Emotional Support Animals. Are you kidding me? A rant.
Jan 2, 2009, 3:26 pm
#166
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
While some feel this subject is largely humorous and have responded with considerable tongue in cheek, service animals have allowed a number of people to extend their abilities to live in less restrictive environments, activities and lifestyles than they might be able to carry on without the animals.
Obtaining a service animal requires application to an agency that provides them and extensive training for the owner as well as the animal. Apparently, all that is required to qualify for an "emotional support animal" is someone's statement that they want their pet to accompany them.
I have enormous respect for disabled people who can expand the scope of their lives by working with a service animal (and enormous affection for those animals that give of themselves so selflessly to help in this endeavor). This is something completely different. Perhaps someone can explain how a self-diagnosis to justify bringing on board a pet that would otherwise not be allowed, and to the detriment of others passengers, is equally worthy of respect. I may be wrong, but you'll have to convince me otherwise.
Jan 2, 2009, 3:43 pm
#167
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: STL
Programs: AA 2MM, AS MVP Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 12,966
If passengers are able to "self appoint" emotional support animals, and transport them for free in the cabin instead of having to pay for them to ride in the hold, this accomodation for people who really need it will vanish. All pets are comforting to their owners. People taking advantage of this will screw it up for those who have a genuine medical need. IMO, it should require at a minimum a letter from an inpatient mental health facility where the passenger has received treatment in the last 5 years, stating that the animal is necessary to the emotional balance of the passenger. If the passenger's problems have not been severe enough to require inpatient hospitalization recently, then (again IMO) the likelihood is that the passenger doesn't really need the animal with them so much as want the animal with them. Just my opinion, and YMMV.
Jan 2, 2009, 4:07 pm
#168
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
This is wonderful information for consumers and airline personnel. Next time I will be in possession of more documentation than anyone could need. And in the meantime I will probably be in touch in writing with the CRO about how I was "handled" by airplane personnel on that plane....(CRO is another term I wasn't aware of before now) Meanwhile, I suppose I should apologize most to my dog, who was not trained to be jerked around by strangers...I suppose I was an emotional support for her the rest of that flight, tho she rested comfortably after the fright in her carrier under the seat...panting a bit, but so was I !!!!....So Little Time...to learn a lot and live a lot..we all should...
Jan 2, 2009, 4:10 pm
#169
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Jan 2, 2009, 4:25 pm
#170
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 80 countries across the world
Programs: some, * alliance, OW, ISIC,
Posts: 1,336
the last time i was in ewr, one guy with 2 huge dogs told me he was charged over usd 100 per dog for carriage into AA and that is not counting the cost of the carrier.
Even with service dogs, im sure AA does ding people with fees.
Even with service dogs, im sure AA does ding people with fees.
Jan 2, 2009, 4:26 pm
#171
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
Jan 2, 2009, 5:18 pm
#172
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Well, my involvement in mental health (particularly suicide prevention, depression and issues affecting recovering chronically mentally ill) over the years demonstrates clearly to me there are individuals who benefit from "emotional support animals" and even have recommendations form their mental health / health providers.
The problem is that some may take advantage of this, as there are no uniform criteria nor certification (as far as I know) for emotional support animals, just as there may be, for example, seizure alert animals that may be uncertified and without any particular identifying badging or appurtenances. (The spectrum of service animals range from the practically stereotypical seeing eye and hearing dogs to monkeys, and even pigs, etc.)
Fortunately, it is not up to me or anyone else to convince others of the existence of such animals - according to the link provided above, airline and airport personnel are guided on questions to ask in their attempts to ascertain whether the accompanying animal is actually one that must be allowed to board under the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act,) or the animal is actually a pet the passenger is attempting to "sheep dip" and make into an ersatz companion / service animal.
There's the rub, I believe - attempting to clearly differentiate between someone who has a service animal and a faker or poseur who is attempting to smuggle on an animal that is merely a mascot or pet.
The problem is that some may take advantage of this, as there are no uniform criteria nor certification (as far as I know) for emotional support animals, just as there may be, for example, seizure alert animals that may be uncertified and without any particular identifying badging or appurtenances. (The spectrum of service animals range from the practically stereotypical seeing eye and hearing dogs to monkeys, and even pigs, etc.)
Fortunately, it is not up to me or anyone else to convince others of the existence of such animals - according to the link provided above, airline and airport personnel are guided on questions to ask in their attempts to ascertain whether the accompanying animal is actually one that must be allowed to board under the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act,) or the animal is actually a pet the passenger is attempting to "sheep dip" and make into an ersatz companion / service animal.
There's the rub, I believe - attempting to clearly differentiate between someone who has a service animal and a faker or poseur who is attempting to smuggle on an animal that is merely a mascot or pet.
I don't think any one in this thread has criticized the use of service animals. It is the concept of an "emotional support animal" that is difficult to take seriously.
Obtaining a service animal requires application to an agency that provides them and extensive training for the owner as well as the animal. Apparently, all that is required to qualify for an "emotional support animal" is someone's statement that they want their pet to accompany them.
I have enormous respect for disabled people who can expand the scope of their lives by working with a service animal (and enormous affection for those animals that give of themselves so selflessly to help in this endeavor). This is something completely different. Perhaps someone can explain how a self-diagnosis to justify bringing on board a pet that would otherwise not be allowed, and to the detriment of others passengers, is equally worthy of respect. I may be wrong, but you'll have to convince me otherwise.
Obtaining a service animal requires application to an agency that provides them and extensive training for the owner as well as the animal. Apparently, all that is required to qualify for an "emotional support animal" is someone's statement that they want their pet to accompany them.
I have enormous respect for disabled people who can expand the scope of their lives by working with a service animal (and enormous affection for those animals that give of themselves so selflessly to help in this endeavor). This is something completely different. Perhaps someone can explain how a self-diagnosis to justify bringing on board a pet that would otherwise not be allowed, and to the detriment of others passengers, is equally worthy of respect. I may be wrong, but you'll have to convince me otherwise.
Jan 2, 2009, 5:35 pm
#173
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Well, my involvement in mental health (particularly suicide prevention, depression and issues affecting recovering chronically mentally ill) over the years demonstrates clearly to me there are individuals who benefit from "emotional support animals" and even have recommendations form their mental health / health providers.
The problem is that some may take advantage of this, as there are no uniform criteria nor certification (as far as I know) for emotional support animals, just as there may be, for example, seizure alert animals that may be uncertified and without any particular identifying badging or appurtenances. (The spectrum of service animals range from the practically stereotypical seeing eye and hearing dogs to monkeys, and even pigs, etc.)
Fortunately, it is not up to me or anyone else to convince others of the existence of such animals - according to the link provided above, airline and airport personnel are guided on questions to ask in their attempts to ascertain whether the accompanying animal is actually one that must be allowed to board under the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act,) or the animal is actually a pet the passenger is attempting to "sheep dip" and make into an ersatz companion / service animal.
There's the rub, I believe - attempting to clearly differentiate between someone who has a service animal and a faker or poseur who is attempting to smuggle on an animal that is merely a mascot or pet.
Jan 2, 2009, 6:11 pm
#174
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
I would respectfully suggest you are not entirely cognizant of the entire spectrum of assistance animals, nor of a number of emotional or mental conditions that are not so uncommon (a good listing can be found in DSM - the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) I am not out to convince you, and there is actually no necessity to do so: the US Department of Justice and Department of Transportation have directives and guidelines* recognizing the existence of emotional support animals and include directives for their accommodation.
I do know of people who are emotionally dependent on an animal for their sense of well-being (a number of DSM-defined conditions ranging from PTSD to others) - and a number of court cases have required their admittance to public conveyance, housing, etc. Can they go out in public without an animal, even if briefly? Many probably can (and others quite possibly not) - but they may not be able to travel distances or go for any significant length of time without their animal without having some deterioration to their situation / emotional wellbeing.
What is germane to this discussion I think is that the individual claiming to have an assistance animal that must be granted accommodation under law has the obligation to demonstrate (and a landlord, carrier representative, etc. the right to request to know the basis for the claim,) that they in fact have a bona fide disability that requires the presence of an assistance animal - which as likely pertains to an individual with, say, a seizure alert animal as to an individual claiming the necessity to be accompanied by an emotional support animal. (See soitgoes' quotation from the citation below.)
*14 CFR Part 382, "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel"
I do know of people who are emotionally dependent on an animal for their sense of well-being (a number of DSM-defined conditions ranging from PTSD to others) - and a number of court cases have required their admittance to public conveyance, housing, etc. Can they go out in public without an animal, even if briefly? Many probably can (and others quite possibly not) - but they may not be able to travel distances or go for any significant length of time without their animal without having some deterioration to their situation / emotional wellbeing.
What is germane to this discussion I think is that the individual claiming to have an assistance animal that must be granted accommodation under law has the obligation to demonstrate (and a landlord, carrier representative, etc. the right to request to know the basis for the claim,) that they in fact have a bona fide disability that requires the presence of an assistance animal - which as likely pertains to an individual with, say, a seizure alert animal as to an individual claiming the necessity to be accompanied by an emotional support animal. (See soitgoes' quotation from the citation below.)
*14 CFR Part 382, "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel"
I'm not questioning whether people derive benefit. Someone who is blind and relies on a seeing-eye dog would not be able to navigate effectively without this assistance. The seeing-eye dog (or other service animal) is a necessity. I have yet to hear of anyone so emotionally damaged that they cannot go out in public without an emotional support animal. Are there such people?
I'm well aware of the spectrum of service animals. However, the fact that there is no certification for emotional support animals and, more importantly, no special training for these animals or their owners, renders the entire category, at minimum, suspect, as evidenced by the recent new poster who thought a note from her vet was sufficient to entitle her to an exception to the on-board animal policies of the airline.
Indeed. However, the traveling public has been well-educated to accept (and support) service animals. If you expect the traveling public to accept and support emotional support animals, then you or whoever else thinks they are medically necessary had better convince us.
As far as I can tell, an "emotional support animal" IS just a pet. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I have yet to hear or see anything that would suggest my understanding is wrong.
I'm well aware of the spectrum of service animals. However, the fact that there is no certification for emotional support animals and, more importantly, no special training for these animals or their owners, renders the entire category, at minimum, suspect, as evidenced by the recent new poster who thought a note from her vet was sufficient to entitle her to an exception to the on-board animal policies of the airline.
Indeed. However, the traveling public has been well-educated to accept (and support) service animals. If you expect the traveling public to accept and support emotional support animals, then you or whoever else thinks they are medically necessary had better convince us.
As far as I can tell, an "emotional support animal" IS just a pet. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I have yet to hear or see anything that would suggest my understanding is wrong.
Last edited by JDiver; Jan 2, 2009 at 8:38 pm Reason: add last parenthetical notation
Jan 2, 2009, 6:38 pm
#175
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,377
That would not meet DOT guidance for documentation that can be required.
Something more than that is needed.
They are not.
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/20030509.pdf
4. Require documentation for emotional support animals: With respect to an animal used for emotional support (which need not have specific training for that function), airline personnel may require current documentation (i.e., not more than one year old) on letterhead from a mental health professional stating (1) that the passenger has a mental health-related disability; (2) that
having the animal accompany the passenger is necessary to the passenger’s mental health or treatment or to assist the passenger (with his or her disability); and (3) that the individual providing the assessment of the
passenger is a licensed mental health professional and the passenger is under his or her professional care. Airline personnel may require this documentation as a condition of permitting the animal to accompany the passenger in the cabin. The purpose of this provision is to prevent abuse by passengers that do not have a medical need for an emotional support animal and to
ensure that passengers who have a legitimate need for emotional support animals are permitted to travel with their service animals on the aircraft. Airlines are not permitted to require the documentation to specify the type
of mental health disability, e.g., panic attacks.
having the animal accompany the passenger is necessary to the passenger’s mental health or treatment or to assist the passenger (with his or her disability); and (3) that the individual providing the assessment of the
passenger is a licensed mental health professional and the passenger is under his or her professional care. Airline personnel may require this documentation as a condition of permitting the animal to accompany the passenger in the cabin. The purpose of this provision is to prevent abuse by passengers that do not have a medical need for an emotional support animal and to
ensure that passengers who have a legitimate need for emotional support animals are permitted to travel with their service animals on the aircraft. Airlines are not permitted to require the documentation to specify the type
of mental health disability, e.g., panic attacks.
Jan 2, 2009, 7:20 pm
#176
Moderator, Hilton Honors
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: on a short leash
Programs: some
Posts: 71,422
WHEEET! <throwing the BS flag>
The OP reported itchy and watery eyes, congestion. For the record, peanut allergies lead to anaphylactic shock and often sudden death. The two are not even remotely close.
As far as over-application of perfume goes, I agree it's annoying. And yet, it is still not life threatening.
The OP reported itchy and watery eyes, congestion. For the record, peanut allergies lead to anaphylactic shock and often sudden death. The two are not even remotely close.
As far as over-application of perfume goes, I agree it's annoying. And yet, it is still not life threatening.
The airlines I fly most often do not allow cats in the cabin at all. Where service animals are required onboard I do not think it is unreasonable that pax whose lives are put at risk are also able to be accommodated.
Jan 2, 2009, 7:21 pm
#177
Moderator, Hilton Honors
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: on a short leash
Programs: some
Posts: 71,422
There is a difference. AFAIK no one is allergic to babies, whereas some people have life threatening allergies to certain animals. Further, an animal can usually be accommodated elsewhere on the a/c whereas a baby cannot.
Jan 2, 2009, 8:55 pm
#178
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: West Coast USA
Programs: AS, BA, VX, AA
Posts: 156
4. Require documentation for emotional support animals: With respect to an animal used for emotional support (which need not have specific training for that function), airline personnel may require current documentation (i.e., not more than one year old) on letterhead from a mental health professional stating (1) that the passenger has a mental health-related disability; (2) that
having the animal accompany the passenger is necessary to the passenger’s mental health or treatment or to assist the passenger (with his or her disability); and (3) that the individual providing the assessment of the
passenger is a licensed mental health professional and the passenger is under his or her professional care. Airline personnel may require this documentation as a condition of permitting the animal to accompany the passenger in the cabin. The purpose of this provision is to prevent abuse by passengers that do not have a medical need for an emotional support animal and to
ensure that passengers who have a legitimate need for emotional support animals are permitted to travel with their service animals on the aircraft. Airlines are not permitted to require the documentation to specify the type
of mental health disability, e.g., panic attacks.
having the animal accompany the passenger is necessary to the passenger’s mental health or treatment or to assist the passenger (with his or her disability); and (3) that the individual providing the assessment of the
passenger is a licensed mental health professional and the passenger is under his or her professional care. Airline personnel may require this documentation as a condition of permitting the animal to accompany the passenger in the cabin. The purpose of this provision is to prevent abuse by passengers that do not have a medical need for an emotional support animal and to
ensure that passengers who have a legitimate need for emotional support animals are permitted to travel with their service animals on the aircraft. Airlines are not permitted to require the documentation to specify the type
of mental health disability, e.g., panic attacks.
Note the words I bolded.. "may". That doesnt mean 'will' or 'shall' but it means 'can if they choose to'. However not all airlines choose to.
Jan 2, 2009, 10:42 pm
#179
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,377
I understand. However, it is of note that airlines are always allowed to ask for documentation for emotional support animals, whereas documentation may not be required as a general practice for other types of service animals.
Jan 2, 2009, 11:47 pm
#180
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southeast USA
Programs: AA USair, AirTran A+, Delta skymiles, Marriott Rewards
Posts: 6
I agree...and in the gov. pdf file, this is number 4.....And, from that file, I also understand it is not the crew of the airplane's responsibility or privilege to determine the validity of an emotional support animal but of the personnel ticketing, checking you in, and allowing you to board the flight. A dispute with the attendants on the plane is a good time to ask for the CRO to intervene. It is my understanding that that is what they are supposed to do also...It is a law that there must be a CRO around to be contacted and to settle the dispute.