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.
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...
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.)
if only.
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.
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.
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.
It might be a terrible idea, but I've both heard and had worse!
Hooters tried something similar but arguably more niche back in the 2000s.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
edit: sorry, I meant claiming their dog is a service animal, not any 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.
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)
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?
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?
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).
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.
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.
Can we at least apply this same standard to the other human passengers on a flight then?