Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by stared | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

stared

> Hire a dog sitter, maybe?

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.

View on HN

>This is inconsiderate. Would you write "hire a babysitter, maybe?"?

Lest we forget, in this 21st century nonsense, dogs are not actual children.

Personally, I'd go for the whimpering dog sitting behind me over the screeching infant for the whole flight.

>This is inconsiderate. Would you write "hire a babysitter, maybe?"?

I'd love if people hired babysitters (or left children with family) instead of taking their SCREAMING children on airplanes, sure.

Last time I did it (and it will be the last time...), it was $200 for the dog to go in a soft pet carrier under the seat and you could only check in at customer service so better be there an hour earlier than normal. I don't think our tickets were even that much. I can totally empathize with someone bringing a fake ESA in the cabin for financial/convenience sake.

Yea, what services is the airline providing in exchange for that extra fee? That’s what I never understood. They charge $100-300 for cargo that has to stay under the seat in an enclosed carrier the whole time. I could understand an extra deposit, that is only lost if the pet causes actual damage to the airline, but otherwise if all goes smoothly (as is probably the case 99% of the time), it should be free. People are understandably recognizing that airlines are just bilking pet owners as much as possible, just because they can.

Or, just maybe, the added customer support requirements for dealing with customers with pets in the cabin actually costs the airlines tens of millions of dollars per year, and your idealized version of the perfect pet voyage which doesn’t negatively impact any airline operation or fellow customer experience is not taking into account the total possible impact.

Maybe the fee is not intended to recoup actual cost but act as a deterrent. Of course, if you charge high fees while blindly accepting "emotional support animals" to mean something other than pet, people find easy ways around it, so it doesn't really work that well.

It's paying for the 1% of the time (likely much higher) that things don't go smoothly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com