hat attack

If some posters would read the appropriate links regarding regulations that govern this issue, they would discover that the comments they continue to post are simply incorrect.

Emotional support animals are required to have documentation and ALL "service animals" (their handlers) can be required to present documentation if airline personnel have reason to believe that it isn't "credible" that the animal is a legitimate service animal. The regulations also state that a service animal can be denied boarding if it appears to pose a risk to others because of (it's) behavior or physical condition (unclean, etc.) or if it poses a substantive disruption to normal service during flight. An attempt is to be made to seat any passengers that claim animal allergies as far away as possible from the animal, within the same class of service.

There will always be people that try to "get-around" rules that they should observe. And, (like all policies, rules, etc. of public behavior, that we all deal with everyday in life) how strictly that those rules are enforced will vary from airline to airline and from one employee to another. 'SoLittleTime' apparently squeaked by until the last leg of her trip because no one chose to followup, not because the regulations allow any one to just "show up and say it's an ESA". A CRO should have been called in her case and should not have allowed the dog to originate travel without a certification from a mental health provider.

As a flight attendant for an airline that does not transport any animals, cabin or cargo, - except service animals - I've found that our employees are very likely to ask for documentation for any animal that does not appear to be "working". Personally, I've never seen a problem with passengers attempting to abuse the system.

The dogs on the OP's flight might well have been presented fraudulantly as service animals. But many of the posts come across as simply;
1) a dislike of dogs and anger that "a dog" somehow has been given a priority over "my discomfort"
2) an assumption that unless someone has a very obvious disability they are obviously scammers
3) a disdain for anyone that does need assistance because of a problem not deemed "a real disability", ie. being blind

mzito

It's interesting, right after this thread is revitalized, the NY Times Sunday Magazine does a whole feature on "service animals" that gives a really good background (imho) for those of us who have more limited experience with service critters. Of note from the article:

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/magazine/04Creatures-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=magazine

PTravel

I guess I need to be clearer, then:

I love dogs, and have been on many a flight with genuine service animals. Both their owners and the animals themselves have my respect and admiration.

Nonsense. I am well aware that many disabilities aren't visible, and that service animals assist in many ways. I specifically question the concept of an "emotional support" animal. What happens if their animal buddy isn't lying at their feet -- say, instead, it is in a travel kennel or down in the hold? They'll experience "anxiety." Well, sorry, but I don't care. For my first 20 years as a frequent flier I had a terrible flying phobia, yet I flew anyway and found ways to cope with it without imposing on anyone else. If someone is so emotionally unstable that they can't be out in public without their pet or they will lose control of themselves, then they have no business being on an airplane in the first place -- they are a risk to themselves and to others. I simply don't buy this "emotional support animal" stuff. If some doctor would like to explain why having a pet close at hand falls in the same category as a true service animal, I'd be happy to revisit my opinion. However, judging from the OP, it sounds like nothing more than yet another entitlement demand.

With all due respect, until a doctor explains otherwise, I don't consider needing an "emotion support animal" a real disability.

kkjay77

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; ko-kr) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

So, if one gets a letter stating that a goldfish is a emotional support animal, does one get to pass TSA checkpoint with more than 3 ounces of water?

mzito

I think it's mildly petty to compare a flying phobia (which I also once had) to the life-crippling issues some of these people face, simply because we don't face those same problems. In some scenarios, the animal itself actually helps the owner cope with these situation. Quick snippet from the article I cited above:

In some cases, the presence of the animals prevents them from needing to take medication that negatively impacts their life. In other cases, I'm sure they could get along without the animal if they had to, but choose not to.

I just don't care for this idea that because someone isn't visibly handicapped, that there shouldn't be reasonable accommodations made for people who have doctor's notes. I don't presume to know or understand someone else's life - nor should someone else presume to understand mine.

Again, the key word is "reasonable" - there should be a clear expectation of the process, everyone needs to be willing to be flexible if possible, and anyone found to be cheating should be punished severely.

PTravel

Well, that was an interesting (and valid) example. By comparison, please read the first post in this thread.

They "choose not to"? Sorry -- those who really rely on service animals can't choose not to.

Okay, one more time: my objection isn't to service animals, whether the condition they support is visible or not (and not to the service monkey in your snippet -- that is clearly a service animal). My objection is to those "who could get along without the animal if they had to, but choose not to," and to those for whom "emotional support animal" means "pet." The service monkey you described is far more than a pet.

Again, I refer you to the first post that started this thread (as well as that poster's subsequent amplifications).

And, incidentally, you may have had a flying phobia, but there are phobias and there are phobias. To pretend that they are all the same, of the same intensity, equally debilitating, etc., is more than a little naive on your part.

I am more than willing to be flexible to accommodate service animals (including real service animals like the monkey in your snippet), and have done so on a number of occasions. I am not willing to accommodate someone's untrained pet because having it along makes them feel better.

mvoight

By your own words, in post 150, this was not an official and trained emotional support animial.
You stated "I had never heard of an emotional support animal." and seemed to have only made the claim when asked if your "significant other" was an emotional support animal. If your mental health professional had clearly indicate a requirement for such an animal, you certainly should have known the term. Were you ever told, by a mential heath professional that you required an animal to be at your side constantly, or did you just make this diagnosis on your own?

kaceyellis

Of course they are. I did not say they were not permitted to. All I did was copy paste the ACAA paragraph on this.
However, I know, as a trained CRO, my airline does accept the 'creditble verbal assurance' of the passenger. We err on the side of compassion.
Additionally Emotional support animals are service animals... whether you choose to like it or not

kaceyellis

Im sorry but if it were me looking for credible assurances from you that your animal was a service animal, I would not be able to allow passage without charge. You did not even know what an emotional support animal was until you read it on this board. And you clearly are unaware of what a CRO is, or the ACAA.
A CRO is a Complaint Resolution Officer who is trained in the Air Carrier Access Act, which governs the treatment of disabled passengers on aircraft. IMO ANY disabled passenger would know to ask for a CRO if their rights were being mishandled, and exactly what rights were being mishandled.

I truly believe that it is you who needs a rules and attitude review - regarding truth, honesty and integrity.
And this is all just My opinion.

MIA-SAT

There is an interesting article in today's New York Times magazine on this issue. There is a distinction between a service animal and an emotional support animal and it centers on the service that the animal can perform for the person with disabilities. The article also describes animals whose support services are perhaps surprising, but necessary. The issue appears to be fraught with legal issues for the airlines and for those who claim the need for the animal. If you cannot specifically name the service the animal is providing, your animal might not fly with you. However, the airlines and employers and others like grocery stores must be careful as to how they make the inquiry so as to avoid legal action. The issue is a whole lot more complex than I thought from both sides. Example, how do you address the need that a person may have to have a monkey as their service animal when the person and the monkey are in the produce section of the grocery store? That is one of the more extreme examples, but the issue is certainly not simple, for airlines, other service providers and employers.

stbeeman

Well, fortunately for disabled folks nationwide, doctors (MDs and psychologists) have explained the need to legislators who have enacted federal legislation, which the executive branch then created regulations to implement and clarify. Result? Disabled people have rights to ESAs. More importantly, if folks would actually READ the relevant regulations and legal citations, you would see that "ESA" as cited in the ACAA is different than "ESA" as described in the Fair Housing Act. The language and purpose of the animals described in the ACAA fit the description of Psychiatric Service Animals, which perform vital functions for disabled persons, are highly trained and certified, and are not primarily pets.

As others have noted, the OP may have seen folks abusing the policy; it is difficult to tell from the facts in evidence. However, the truth is that disabled people have a right to these animals under federal law. No one has to prove it to you for the law to be effective or for the individual's rights to be valid. Again, if you don't like the situation, there are two branches of the federal government you can take your problem up with.

gemac

Somehow, I am picturing the monkey going down the aisle to get a bottle of water from the FA's service cart. When the monkey gets there, he encounters CharlesMD also raiding the beverage cart. Your imagination can take it from there.

JHIN

So the OP would deny a veteran of it's service animal whilst traveling even if it was needed for emotional support because of the terror and trama he/she may have faced while defending this country? One of the mainstream TV news shows ala 60 minutes or Dateline did just a show about these emotional support animals helping our military personnel assimilate into society after serving in Iraq. I'd at least struck up a conversation with the passengers to inquire more to establish the facts of how they were traveling with these animals and for what reason - maybe a little compassion would have created some better karma with the FA.

spurg

could a fish be an emotional support animal?

yes

could it travel and survive on an airplane?

probably not, although you might be able to work this gambit with a
water turtle, like a red eared slider. they seems pretty hardy.

let us know if you try it.

LiquidJ

I don't see the need for more than 3 oz of water in that case.

I mean, isn't the ratio of goldfish to 3 oz water roughly the same as the ratio of average passenger to average Y middle seat these days?