets given to the airline. What do you mean I have to get a second health certificate from a vet in this state? I've flown multiple times and I've never had to go through this before.
5. Here is your goddamned salmon copy of the health certificate. What do you mean the letter of acclimation expired? Last week he could withstand temperatures of 35 degrees for brief periods of time, but all of a sudden this week he can't?
6. The letter of acclimation is missing, or incorrect, or I forgot it and the vet says she'll fax a new one to the office, but then half an hour later it still isn't there and I missed the flight cutoff.
7. A change in flights means the health certificate is no longer valid and I have to get another one.
8. Cargo is closed at that time. Their system shouldn't have even let me book that flight. Nobody is sure how this even possible.
Mostly it's just the first one, but this means sometimes I have to repeatedly cancel and rebook my flight which is expensive and annoying.
It might not be that she was so bold as to admit her wrongdoing, but that she simply doesn't possess whatever it is that causes someone to actively analyze and predict the world around them.
I was seated next to a person with a small furry dog, who proceeded to tell me how hypoallergenic (marketing thing - no such thing) it was as I proceeded to sneeze and leek the entire flight :<
You're lucky if you get any snacks though these days.
Edit: Can confirm, no more peanuts on Southwest either: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/09/southwest-airlines-is-gettin...
Or the snacks are pointless. On a recent delta flight they handed out baby carrots from a bag.
Air isn't recycled in to this system because the cabin pressure is too low, but air already inside the cabin is circulated around to avoid it stagnating.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34708785/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/a...
I saw a dog with one of those fake "Emotional support animal" vests on take a dump in the frozen food aisle of the supermarket. When it was done, the owner just kept on walking.
People who use animals as fashion accessories and to draw attention to themselves should be punished.
Sadly, the Starbucks near me not only allows pets in, it has a corkboard where people are encouraged to post photos of their animals in the store.
I also have completely had it with the large numbers of people I see at a nearby supermarket who walk their dogs, meet other dogs, treat the store as a dog park, and even let their dogs ride in the shopping carts with the food. It needs to stop. Have talked to the store manager who is sympathetic but says that all these people have certificates claiming the animal is a service animal and they are thus legally required to allow the animals in.
> Spirit Airlines Inc told regulators it lost “millions of dollars in pet carriage fees from passengers fraudulently claiming their ‘house pets are service or support animals.’”
They just want the pet fee to let an animal in a carrier replace the normal underseat luggage.
I'm not sure what the fee is for Spirit Airlines, but for United Airlines it is $125 each direction.
I have two issues with the fee.
1) It only covers one way. For a round trip itinerary you are looking at $250 - $400 for the pet fee. That can be more expensive than the actual ticket.
2) Your pet counts as your carry on item. I would be a little less bothered if the dog was allowed in addition to your carry on and personal items or if the airline included a free checked bag with the fee to offset the carry on. Since the dog counts as your carry on, you have to pay an additional $25+ each way to check a bag you might've otherwise carried on the plane.
I’ll rarely see a real service dog that’s actually trained and wearing a real vest. Most are fake ESAs (fake in the sense that there’s no real regulation or standard and it’s just to give the appearance of being official or service dog like so people are afraid to deny the pet).
I think this is unethical and makes it harder for people with real service dogs, but I find a lot of dog owners get angry when I’ve mentioned this and blame the airlines for making it hard to fly with pets.
There is also no registry for service animals, but there are companies that train those animals and they can be queried about training and legitimacy.
Next time someone says they have a service animal, ask them what service it performs. If they don’t have a ready response, they’re full of it. And if their animal isn’t well behaved, they’re also full of it.
My dog is a retired service animal. She performed seizure alert and response. She could (and probably still can) save a life. If she was on your flight you’d only know if you happened to see her. And frankly the other passengers would be more of a problem for her than she would be to anyone.
ESAs and liars create a lot of problems for legitimate service animals. I won’t point out any specific posts but there’s an incredible amount of ignorance in these threads and I’d bet it’s all due to negative experiences with people who don’t have service animals.
Service animals save lives. The people who need them really need them. Lying about a service animal is like lying about needing a wheelchair. Complaining about them is like complaining about a wheelchair blocking the aisle.
These animals are no joke. They’re extremely heavily trained. Many animals don’t make it through these programs. Some of them are worth more than your car.
And all because of an asshole who's too cheap to cough up 100$ for the proper transportation of his "support" animal.
It wouldn't be nearly as irritating that they charge for it if there were something they were actually providing (like a more pet-friendly place to ride), but they don't.
It's not. Dogs have to travel in their kennel under the seat, which is significantly more stressful for small dogs than on your lap, speaking as someone who travels with an actual ESA
You're missing the point of it being an emotional support animal-- the go-to response is usually something related to mental health that cannot be validated or disproven by the questioner.
For me it is hardly surprising that people who love their dogs or cats (and essentially treat them as family members) would go the extra mile to take them in the cabin, to ensure their physical and emotional safety. The alternative is to treat them as a disposable piece of luggage (which IMHO is inhumane and cruel for a life companion, human or not).
So I would not be comfortable on a plane with any dog that wasn't in a cage, or at least muzzled.
People have been flying with animals in the cabin for decades. I've done it three times with cats since the 1990's.
The difference is that back then, it was to transport the animal from one side of the country to the other safely, so the animal stayed in its container under the seat.
Today, attention whores treat other living creatures like they're fashion accessories, and let them run around the cabin and sit in the seats and do whatever they want, as long as it gets them the attention they crave.
Many, if not most, of these folk just have larger dogs that don't qualify for under-seat.
I drove my golden retriever across the country on three occasions (~130 hours of driving all told?). I wish there were a reasonable and ethical flight option, but I would never trust an animal to cargo.
I love my dog but no way will I take him on an airplane in any manner. So we board him when we go on vacation.
Those pet transportation services are for large animals like horses, and for exotics. The costs are prohibitive for regular pets (i.e. not your million-dollar tiger.)
Source: I lived there and have friends whose pets had to go through quarantine. You can either do the quarantine on the mainland before travel, or in Hawaii after travel.
Hire a dog sitter, maybe? Or as another commenter mentions, if you care that much, pay for a seat for your non-service dog. Something many airlines still let you do, you just have to pay for it.
This is inconsiderate. Would you write "hire a babysitter, maybe?"?
Extra fee for an in-cabin (non-service) animal is perfectly understandable. I haven't seen that option, though.
Lest we forget, in this 21st century nonsense, dogs are not actual children.
I'd love if people hired babysitters (or left children with family) instead of taking their SCREAMING children on airplanes, sure.
Unfortunately, most do not. And then they just go "oh, she's friendly, don't worry", when their dog jumps up into some 3-year-old's face and scares the crap out of them...
We leave them with friends, in boarding kennels and catteries.
Having your pet with you 24/7 is —for most people— an unnecessary kink, an expression that we've got too used to getting our own way.
It's not healthy. Get a grip.
People might have legitimate reasons on why they need to move their pets.
Airlines could do so much better with price discrimination than they do. Back three rows are dog rows, one dog per row. Pay double for the ticket. First airline to do it will make a killing. Have a behavior and temperament verification course if you like. Make the little guys wear a Hannibal lector mask if they’re big enough to be dangerous. The current system minimizes revenue, convenience for dog owners, and doesn’t preserve convenience for non-dog owners. It’s mind boggling.
Already it's normalized. No one is protesting in the streets about a cat aboard a plane.
Screeching infant, however? I'd vote to kennel.
Babies are humans and I think most people would agree they should be given preferential treatment over pets as such.
I know a woman who flew with her dog as an emotional support animal to assist with her anxiety. Her day job was as an air stewardess.
The attitude is, if they don't stop you, it's not my fault I can exploit the system. You see it everywhere in America. Less so in Europe.
Some examples of ridiculous behaviour by the owners:
https://youtu.be/qJpREAfeluo @17min
https://youtu.be/GtPRrW3strM - yes. It's a horse
What you won't see on these videos is when the dog or pig needs to crap and piss. Which it will
And what of the people who need them?
Id argue they perhaps don't need them and the whole thing is a farce
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2018/01/31/emotio...
The last time I saw a "service dog" on a plane, it looked like it weighed about as much as its owner. As soon as the plane door opened after landing, the dog lunged toward the door, banging back and forth in the aisle. The owner could barely hold it back, and they weren't giving any commands to the dog. The flight attendant made a snarky comment, "What a wonderfully trained service animal!" I'm sure they know exactly how a genuine service animal behaves, and they are probably completely fed up with the widespread abuse of the service animal exemption.
I didn't even think pets could be "upgraded" to service dogs, I figured they all came from licensed training camps.
While there's lots of abuse by people bringing obviously untrained and unqualified animals on a flight, there is just as much abuse by people who take well trained dogs on flights and simply don't want to subject them to cargo transport -- the abuse is just much less noticed for obvious reasons.
Personally, I would prefer to simply adjust the system so that any sufficiently capable dog can travel in the cabin for a fee, which would of course be waived for people with disabilities.
https://www.akc.org/products-services/training-programs/cani...
It's a pretty low bar for any dog that doesn't have major behavioral issues; I'd expect any dog with a non-dumbass owner and a good home from birth to be able to pass. Even many hard-core rescues could probably pass after a few years in a stable home.
A variant of this test for airline travel would probably not be too hard to design.
One of the problems with making any particular test mandatory is that the test operator can price gouge and then genuine service dogs will become even more expensive. So, such a rule would have to be paired with price controls on the test.
Part of the problem is pet owners overestimating their pets abilities.
I usually fly JetBlue, and they allow small dogs in the cabin, in a carrier. Never had an issue.
The amount of "emotional support animals" at the local university is pretty ridiculous as well. I'm pretty sure students just lie so they can have a dog while they live in dorms.
Many cities in Germany require a test before letting you to keep the dog in the city at all. Very well behaved dogs on the streets, even without leashes
1. Fine owners of disruptive animals. 2. Tranquilizers aboard the plane.
Edit:
After some digging, apparently the Aviation Carrier Access Act[1] does not use the ADA definition for service animals, but instead uses its own definition, which is more expansive [2].
___
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Carrier_Access_Act
2. https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
> Service animals are defined as dogs and miniature horses that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. [0]
The headline refers to service animals, but the article refers to barring emotional support animals and removing mini-horses as service animals that can fly:
> The U.S. Transportation Department on Wednesday proposed giving airlines the power to bar emotional support animals from cabins and limit the definition of a service animal to a trained dog.
Man those things are cute! No idea how you’d travel with one in a cattle class US economy seat though.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/29332/us-dept-of-transportatio...
There's more in this NYT article about miniature horses being used as service animals (including photos): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/travel/mini-horse-service...
"For some blind people [...] guide horses serve as a compelling alternative to guide dogs. The animals are mild-mannered and fast learners, with nearly 360-degree vision. They may also offer balance support to individuals with physical disabilities."
Also, dogs only live for 8-10 years, while miniature horses live for 35-40 years.
They can easily fit in the back seat of a hatchback.
One also needs to be able to pasture it. It doesn't take a ton of land, but a guide dog can live in an urban apartment and a horse can't, at least not without being miserable.
Emotional support animals can have a much broader definition because what someone derives emotional support from can vary widely. No one would argue that a turtle is likely to help someone walk down the street. However, emotional attachments could make a turtle emotionally supportive. This is why emotional support animals are such a nebulous category.
Some people will argue for registration or notes from doctors. However, that really just means that people with means get what they want (whether they need it or not) while other patients might go lacking. For example, medical marijuana was a way for friends of mine to go to a doctor they knew would prescribe it, pay a little money, and get access to it. A registration system that relied on such a sign-off might similarly be a very small hoop to jump through. Plus, what happens when someone arrives with a fake registration? This isn't even a judgement on that person in particular. Unscrupulous people will create registries that are fake and get people to pay fees and provide them with a print out.
This is something that's really hard to get right. Let's say that 99% of people are good people. If you're on a 300 seat plane, the likelihood of at least one crappy person is decent.
I think this goes deeper into what we do about the small minority of people who think that anything they do to get what they want is ok. What do we do about the person who thinks, "I'm just running into the store for 5 minutes, I can park in the bike lane"? In that case, it's easy because there isn't a legitimate reason for that behavior. But when there are legitimate reasons, it becomes a lot more difficult. What do we do about the person who thinks, "I won't have to pay to fly my pet if I claim they're treating a psychological issue"?
In that case, there's no great answer. Barriers can also harm people who need the animals. Given what I've seen with medical pot, I'm not sure that it would provide a large barrier for people with a little money/privilege.
I personally find it angering when people abuse systems set up to help people. I really dislike flying with animals on a plane. At the same time, I'm not sure I could support this rule change. Emotional support isn't the same as physical assistance. It doesn't require the same training or animal types. Maybe we're going to start saying (as a society) that if you need emotional support, you'd better get it from one of the few sanctioned animal types. I think the biggest issue is requiring the same training as physical assistant animals. Service animal training costs a lot of money and that's going to put a large burden on people that might not have that kind of money.
What do we do in situations where a small number of people abuse something meant to improve people's lives when there's no great way of discerning who is legitimate in their need and who is abusing it?
I took an international flight a few months ago and overheard the flight attendant talking to a passenger and mocking how lenient our service dog rules are.
Everyone is willing to abuse the system to an extent for personal gain (some more than others). Many systems provide special exceptions for emotional needs. It's a social taboo to question someone's assessment of their own emotional needs. Naturally, this means many people fake or exaggerate their emotional needs to get what they want.
This isn't a new phenominon. The increased awareness of emotional health issues just means we keep seeing more systems implementing those exceptions.
Hardening systems against exploitation is difficult and at some point not cost effective.
I'm surprised about the above:
>It's a social taboo to question someone's assessment of their own emotional needs.
When common sense gave way to such a taboo about everybody's touchy "feelings", however far-fetched they are?
Regardless, we do not have the means to accurately disagnose someone else's mental health without relying on their own assessment. We know mental health problems are real, but anyone can get themselves diagnosed with almost any mental issue if they're a convincing liar. What can we realistically do about it?
ESA abuse definitely makes it harder for people with real issues and real ESAs. And while I understand the issues it causes when people abuse the system, like most "public outcries" over abuses, I worry that we're going to overcorrect on this one.
I have gone on most major airlines websites, blogs, etc. and there is really no good source of information out there! In fact most US -> Europe airlines won’t even allow an animal in the cargo hold during summer months due to the heat. Okay, fine.
So let’s bring him in the cabin. Is he under 15lbs? Nope, you cannot bring it with you. Instead we are currently exploring this very loophole because there is simply no other alternative. When you cross oceans there is really no way get your animal there without the help of other people. I guess the reason a solution doesn’t exist is because it’s somewhat a niche problem, and airlines are focused on volume.
Any and all suggestions are welcomed. If you have a large dog that has flown internationally, please email me.
You would never be allowed to take a non-service dog to New Zealand, any (non-service dog) Animial going to NZ is put in quarantine for 1 month on arrival
I am not concerned with the terribleness of some Pomeranian owner, because a Pomeranian can do me no real damage.
In general, I am not concerned with people bending the rules for their non-shedding lap dog. What does concern me are dogs that can A. shed or B. easily kill a human being in a confined space.
Dogs are not humans, so we do not need to ensure equal treatment by pet-related policies.
I had a close friend who obviously had various mental health problems -- probably PTSD from a brutal childhood, major social anxiety -- but no diagnoses. I mean, I'm not a doctor, so feel free to take that with a grain of salt, but he quite clearly had issues, and limited means to go see one. Anyway, he regularly used cannabis. Although he probably would describe his use of cannabis as recreational, I think for him, and for a lot of people who use it with undiagnosed health problems, cannabis "feels good" because it's actually therapeutic.
I think something similar can be said for pets and animals in general. Some people have disabilities that prevent them from living their lives to the fullest. Some people have pretty severe anxiety around travel. And some people in those categories don't even have diagnoses. All they know is their animals provide comfort.
Sure, if you're someone with autism, bad social anxiety, or PTSD, it's known that there can be a lot of safety inherent to a relationship with a creature who won't judge you cruelly for being who you are. But on the less extreme side, some people are dealing with anxiety or depression driven by grief, shitty jobs, financial insecurity, or other issues, and having a loved pet close to you -- especially when you're traveling, which sucks for a lot of people -- can make an enormous difference.
One thing that I see missing from discussion here is that airlines and businesses in general have a financial stake in limiting what's required of them with regard to accessibility, and historically they've fought and continue to fight tooth and nail to reduce such requirements, and even when they lose, their actual implementation is often minimal and piss-poor. So I don't think their "wins" are to be celebrated
Further, I'd argue that the headline itself is sensationalized: turkeys and possums on planes are red herrings, as are the anecdotes in the comments around "so-and-so said they got their dog registered just so he could fly with her". Why did she want him to fly with her then? Sure, a passenger with a turkey or a possum might cost the airlines more money -- but to what extent is the average consumer even impacted by someone bringing a possum on the plane?
Finally, to the folks who suddenly care about animal welfare when we're talking about folks with mental health related disabilities, you don't always have to fly with animals in cargo. A number of airlines allow animals to fly in the cabin with you, with certain restrictions.
I've never had one of my dogs "certified as a support animal" or any other official recognition beyond a rabies tag; but I've had a member of the pack who was "truck dog" and could go somewhere with me at need since forever. For all the reasons you mention, people who benefit from their animals presence are often worth tolerating, if not welcoming.
One of my standards is that a service animal should be at least as polite and pleasant company as the person its assisting. I've never met a (formally designated or not) "familiar" that wasn't.
There are however, folks who will do things like drag a terrified baby goat with them through walmart, because they just picked it up and they can say "service animal" ... I personally would like to do awful things to these folks, but thats why i have a truck dog with me, to remind me such things are impolite.
ESA classification is being used by pet owners to avoid paying for transporting their pets.
Putting aside my instinct that this proposal is just too ridiculous to contemplate, has anyone considered the safety implications of a 70-180 kg strong-legged hoofed animal flying around the cabin in turbulence? Or running around after a crash?
https://www.thedrive.com/news/29332/us-dept-of-transportatio...
In this context though, maybe it needs it's own seat.
Also the big one: miniature horses live significantly longer than dogs, reducing the number of times an owner has to re-pair and form a new relationship with a new service animal.
The last time I was checking in at special services (due to the dog), the employee told me she registered her dog as an emotional support animal to bypass the fee. This was the airline employee giving this advice. At that point it was clear this was just a big joke. From what I understand now you need to have a doctor's note from a mental health professional and a bunch of other paperwork in order to bring your emotional support dog without a fee/carrier. I figured that would stop a lot of tom foolery, I guess not.
EDIT: They told me that 99% of the time they say no to the latter request and will only give a work excuse if that person is genuinely sick. They also told me that they work with plenty of providers who just don't care and hand out the work excuses and emotional support certifications upon request.
This chick used to come when called, jumped on my dad's lap on command, made "special" sounds for my father only and (it lived with the other chickens) for some reasons was always the first one to come out the henhouse in the morning and the last one to get into it in the evening.
So - bar defining it an ESA for not paying something - that particular chicken actually was companion to my dad.
This shit has to stop.
It was a good idea, but once again people ruin a good thing.
There’s no question though that this issue of pets masquerading as service animals has become a big problem. Makes sense that places are starting to crack down.
Other, self-declared "emotional support animals" are banned.
> "The U.S. Transportation Department on Wednesday proposed giving airlines the power to bar emotional support animals from cabins and limit the definition of a service animal to a trained dog."
It’s $350 to take my small dog to LA for the weekend when the round trip ticket for a human is $100. She is great on planes and has never had even a minor incident.
No, because people have been flying with pets for as long as there have been planes. The difference now is people are abusing the system.
Playing devil's advocate, if the market determines prices then isn't settling on a price to be expected across practically indistinguishable providers of the same exact service?
I was in an elevator, and some guy brought his dog to work, or something. I was surprised that I might have flinched, said WTF, and the dog flinched, and growled. At that moment I thought the dog was going to attack me, or the others in the small elevator cabin. And this was a medium to large sized dog, that was also beyond the owner’s ability to easily control.
And I see more often now, people walking their bulldogs, as if they are nice and friendly pets. They are not. They are vicious attack animals.
These dogs are not professionally trained. There is no certification that can guarantee that the dogs are safe to the public. And the owners are typically incompetent and irresponsible morons that shouldn’t have a dog to begin with.
And there are those idiots that brings their large dogs into department stores, and walks them around as if it’s perfectly ok. It’s absolutely abnormal to be shopping at a Target, and to have to avoid some idiot’s large dog.
It’s also irritating to walk through a store like Nordstrom Rack, where people bring their small dogs into the store, and let them sit inside the cart. There’s nothing worse than placing your new clothes into a shopping cart soiled by a dog’s urine or poop. But I digress, Nordstrom Rack must have a policy to allow these people that privilege to bring in their small dogs. I try to avoid the place if I can, because of this. I’ll vote with my wallet.
I’m all for letting people have service animals, if they are blind, or physically handicapped. At least those service animals are professionally trained (or at least I hope there is a valid certification for that).
But for all others with their supposedly “emotional support animals”, then they are just abusing the system, and taking advantage of the good graces of others. It is only a matter of time before one of these dogs violently acts out and attacks someone or a child in public.
What will it take to outlaw this? Do we have to wait until one of these dogs kills a child in order to ban them?
I doubt even that will be enough. I share a lot of your fears. It hasn't happened yet, but one day someone is going to lose track/control of their pit bull here in California where even small women can take them on walks and it will attack me while I'm walking/running home. So I have to make sure to walk on busy streets so if I do get attacked, I at least have someone who can help. There was one time I was walking somewhere and two different pet owners crossed paths and their dogs started barking and aggressing each other, one of the owners even fell but on the bright side he didn't lose grasp of the leash and the girl with the big ass dog was able to keep her dog under control. Another time recently, I was going home with my sister and we walked past a house where some dog owners lost control of their dog which started running for us, but luckily it was friendly and wasn't out for blood. Small cute breed. But what about when it isn't? It's fucked.
I never once used it for anything but flying, because things like bringing your dog to the groceries or the movies or a restaurant is just unnecessary. If you find yourself splitting your time between two cities that are >1 day drive apart, you have only a few choices: 1 - Don't have a dog over 18lbs 2 - Leave dog half the time 3 - Risk dog's life and guarantee a Very Bad Time under the plane 4 - Get ESA certificate
I think airlines are leaving money on the table and should just have a relatively expensive travel-certification obedience course and charge a boatload for it. I'd happily pay $500 per year to have my dog authorized to fly in the cabin without an ESA (which incidentally cost less than half that).
To pre-address the typical objections (and to steal from my own HN comment almost 3 years ago):
"People are allergic!" For $100 a tiny shedding dog can ride in a very-not-dander-proof container. My dog is non-shedding.
"They can be noisy!" So can your toddler. So can above tiny dog. Mine isn't.
"It's like parking in a handicap spot!" No silly, my dog takes up my foot space, no one else's
"The airline is losing money!" My dog & I weigh less combined than plenty of people who pay the same fare. I've also offered to buy a seat for my dog and leave her in a large crate on the seat. Not an option.
"The guy next to you doesn't want a dog around!" See answer 1. Also, 90% of people are happy to be distracted from the horror of flying. Anyone who isn't can easily trade seats, since most people are happy to sit by the pup.
Love this idea.
Alas my design chops are shit and I'm a bit over-committed on projects as it is.
The way the system is set up is very stupid. It does in fact allow untrained, large, dangerous, poop-on-the-plane dogs onto planes with an online BS certificate. That doesn't mean that anyone who uses an online cert is putting people at risk on getting eaten by a Rhodesian Ridgeback. It is in fact possible to just train your dog properly...