Ridiculous right? The way I understand the argument so far is:
Pets should be allowed on planes and everyone else must deal with that.
Pets should not be allowed so pet owners must deal with that.
Neither option sounds reasonable to me.
Really it looks to me like there is a market for safe and reliable pet air transport. Why have carriers not addressed this?
In fact, some animals are not allowed to be kept as pets at all. I'm fine with extending that to all types of animals. Dogs are out there spreading covid right now but I can't go to the gym. That makes so much sense.
I don't understand the pet owners' sense of entitlement.
Where is this data? [1] says "Currently, there is no evidence that animals play a significant role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people"
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...
> I don't understand the pet owners' sense of entitlement.
I don't know if this is directed at me? I don't have a pet. I'm just advocating for pet owners here.
And if you can't understand how shortsighted your view of "anything that inconveniences me is bad" then nothing I can write will change your mind.
I didn't say these words, nor imply them. I find it befuddling how you act as if non-owners of pets are the selfish ones. Let's replace "dogs" with "cigarettes". After all, smokers like nicotine as much or more than dog owners like dogs. Am I also selfish if I don't wish to endure sitting next to a smoker on a flight?
Lots of things inconvenience me but are inescapable or benefit society at large. Dogs are neither of these things, and the burden of owning them should not be externalized to those who derive no benefit from them.
As long as all flights are forced to accept service animals without verification for free, it's not a viable business to have flights exclusively for pets.