Edit: Removed comment, sparked unconstructive discussion.
I'm in that category as well, but that by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience.
The decision wasn't for my personal convenience. It's much more convenient to throw an animal in the cargo hold. It really is not fun to deal with an animal with you on a crowded plane. Convenience is not the motivating factor at least for me... it's simply treating the animal humanely, which to me means avoiding throwing them in the cargo hold for long haul flights.
Also, I'm perplexed by people's use of the word "humane" when it comes to pets. If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human.
This is quite reductive considering that most pets are animals that have been domesticated by humans for hundreds and thousands of years.
In many cases we've bred them towards certain tasks and behavioral patterns, in the process we also bred out of them traits they often would need to survive in nature.
When humans did that then humans took on a responsibility, you can't just handwave that away with "these are animals, they are unworthy of any consideration".
> I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human.
It's preposterous to claim humans are not animals to justify inhumane treatment of other living, and in many cases highly emphatic, beings.
And not to get me wrong here: I'm not some kind of hardcore vegan who thinks all animal products should be banned. I'm merely recognizing that as the dominant species on this planet we have certain obligations towards the rest of it's inhabitants and particularly those we've utilized to get us where we are today.
I'm pretty sure my drunken parents' methods of pet care were not in fact humane or in any way to the benefit of the pets who were killed by it.
I'd be damned if I put him in a crate at the bottom of an airplane for 10-hours straight.
When I worked jobs as a janitor, and as a retail worker, I have at various times had clean up the shit, piss vomit, and any number of other bodily expulsions produced by 'emotional support' animals, invariably left untouched and without comment by their owners, or argued with people whose pets growl and bark at everyone if they aren't muzzled. I can't imagine being a flight attendant trying to manage that with a potentially belligerent owner for 10 hours on a plane.
No matter how well-behaved your animal is next time, if you aren't traveling over the ocean, please just drive, so you aren't putting the burden of your pet's presence of everyone else.
No, it does not. This is how I view those who abuse this loophole. Find another way to travel that doesn't impact everyone else in the aluminum tube traveling 550mph.
They are operating a scam. This was the only way around it.
I could understand if airlines kept a blacklist for people who have animals out of control, but they don't even do that right now with their absurd overcharging. I could also understand putting down a refundable deposit and a $20-40 charge(though you can bring much heavier carry-ons for free).
The airlines' practices are indefensible. They are wildly overcharging and it is clearly a scam.
It is sad they are closing this loophole that allowed people to end run the scammers.
Eg:"Not all animals are 10lbs, not all animals fit under a chair, not all airlines charge $250, not all flights are the same distance, it's not just a carry-on (disingenuous) not all flights make money (so how can you claim it's a scam when they lose money)
Etcetera. It's just a tedious and lopsided way to argue.
> The current policy amounts to a price restriction which requires that airlines forgo a potential revenue source, as airlines are currently prohibited from charging a pet fee for transporting emotional support animals
> Removing the current requirement that carriers must transport emotional support animals free of charge will allow market forces (i.e., carriers as producers and passengers as consumers) to set the price for air transportation of emotional support animals as pets. This provision will allow carriers to charge passengers traveling with emotional support animals (dogs and other accepted species on board of an aircraft) with pet transportation fees. This represents a transfer of surplus from passengers to airlines, and does not have implications for the net benefits calculation of the final rule."
[1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/S...
I think it is reasonable to charge more for larger animals. If your dog takes up a seat then a ticket price is a fair price.
If you have a well behaved animal it is basically just a carry-on.
If some flights aren't profitable that doesn't justify price gouging people with animals that weigh nothing and use up no jet fuel. Increase ticket prices and baggage prices. That actually makes sense.
What was wrong with this alternative (other than being inconvenient for you)?