Hacker News Reader

Comment by avalys | Hacker News Reader

I have heard horror stories of people collecting their pets after being transported in the cargo hold of a commercial airliner, and discovering that they've gone deaf, probably because they were left out on the ramp for too long near a running jet engine by some careless worker.

I have a 50-pound dog and am just resigned to taking a road trip with him or leaving him with friends when I have to travel.

I wish at least one commercial airline would adopt a "pet-friendly" policy and just allow people to purchase an extra seat for their dog. My dog would be happy to take the middle seat between me and my girlfriend, would stay out of the way of others, and I'd pay a significant amount of money if this were an option.

View on HN

Some people are allergic. Some people have phobias. Some people would simply prefer not to be near an animal that may drool, shed, bark or otherwise act unpredictably when stressed on a flight.

None of that is unreasonable. I have nothing against dogs and dog owners but too many owners these days seem oblivious to the fact that many other people would prefer not to be forced to share space with animals.

If we're being honest, many people would prefer not to be forced to share space with other humans, either

Yeah, and it's easier for me to deal with that as a result: I can pay extra and get a first class ticket to get (depending on the plane) either some more space or A LOT more space to myself.

Would be nice if airlines would make it just as easy to buy some more space for my pet. Pay more to buy the row out, pay more to get on a limited selection of "pet friendly" flights, probably other ideas could work too...

pet friendly flights seems like the best bet here... I was sort of assuming this was a pet friendly airline, not just a plane that you can put your pet on.

> Yeah, and it's easier for me to deal with that as a result: I can pay extra and get a first class ticket to get (depending on the plane) either some more space or A LOT more space to myself.

I see people bring crying babies into first class all the time. I would dispute that most people really have an option to avoid "nuisance" contact with other people. (Not an option for me either way, I have never had a first class seat.)

Humans are not as unpredictable as most pets.

This is untrue of babies and small children, which are more common on flights than pets.

Hell, it's honestly untrue of entirely too many adult humans these days, too. Humans have just become plain unpredictable in general (unless you predict "crazy"). :(

Heh, the last flight to florida i was on someone had urinated on the seat.

if only.

You’re not forced to go on an airplane. If you don’t want to be around other humans, stay home.

The comfort of other humans is more important than anyone’s selfish desire to drag their pet to each and every place they happen to go.

I think a similar argument could be applied to babies on planes

Babies are people. Dogs are not. We prioritize people over dogs. It’s really not that complicated.

Right, but if you just replace "pet" with "baby" in your comment, the argument is still relevant. I'm not saying either way is wrong, but I don't think you can immediately conclude that it's fair to bring a baby on a plane that disturbs the 30+ people in immediate proximity while obviously unfair to bring a small pet on board

It's not still relevant because a baby and a dog are not equivalent. A baby has rights a dog doesn't. A baby might disturb people, so might an adult, but both are humans and you have to take the risk of being disturbed by humans because society is made of humans. Society is not made of or for dogs. Dogs are optional.

The OP was not talking about small pets, which are already allowed. They're talking about buying a separate seat for a large dog. It is utterly insane to expect anyone to spend a cross-country flight with an 80lb Labrador next to them slobbering all over them.

Fair points! That said, I think I'd personally pay a small premium to sit next to someone's (well behaved) dog lol

There should be a known seating area on every plane for pets and babies. Other passengers can select their seats as appropriate.

> Some people would simply prefer not to sit next to an animal that may drool, shed, bark or otherwise act unpredictably when stressed on a flight.

Can we at least apply this same standard to the other human passengers on a flight then?

There's an easy solution to this: pet-friendly and pet-unfriendly airlines. The prices shouldn't be much different, because there are benefits to both being allowed to bring your pet and not being around pets, and in most cases the experience is nearly the same. If they are, the pet-friendly airline would be the more expensive one.

And then everyone claims their animal is a service animal so they do not have to pay extra to go on the pet friendly airline per ADA, and we are back to square one.

edit: sorry, I meant claiming their dog is a service animal, not any animal

That’s not how that works. You don’t just “declare” they’re a service animal and all is well. In fact, even real service animals often have issues in spite of the laws supposedly ensuring their access.

Sorry, I meant claiming any dog is a service animal.

Per this website:

https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...

And this one:

https://beta.ada.gov/topics/service-animals/

It seems like there is nothing stopping someone from claiming their dog is a service animal.

The DOT website says airlines can ask service animal owners to fill out a couple self attestation forms, and while that puts a little bit of skin in the game for the service animal owner, it does not seem easy to prove fraud.

>You don’t just “declare” they’re a service animal and all is well.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-airlines-changes-policy-...

the peacock didn't get to fly, but before they changed their policy it was $125 for a pet or $0 for a comfort animal, and they hadn't been checking if the animal was vaccinated, obedient, or that there was any medical reason for the person to have the animal (so it seems like you could just declare your pet to be a comfort animal and save $125)

That’s exactly how it works. People do just in fact declare their animals to be “service”, and because of how disability accommodation laws work, you cannot do anything about it.

Come out to LA and you'll see "emotional support" dogs/animals that are definitely not trained pooping all over and eating produce in the grocery stores. All it takes is a 100$ and signing a paper and they get the little slip and vest.

No one is making their animal a service animal to save money. They're doing it to avoid putting their animal under the plane. The "saving money by making your dog an ESA or service animal" was just airline propaganda.

People do it at hotels everyday. All you have to do is say your dog is a service animal and make up a task that it does for you.

Getting the service animal status is quite difficult. There used to be a category “support animal” but that has been pretty much scrapped.

I think there could be negative feedback loop here.

If there’s enough demand to justify the change, then it’s going to turn into a barn yard atmosphere when you’re the only airline that does this and every flight has 20 untrained dogs on board.

If there’s not that much demand, then what do you have to gain by risking the loss of profitable business fliers for some occasional pet flyers?

People want to take their pets with them, but will they foot the bill for that cabin space and put up with everyone else’s pet, and do it in large enough numbers to fill planes?

Surely, these people would still have the option not to book a flight with PetFriendlyAirways.

They could offer just a few "pet flights", with different livery, and interiors for easier cleaning, and a premium on the tickets for the pet owner and pet seats -- then also a discount for the excess no-pet travelers who explicitly opt into filling out a pet flight.

It might be a terrible idea, but I've both heard and had worse!

I doubt there is enough demand for them to invest the hundreds of millions per aircraft to provide this service. In addition, each of the routes they would be able to provide would remove gates for other, more profitable flights. Another factor would be turnaround, i.e. cleaning and resetting a ‘pet-friendly’ flight would probably take longer then a regular flight, increasing the at-gate time and thus reducing the number of flights that could use that gate.

> I doubt there is enough demand for them to invest the hundreds of millions per aircraft to provide this service.

Hooters tried something similar but arguably more niche back in the 2000s.

Same. I love dogs. I don't want to share an airplane with them, sorry.

I once made the mistake of staying in a 'pet friendly' section of a hotel. The smell alone was enough to make me check for that next time.

Thirded. It also depends quite a bit on the pet itself. Most dogs are very cute and well behaved, but some are quite loud and then there are some people with completely spoiled and possibly aggressive dogs, who are then put under stress in an enclosed space with a lot of other animals (prey and rivals alike). Combined with an owner who is unable or unwilling to control them, this is a recipe for disaster. Sure, there are not too many of those, but it only takes one to ruin a lot of days at once.

And the people who own that last kind of pet are the least likely to believe anyone sane could ever find their pet annoying.

I've never seen a hotel with a "pet friendly" section, usually hotels that allow pets allow them pretty much anywhere.

IIRC, the first floor was pet friendly, the other floors were not.

There are also many people who would prefer to not sit next to a human that may droll, vomit, start screaming or otherwise act unpredictably when stressed on a flight.

None of that is unreasonable… is it? That's why I don't fly with my dog (in large part out of concern of their well-being), but maybe airlines should also consider not allowing toddlers on the plane if these things are the concern?

Oh, wow... was really not expecting "toddlers". Those descriptions of otherwise unpredictably acting humans is not restricted to merely the toddler aged humans.

I was a frequent air traveler for around 15 years and would sometimes fantasize about an airline or subsidiary that catered only to human people with, say, 500,000 miles in experience as passengers. No kids, no pets, no rookies. But I am even happier now with my unplanned alternative – no air travel at for 2+ years.

Toddlers should be fine as long as they qualify for free cocktails.

Very young humans visibly in prolonged intense agony probably shouldn't have been brought onto the plane either.

Generally it's frowned upon to put your toddler in a kennel for a week.

What if the back of the plane is pets ok and the front of the plane is for people who don't want to be near them?

Where I live people bring the dogs into the grocery store (carrying them, putting them in the cart, or just walking on a leash.... and no, they aren't all service dogs) and I've never seen a problem.

Personally I think you should be able to get a special collar or jacket for them that says they have passed a test that they are well enough trained for such things etc.

> Personally I think you should be able to get a special collar or jacket for them that says they have passed a test that they are well enough trained for such things etc.

I agree with your overall point - but I doubt this would be effective. Supposedly we already have such a system for service animals, but there's been enough shenanigans around that to make me cautious of this specific plan.

Well it's better than nothing. But as I said, where I live (San Francisco) people bring dogs in stores all the time, and I never see problems. Presumably most of them realize that if their pet is going to poop on the floor or bark or snap at people, they just don't bring them in.

What are the shenanigans you are aware of with service dogs? Badly behaved dogs, or just people that lie about why they need a dog? My suggested plan would make such lying unnecessary since all you need to do is prove the dog can pass a behavior test, it has nothing to do with whether you supposedly need the emotional support animal. (and of course, this doesn't give anyone the right to bring the dog in a store or in a plane or whatever, unless the business wants to allow it)

> What are the shenanigans you are aware of with service dogs? Badly behaved dogs, or just people that lie about why they need a dog?

The problem with "service" dogs is that you can buy a vest on Amazon for $25[0] without that dog having been trained to do anything in particular. Many people (in San Francisco especially; I'm surprised you haven't seen this) just put these on their dog and claim that they can bring the dog into restaurants (where non-service animals are specifically banned by health code).

The whole "emotional support animal" thing has been abused like crazy by people who just feel entitled to bring their pet anywhere they want, regardless of the law, or even just the policy of a particular establishment. Generally it's fairly legally perilous for a business owner to attempt to ascertain if the animal is really a service animal that's been properly trained to do tasks for their human, so they often feel stuck and unable to turn them away.

I like (most) dogs just fine, but I don't want to be seated indoors in a restaurant one table over from one, even if they're well-behaved. I'm fairly allergic to some breeds, and I don't want to spend my meal with itchy eyes and a stuffy nose. And I certainly don't want random pets walking around grocery stores, sniffing the produce and shedding hair on everything. Actual service animals are trained to handle those situations properly and not be a nuisance, but your random pet or "emotional support animal" is not.

[0] https://smile.amazon.com/Service-Vest-Hook-Straps-Handle/dp/... for example

Oh I've seen people with service dog vests, but don't have any knowledge of whether they are "real".

But see, I don't care if the person really needs a service dog. Some are for "emotional support", and while I think that is a bit silly, whatever.

What I'm concerned about is badly behaved dogs. I haven't seen that inside stores or restaurants.

I really don't care about whether they are sniffing produce or whatever (not they they seem to do that), if I'm going to get sick from something in a store, most likely it is from a human, since humans tend to host human-infecting germs.

Have you actually ever gotten allergies from a pet in a restaurant? I have cat allergies, but they tend to kick in when I am in someone's home where a cat lives.

Does that fix my allergies to them? Or am I allowed to cover to dog owner in snot in exchange?

I think if pets are only in one part of the plane it should not be a problem. Planes filter the air more than just about any other environment. I have pretty severe cat allergies and don't think it would be a problem for me unless it is in the same row.

I've been on a plane with a dog three or four rows behind me, and was stuffy and sneezing for most of the flight. And my allergies aren't even that severe. Sure, maybe it would have been fine had the dog been 10 rows back, but maybe not, and maybe not for someone with more severe allergies.

Then again, sometimes we just have to suck it up and deal with it, and hope the airline staff can do what they can to separate the animals from the people with allergies as much as possible. While there are certainly some people who bizarrely can't go anywhere without their pet (and I personally don't care if we don't make accommodations for them), but people do legitimately need to travel with their pet sometimes, and we need safe ways to do that. We have two cats, and if we were to move to somewhere far enough away that driving were infeasible, I would want to travel with them in-cabin.

If you think a crying baby is a bummer on a flight, try a crying dog. Just happened to me on my last flight.

I completely support making flights less comfortable. Less flying means less pollution. Bring in the pets! And let's remove the chairs while we're at it.

FWIW it’s worth (not much, obviously) I’m allergic to cats but I would much rather sit next to someone with a cat on an airplane than the absolutely noxious scents so many people insist in dousing themselves in before flying. The headaches from the latter are excruciating.

While the cases you lay out are valid, cats and dogs are already allowed on flights. They must fit into a cannel that fits under the seat though. If I recall correctly you can take the dog on your lap once in the air as well (might misremember this part. It's been a long time sober I've done this). Still would be a problem for anyone who struggles with allergies.

I used to have a dog and got this feedback from people quite often.

As far as I understand, pet allergies are not like peanut allergies in that they're not actually lethal (correct me if I'm wrong!) As such, I feel like it's just one of those things that people might just need to deal with when they're part of a shared space much like sitting next to someone with bad body oder, someone chewing loudly, or someone laughing out loud when they're watching their tv. If it's too much of an annoyance maybe one can try to get moved to a different seat?

I mean no offense, but this is insane. I have a cat that I love like it's my child, so I sympathize with where you're coming from, but come on. You're basically saying that people with legitimate medical conditions caused by your pet's presence should just suck it up because at least they aren't going to die. All so you can travel with your pet. Talk about a lack of empathy...

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that if someone seated next to me is allergic to my pet (or for whatever reason doesn't want to sit next to it), then they could relocate either me or that person so that we're sufficiently far apart not to cause any issues.

The argument presented to me in the past (and also the argument in comment I was replying to) is that since some people are allergic to pets or otherwise dislike them, we should completely disallow traveling with pets in a blanket fashion. I'm simply saying that I think that's too extreme and that a middle ground can be found.

If we're going to completely ban pets on airplanes, then we should consider also banning flying with a cold because of immunocompromised people (in fact this is perhaps more warranted given the severity of the situation).

Who cares if the allergies are lethal or not? They'll cause the person to be miserable for days, possibly cause hives, possibly cause an asthma attack. That's not comparable to sitting next to someone who's annoying/smelly.

My allergies aren't too bad, but they are still worlds worse than sitting next to someone who smells bad.

I have two cats and love them to death, but if I were to fly with them, I would volunteer to move to a different seat if I found out I was seated near someone with bad allergies.

> it's just one of those things that people might just need to deal with when they're part of a shared space much like sitting next to someone with bad body oder, someone chewing loudly, or someone laughing out loud when they're watching their tv

These are things we accept with extreme annoyance, because the alternative is creating a scene or having to deal with the sort of person who's already shown themselves willing to act with disregard for others. It's not something we treat as normal and right behavior that the victim just needs to "get over". Surely you've encountered someone playing loud music on public transportation or something similar; just because no one says anything doesn't mean that we all think it's okay.

> I wish at least one commercial airline would adopt a "pet-friendly" policy and just allow people to purchase an extra seat for their dog.

Depending on the size, you often can. I do this with my cat. He counts as my carry-on and I don't get any extra carry-on allowance for buying a second seat though. So there are some extra luggage costs involved in addition to the pet fee. But when the flight attendant comes by and says "sir, you need to put the cat underneath", I say "I bought this seat for him and the ticket agent said it would be ok." Hasn't failed me yet.

We pay ~$100 each way to put our small dog under the seat on flights. He just curls up and hangs out. Definitely a little stressed but not panicking or anything.

edit: On Alaska

The one time I put my cat under the seat instead of buying him his own seat he wet himself and got stress cystitis, so I don't put him through that anymore. Obviously YMMV.

Yeah it's definitely possible. There are more than 400 pet-friendly airlines you can book tickets from on avvinue.com. While you can't book a separate seat for them, you can have them fly in cabin with you if they meet the criteria. So it's definitely possible -- that's why we launched Avvinue for this.

I boarded a cross-country flight a while back and watched them loading luggage into the hold, put a dog in a crate up the moving ramp and one guy knock the water bottle upside-down so there was no way the dog could drink. The guy looked at what he'd done and then just ignored it. I alerted the flight attendant to this. She seemed bothered, wandered off and came back later and told me it was fine, she'd told them about it. I had my doubts.

When I moved states, I had to fly with my rabbit. At the time, Alaska Airlines was the only carrier that would allow a rabbit in the cabin. I thought that was odd, considering a rabbit would indubitably make less of a commotion than a cat or dog. My rabbit was shaking the whole flight, poor thing; I can't imagine him being in the cargo area.

In Colombia its possible to take your pet with you in the cabin (you must pay an extra fee). I thought it was the same in most of the world.

Every country has different rules, and so does each airline. So there are some that allow pets in cabin, but then won't allow pets in cabin in a certain country. There are many variables to flying with a pet, but we've reduced the stress in finding those nuances out on Avvinue. You should check it out.

I will note that not every airline has a “United Airlines” approach to animals. (For those not from the States, UA has a bit of a reputation for killing animals, amongst several other things). We took our dog transatlantic with BA and though she was forced into the hold the airline was fairly aware of the conditions that the animals would be subjected to and we actually had to delay her return due to adverse temperature conditions for several weeks.

Not that BA is really great about much else, frankly, I think that their handling of our dog is one of the only nice things I have to say about that airline.

I purchased an extra seat on Virgin from SFO to SAN 6 years ago.

The rules may have changed since, but the flight attendants were loving on my pets...and the 1 hour or so flight time was hugely preferable to farting around on highways.

I once took our dog on a transatlantic flight. The flight attendants loved it and a lot of kids stopped by to pet the dog. But our dog is very well behaved and she sat on my lap quietly for 11 hours.

Seems like the variety of outcomes for allowing pets would make this prohibitive. Imagine the first time a dog bites another passenger or shits on a seat mid flight or starts uncontrollably barking.

Those are solvable problems with technology:

1) Muzzle 2) Diaper 3) Muzzle

> I wish at least one commercial airline would adopt a "pet-friendly" policy and just allow people to purchase an extra seat for their dog. My dog would be happy to take the middle seat between me and my girlfriend, would stay out of the way of others, and I'd pay a significant amount of money if this were an option.

Babies are bad enough, and I'd book in an instant if an airline announced a ban on babies. As for animal? That'd be insane. Keep them on the ground where they belong.

I wish for an airline like this. I would pay extra for the extra seat. Maybe tag the flight as pet-friendly to allow passengers the ability to decide not to take a certain flight due to allergies. I regard my pet as a family member

JSX allows dogs in cabin: https://www.jsx.com/petpolicy

But only small dogs that can fit in an underseat carrier -- most airlines allow this.

I'd pay for a first-class seat for my 40 lb dog if he was allowed on the plane. But no airlines allow that as far as I know so we generally drive anywhere we travel. At least domestically.

Some airlines do have this option. At last resort you might have to purchase the entire row. But usually you can get it done for a seat or less, especially if you call up beforehand and the flight isn't full.

JSX has limited routes, but permits pets: https://www.jsx.com/petpolicy

How about if you could sit in the cargo hold with your pet?

My wife said she'd be happy to do that if it meant she could travel with the dog, she refuses to let him fly as unaccompanied cargo.

I'm not sitting next to a pit bull. Also, what if the dog simply refuses to stop barking the entire time? And where do they go to the bathroom?

I do not want your dog anywhere near me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com