Practical Travel Safety Issues - Service Animal Fiasco

Was on a WN flight this week. Lady in row 1 had a small dog in a small duffel bag made for carrying small animals. Was allowed to keep the dog in the bag during take off/landing, on the floor in front of her feet (bulkhead).
On the next flight, new crew told her she could not have bag during to/landing, so after bringing in a supervisor, she was made to hold the dog on her lap for take-off, then could put it back in the bag until landing. all because it is against FAA rules to have any kind of bag out during take off?
this bag was just a thin layer of material, nothing hard or sharp about it.

delayed our flight about 15 minutes for that argument!

:::biting my tongue about the legitimacy of most lap-sized dogs being "service animals":::

...and even if this little dog is truly a service animal, or comfort animal, how much help is it to the owner if it stays in its little bag for the entire flight, anyway? It makes much more sense for the dog to be out so it can "help", whether it is alerting the owner to an impending seizure or offering comfort.

I think the flight attendant on the second flight was right, as there are not supposed to be *any* bags on the bulkhead row floor during takeoff or landing. In contrast, people who travel with "pets" are not generally permitted to sit in exit or bulkhead rows, because of traffic flow and carry-on stowing regulations.

I have to wonder if this lady was just trying to fly with her pet for free and sit in a bulkhead row, to boot.

Was on a WN flight this week. Lady in row 1 had a small dog in a small duffel bag made for carrying small animals. Was allowed to keep the dog in the bag during take off/landing, on the floor in front of her feet (bulkhead).
On the next flight, new crew told her she could not have bag during to/landing, so after bringing in a supervisor, she was made to hold the dog on her lap for take-off, then could put it back in the bag until landing. all because it is against FAA rules to have any kind of bag out during take off?
this bag was just a thin layer of material, nothing hard or sharp about it.

delayed our flight about 15 minutes for that argument!

I had the opposite experience once.
Was travelling with my dad and his 2 Emotional Support Pug's, and the FA told us they had to be on the floor and were not allowed on are laps. After pointing out that they needed to be in the lap in order effectively do there job he went away, though he did come back about 15 minutes later and stated with all seriousness "I have read the manual, and it says you can only have Monkey's in your lap, but I have a call into Atlanta for clarification" he was never seen again.

If it was in a small duffel bag, then it most likely was not a service animal. As such, she should not have been seated in the bulkhead as the animal and its container need to fit under the seat in front of her for takeoff and landing. A service animal would not.

"I have read the manual, and it says you can only have Monkey's in your lap, but I have a call into Atlanta for clarification".You owe me a new keyboard. :D I'm pretty sure that corporal punishment of your monkey would not be permitted however.

If it was in a small duffel bag, then it most likely was not a service animal. As such, she should not have been seated in the bulkhead as the animal and its container need to fit under the seat in front of her for takeoff and landing. A service animal would not.

Doesn't Southwest not permit in cabin pet's? So the only animals allowed on Southwest are Service and Emotional support animals as permitted under the air carrier access act.

Cats and small dogs are permitted in the cabin.

http://www.southwest.com/html/travel-extras/pets/index-pol.html

Cats and small dogs are permitted in the cabin.

http://www.southwest.com/html/travel-extras/pets/index-pol.html

Thanks, looks like they changed to that policy in 2009.

...and his 2 Emotional Support Pug's...

Give me a break. This crap has to be stopped.

"Emotional support"? If you are that emotionally fragile, stay home.

And he needed TWO? Yeah, those aren't pets....

Give me a break. This crap has to be stopped.

If you feel that way, then lobby Congress to change the law or the FAA to modify the correspondig CFR (I don't recall the exact interplay of the ACAA and the FAA's CFR with respect to ESAs).

Give me a break. This crap has to be stopped.

"Emotional support"? If you are that emotionally fragile, stay home.

And he needed TWO? Yeah, those aren't pets....

Yah doesn't seem right exploiting loopholes in law or program rules to suit personnel needs and wants, now that wouldn't be in the Flyertalk spirit would it?

If you feel that way, then lobby Congress to change the law or the FAA to modify the correspondig CFR (I don't recall the exact interplay of the ACAA and the FAA's CFR with respect to ESAs).

I don't need to. It already exists:

14 CFR Part 382

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.

TWO animals for emotional support? That is not in the regs and is a clear sign the animals are pets. In the hold they go and I hope the passenger is placed in a middle seat in the last row of the plane.

I don't need to. It already exists:

14 CFR Part 382



TWO animals for emotional support? That is not in the regs and is a clear sign the animals are pets. In the hold they go and I hope the passenger is placed in a middle seat in the last row of the plane.


My emotional support need is only fulfilled by an albino pygmy three toed sloth and a bottle of Xanax with me on each and every flight. Also, my sloth can only support my fragile emotional condition whilst in F.

I don't need to. It already exists:

14 CFR Part 382



TWO animals for emotional support? That is not in the regs and is a clear sign the animals are pets. In the hold they go and I hope the passenger is placed in a middle seat in the last row of the plane.

If I misread your post I apologize. I thought your objection was to ESRs in general, not to the two that this passenger aparently brought with him. I agree that two is excessive but don't see that the regs prohibit it.

I don't need to. It already exists:

14 CFR Part 382



TWO animals for emotional support? That is not in the regs and is a clear sign the animals are pets. In the hold they go and I hope the passenger is placed in a middle seat in the last row of the plane.

I didn't say he was travelling alone now did I, there were two letter's on the appropriate letterhead, from the appropriate professional, referencing two different travelers. I don't deny it was gaming the system, but what I don't understand is the hostility I feel from your post's, when there are whole areas of Flyertalk that specialize in doing just that in every way imaginable.

By the way if it makes you feel any better he is dead now, so no more worry's.

"Emotional support"? If you are that emotionally fragile, stay home.

How wonderfully generous of you. Would you rather have such a passenger flipping out at 25,000 feet instead? Or is air travel only for the privileged few who live perfect lives?

It's not like anyone has alleged that these support animals have caused any inconvenience to other passengers --- other than some confusion among the flight crew about how to handle them, that is. Why would it matter to you what comfort items another passenger chooses to bring aboard?

If you're that bothered by support animals aboard aircraft, perhaps you ought to be the one staying home rather than them ...

TWO animals for emotional support? That is not in the regs and is a clear sign the animals are pets. In the hold they go and I hope the passenger is placed in a middle seat in the last row of the plane.

If the regs say that the passenger has to have documentation, then so be it. But if the operator doesn't ask for the documentation, it's not the passenger's fault ...

I'm all for pets flying free so long as they're reasonably well behaved ( I'm all for pets in restaurants and other public places for that matter).

:::biting my tongue about the legitimacy of most lap-sized dogs being "service animals":::

...and even if this little dog is truly a service animal, or comfort animal, how much help is it to the owner if it stays in its little bag for the entire flight, anyway? It makes much more sense for the dog to be out so it can "help", whether it is alerting the owner to an impending seizure or offering comfort.

I think the flight attendant on the second flight was right, as there are not supposed to be *any* bags on the bulkhead row floor during takeoff or landing. In contrast, people who travel with "pets" are not generally permitted to sit in exit or bulkhead rows, because of traffic flow and carry-on stowing regulations.

I have to wonder if this lady was just trying to fly with her pet for free and sit in a bulkhead row, to boot.

the thought did cross my mind. I remembered reading a thread on FT about this very thing several months ago.
THe lady did produce a laminated card to the supervisor. he looked at it, said "I don't have my glasses. Does it say you are allowed to keep a piece of luggage on your lap during take off, because that's against FAA regulations". I thought that was kinda funny.
On the first flight, the lady was row 1, aisle. they asked her to move to window so her doggie bag would not impede the ability to exit in case ogf an emergency.
By the way, the entire flight, this lady was a huge pain in the rear, spilling water, getting up and down, asking her seatmates (strangers) to get up and down, hold her stuff, etc.
I was glad I was across the aisle.

I worked with a guy who was a veteran with PTSD and had a Golden Retriever for emotional support. On one cross country flight (don't remember carrier), the FA actually encouraged him to let the dog in the middle seat. And it was bulkhead.

Give me a break. This crap has to be stopped.

"Emotional support"? If you are that emotionally fragile, stay home.

And he needed TWO? Yeah, those aren't pets....
==================================================
:cool:
I don't know about "2" but some Soldiers with PTSD are being provided with
"emotional support animals" to help them deal with their trauma. FYI.^

Folks, we've deleted two posts where the topic was nothing more than commenting on each other rather than on the topic.

Please keep the comments to the topic only and not on each other.

And, folks, if you have an issue with a post, hit the RBP button and don't retaliate in the thread.

Thanks to the 98% of you who don't personalize their comments and who play by the rules.



_________________________
Cholula
TS/S Co-Moderator

And, folks, if you have an issue with a post, hit the RBP button and don't retaliate in the thread.


_________________________
Cholula
TS/S Co-ModeratorSorry for being OT, but I'm likely not the only one wondering what an "RBP button" might be?

I have no problems with a legitimate service animal on board with reasonable restrictions. I do have a problem with passengers bringing pets on board masquerading as service animals so they can avoid the restrictions on pets (fees and number allowed in the cabin).

The US Airways debacle with a full size pig brought on board is indicative of the abuses of the system.

Support animals need to have required training. There should be some national standards and certification so the carrier is satisfied the animal is truly a service animal.

In the case of legitimate service animals, they do receive public socialization training. Good.

No training is required of "emotional support" animals. I truly loved my red-eye flight with the purported emotional support animal on the lap of the woman behind me that yipped the ENTIRE flight while she kept cooing, "Now LuLu, you have to stop barking."

I have no problems with a legitimate service animal on board with reasonable restrictions. I do have a problem with passengers bringing pets on board masquerading as service animals so they can avoid the restrictions on pets (fees and number allowed in the cabin).

[...]

There should be some national standards and certification so the carrier is satisfied the animal is truly a service animal.


I'm wondering if this makes things far more complicated than they need to be.

First: according to the Wikipedia article, the ADA restricts the "service animal" designation to dogs. No cats, no monkeys, no pigs. That would eliminate one class of problems; carriers can simply concern themselves with just dogs.

Beyond that ... how much effort do we want to expend on creating certifications for service dogs? What kind of certification documents will you create? Moreover, how will you train thousands of airline employees to recognize those certifications and not forgeries?

Yes, in the current system, some passengers can "cheat" the airline out of pet carrier fees by claiming that their pet is a service animal. But, IMHO, the amount of money the airline loses is probably much less than they'd spend in implementing a policy that verifies whether or not a given animal is really a service animal. It just doesn't make financial sense.

Plus, consider the negative publicity that will inevitably result when a flight crew denies boarding to a passenger with their legitimate service dog, solely because they can't verify the dog's status. (We shred TSA for this sort of thing all the time.)

In short ... I don't think such a policy would be worth pursuing for most airlines.

How wonderfully generous of you. Would you rather have such a passenger flipping out at 25,000 feet instead? Or is air travel only for the privileged few who live perfect lives?

I never said or implied any such thing in my post.

An airplane is an enclosed small space that is incapable of readily stopping so someone can leave the cabin.

An animal that is not required to be trained, caged, or muzzled in that space? Yes, I have a problem with that. See my post above.

There needs to be legitimate training and certification of ALL service animals before they are allowed on an aircraft as a service animal. Period.

It's not like anyone has alleged that these support animals have caused any inconvenience to other passengers --- other than some confusion among the flight crew about how to handle them, that is. Why would it matter to you what comfort items another passenger chooses to bring aboard?

So allergy sufferers can just deal with it? People who have a fear of animals due to bite injuries can just deal with a loose and untrained animal in the cabin?

"Or is air travel only for the privileged few who live perfect lives?"

Other passengers can just put up with an untrained animal defecating and barking the entire flight [personal experience]?

When do the rights of someone wanting to bring their untrained pet on-board supersede MY rights on an aircraft?

If you're that bothered by support animals aboard aircraft, perhaps [U]you ought to be the one staying home rather than them ...

Yes, because I am so out of line to expect a service animal to be properly trained and certified.

But thank you for personalizing it. Perhaps you need training. See the FT rules for posting for a start.

If the regs say that the passenger has to have documentation, then so be it. But if the operator doesn't ask for the documentation, it's not the passenger's fault ...

Of course it is. The passenger is required to have it regardless of whether it was asked for or not.

The post to which I was responding stated one passenger had two "emotional support" animals. That is not permitted in the regs so is prima facie evidence of abuse of the system and should not have been permitted.

I'm wondering if this makes things far more complicated than they need to be.

Because the current system doesn't work.

First: according to the Wikipedia article, the ADA restricts the "service animal" designation to dogs. No cats, no monkeys, no pigs. That would eliminate one class of problems; carriers can simply concern themselves with just dogs.

You are obviously not aware that the ADA does not apply to airlines. Airlines are not restricted to just allowing dogs on board.

Beyond that ... how much effort do we want to expend on creating certifications for service dogs? What kind of certification documents will you create? Moreover, how will you train thousands of airline employees to recognize those certifications and not forgeries?

Airline employees can apparently recognize drivers licenses and state ID cards. Similar type of government issued ID for service animals, which requires completion and certification with certain standards is warranted.

Yes, in the current system, some passengers can "cheat" the airline out of pet carrier fees by claiming that their pet is a service animal. But, IMHO, the amount of money the airline loses is probably much less than they'd spend in implementing a policy that verifies whether or not a given animal is really a service animal. It just doesn't make financial sense.

I am not an airline. I don't care about the fees. I care about passengers subjected to untrained animals in a confined space.

Plus, consider the negative publicity that will inevitably result when a flight crew denies boarding to a passenger with their legitimate service dog, solely because they can't verify the dog's status. (We shred TSA for this sort of thing all the time.)

If the passenger doesn't bring the certification card, that is the passenger's problem.

In short ... I don't think such a policy would be worth pursuing for most airlines.

If you get bit or deal with a barking dog behind you for an entire flight, revisit that statement.

I didn't say he was travelling alone now did I, there were two letter's on the appropriate letterhead, from the appropriate professional, referencing two different travelers. I don't deny it was gaming the system, but what I don't understand is the hostility I feel from your post's, when there are whole areas of Flyertalk that specialize in doing just that in every way imaginable.

You most certainly did: "Was travelling with my dad and his 2 Emotional Support Pug's."

"His" two purported emotional support animals.

By the way if it makes you feel any better he is dead now, so no more worry's.

And exactly where in my post did I intimate such a thing? Oh, I see. You just wanted to take a cheap shot. Do you feel better?

If I misread your post I apologize. I thought your objection was to ESRs in general, not to the two that this passenger aparently brought with him. I agree that two is excessive but don't see that the regs prohibit it.

Regular passengers cannot bring two animals on board with them.

The regs allow a privilege and define the scope of that privilege. Unless those regs allow bringing on two animals, and they don't, it is NOT allowed.

Support animals need to have required training. There should be some national standards and certification so the carrier is satisfied the animal is truly a service animal.

In the case of legitimate service animals, they do receive public socialization training. Good.

No training is required of "emotional support" animals. I truly loved my red-eye flight with the purported emotional support animal on the lap of the woman behind me that yipped the ENTIRE flight while she kept cooing, "Now LuLu, you have to stop barking."So you would create more bureaucracy and expense and place the burden of bearing that cost upon those with a legitimate need for service animals, including emotional support animals?

No, thank you.

We are in the process of putting my son and his cat through training for the cat to work as visiting animal in medical care facilities, and have spent some learning the rules/laws for service animals. It is a long process, with training and tests, and no small cost. If we had to pay government fees and do even more testing, we just wouldn't do it.

Many of those who genuinely need service animals already spend a significant part of their income on medical expenses, and paying some government fee for a credential so airline passengers don't get bothered by lapdogs is an insult they don't need.

You most certainly did: "Was travelling with my dad and his 2 Emotional Support Pug's."

"His" two purported emotional support animals.

?
Apparently you are having some issues with reading comprehension, If he was travelling alone I would have not been with him now would I?

If you wan't the details it was:
2 passengers(Me and my Dad)
2 Dogs
2 Letters
And he only ever did 2 round trips with the dog's, on trips were he was going to be gone for months at a time, and there is no reasonable alternate way of transportation between the two points besides flying.

I have no problem gaming the system to my benefit, I would hazard a guess that almost all of us have done it at some point, and for now the ACA is so poorly written that you could drive a pig through it, and by the way I have fully read the ACA act in the past and cant recall anywhere in there that specifically says that ESA's are limited to one per person though that would be logical, but then the ACA isn't built on logic.


P.S. it was a cheap shot on my part, and for that I apologize, I was reacting to your comment that he should have been relegated to the last middle seat.

So you would create more bureaucracy and expense and place the burden of bearing that cost upon those with a legitimate need for service animals, including emotional support animals?



Yes, I would, so that those who have a legitimate need can avail themselves of the privilege and those who are not eligible cannot.

Handicapped people have to get permit to park in a handicapped parking space.

Why should people in need of a service animal not have to do something similar?

People should not unnecessarily be subjected to the untrained pets of others in the confined space of an airplane.

Apparently you are having some issues with reading comprehension, If he was travelling alone I would have not been with him now would I?

I agree there are issues with reading comprehension at play here.

You did NOT say that you and he each had an emotional support animal. You said the HE had two.

P.S. it was a cheap shot on my part, and for that I apologize, I was reacting to your comment that he should have been relegated to the last middle seat.

Thanks. The rhetoric on the Board sometimes takes off. I am guilty of it on occasion as well. I am sorry about the loss of your Dad. That is not what any of this is about. Cheers.

Sorry for being OT, but I'm likely not the only one wondering what an "RBP button" might be?

That would be the little red triangle in the lower left corner of each post under the poster's name. Click on it to report an abusive post, i.e., a post violative of FlyerTalk standards.

It's not like anyone has alleged that these support animals have caused any inconvenience to other passengers --- other than some confusion among the flight crew about how to handle them, that is. Why would it matter to you what comfort items another passenger chooses to bring aboard?

I've seen them cause some disruption. I was sitting in a window seat in F a few months ago. A woman in the same row in the other window seat had a small companion dog on her lap. It cried pretty incessantly, albeit not loudly. She got up frequently to go to the bathroom. She took the dog on a leash with her. On the trips to and from the bathroom the dog would get up on its hind legs and check out the people in the aisle seats. The dog woke one guy up who was not too pleased.

I asked the purser afterward what the story was. It was the first time I had encountered companion animals like that. He explained the rules. I swear I am not making this part up: he claimed he had recently worked a flight to Hawaii where the person had a companion pony or miniature horse. I have to admit, I am curious how that worked.

So allergy sufferers can just deal with it? People who have a fear of animals due to bite injuries can just deal with a loose and untrained animal in the cabin?

We're there already. Think about the fight about whether or not airlines ought to serve peanuts aboard an aircraft, given the presence of passengers with severe peanut allergies ...


Other passengers can just put up with an untrained animal defecating [United flight out of NRT] and barking the entire flight [personal experience]?

When do the rights of someone wanting to bring their untrained pet on-board supersede MY rights on an aircraft?

Rights are always a balancing act. We've all had bad experiences dealing with passengers who disrupt our peaceful existence ... talking, kicking the seat, body odor. There's not an easy answer.


You are obviously not aware that the ADA does not apply to airlines.

Absolutely wrong. Title III of the ADA applies to any place of public accomodation, which includes transportation facilities.

But don't just take my word for it.


The Oakland Press

By Jerry Wolffe
September 4, 2008

A federal judge Wednesday ruled in a case involving Northwest Airlines and a Farmington woman that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to airlines and can be used to require equal treatment for the disabled when traveling.

Link (http://www.callsam.com/bernstein-media-center/richard-bernstein-news-fighting-for-justice/disabled-travelers-file-lawsuit-for-access-to-airlines/judge-americans-with-disabilities-act-applies-to-airlines)


And, yes, the airlines can set whatever policy they want. But they can conveniently say "well, we've chosen to use the ADA's definitions", and make their own lives much easier.


Airline employees can apparently recognize drivers licenses and state ID cards. Similar type of government issued ID for service animals, which requires completion and certification with certain standards is warranted.


Have you read all the articles about how TDCs can't recognize all the forms of ID they're required to by law? Yes, we're talking about the airlines, not TSA, but I don't have any more confidence in airline employee's ability to distinguish between a valid and an invalid service animal certification.


Handicapped people have to get a permit to park in a handicapped parking space.

Why should people in need of a service animal not have to do something similar?

But you're asking for much more beyond that.

Let's take your example. Yes, one is supposed to have a permit to park in a handicapped space. But handicap parking spaces aren't enforced by having a parking authority employee standing next to the parking space 24/7 and checking the ID of anyone who wants to park there. We rely on the honor system, along with periodic random enforcement.

Guess what? That means that, occasionally, people who aren't handicapped park in handicapped parking spaces, depriving those who have a legitimate need for that space. And what's society's response? We live with it --- because the cost enforcing handicap parking permits 24/7 on every handicap parking space everywhere is too high.

Absolutely wrong. Title III of the ADA applies to any place of public accomodation, which includes transportation facilities.
But just to clarify, the ADA does not apply to aircraft. That is the province of ACCA.

But just to clarify, the ADA does not apply to aircraft. That is the province of ACCA.

ACCA? Who are they? (I Googled it, but kept coming up with organizations for accountants and for the arts ...)

Regardless, I'm not sure the distinction matters. ADA applies to the airline, which uses aircraft. It's the provider that's the issue, not the artifacts.

ACCA? Who are they? (I Googled it, but kept coming up with organizations for accountants and for the arts ...)

Regardless, I'm not sure the distinction matters. ADA applies to the airline, which uses aircraft. It's the provider that's the issue, not the artifacts.My bad, not ACCA but ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act). The ADA does not apply to aircraft so the architectural requirements that are contained in the ADA are not required to be complied with. How many planes have handicap accessible restrooms?

We're there already. Think about the fight about whether or not airlines ought to serve peanuts aboard an aircraft, given the presence of passengers with severe peanut allergies ...


Yep. I deal with that already. 1 out of 4 flights I take on SQ are "nut free" because someone claims a nut allergy.



Rights are always a balancing act. We've all had bad experiences dealing with passengers who disrupt our peaceful existence ... talking, kicking the seat, body odor. There's not an easy answer.

Right. Balancing both sides.



Absolutely wrong. Title III of the ADA applies to any place of public accomodation, which includes transportation facilities.

But don't just take my word for it.

Complete your research before quoting law. Had you looked deeper into the case, you would have seen this conclusion in the judge's final order:

The ADA provides an exclusive list of public accommodations. 42 U.S.C. §
12181(7)(G). This list includes a terminal for “specified public transportation.” 42
U.S.C. § 12181(7). The statute explicitly excludes aircraft from the definitions of
“specified public transportation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(10). This court previously held that
private airport terminals and facilities related to air transportation are not considered
places of public accommodation under Title III, and are not proper subjects for a private
cause of action. (September 2, 2008 Order, doc. 16). Airport terminals and facilities
related to air transportation are instead covered by the ACAA. The ACAA is a pre-ADA
disability access statute.

And, yes, the airlines can set whatever policy they want. But they can conveniently say "well, we've chosen to use the ADA's definitions", and make their own lives much easier.

It makes the airlines' life easier NOT to adopt the ADA, which allows private rights of action.

Have you read all the articles about how TDCs can't recognize all the forms of ID they're required to by law? Yes, we're talking about the airlines, not TSA, but I don't have any more confidence in airline employee's ability to distinguish between a valid and an invalid service animal certification.

I trust an airline employee more than a TSA "officer". In an event, difficulties with enforcement are not a valid grounds for denying adequate relief to those affected by people who are gaming the system to their own benefit, and to the detriment of other passengers.

When I was [much] younger, I had a 20-foot, 200-pound, Burmese python. Seriously. How would you like it if I was seated next to you with him wrapped around me as an "emotional support" animal?

But you're asking for much more beyond that.

Let's take your example. Yes, one is supposed to have a permit to park in a handicapped space. But handicap parking spaces aren't enforced by having a parking authority employee standing next to the parking space 24/7 and checking the ID of anyone who wants to park there. We rely on the honor system, along with periodic random enforcement.

No...it is not the honor system. There is a law that prohibits parking in a handicapped parking space. It is enforced. [Go to California--it is really enforced with a huge fine.]

Guess what? That means that, occasionally, people who aren't handicapped park in handicapped parking spaces, depriving those who have a legitimate need for that space. And what's society's response? We live with it --- because the cost enforcing handicap parking permits 24/7 on every handicap parking space everywhere is too high.

And people speed and people run red lights. Guess what? We catch them occasionally and issue them fines for violating the law.

The bottom line to your argument is that you think people should be trusted to comply with the law. Well, they don't. So you need enforcement. Enforcement in this case would require showing your compliance card to board an aircraft with an animal. Yes...that is so extreme.

ACCA? Who are they? (I Googled it, but kept coming up with organizations for accountants and for the arts ...)

Regardless, I'm not sure the distinction matters. ADA applies to the airline, which uses aircraft. It's the provider that's the issue, not the artifacts.

ACAA: Air Carrier Access Act

And you are wrong on the ADA.

Let's take your example. Yes, one is supposed to have a permit to park in a handicapped space. But handicap parking spaces aren't enforced by having a parking authority employee standing next to the parking space 24/7 and checking the ID of anyone who wants to park there. We rely on the honor system, along with periodic random enforcement.


No...it is not the honor system. There is a law that prohibits parking in a handicapped parking space. It is enforced. [Go to California--it is really enforced with a huge fine.]

Thanks for ignoring my whole statement. Let me quote myself again:

We rely on the honor system, along with periodic random enforcement.

Yes, there's a law against parking in a handicapped parking space in my state too --- with huge fines. And you know what happens? People park in handicap spaces occasionally without the proper permit and don't get fined.

We don't post cops next to every handicap parking space and verify that every person who parks in every handicap parking space at every moment in time has the proper permits. We rely on random enforcement, and the good will of most people not to park in those spaces (or perhaps the fear of getting caught).


The bottom line to your argument is that you think people should be trusted to comply with the law. Well, they don't. So you need enforcement.

No, that's not my bottom line. There are different ways to enforce the law. Some laws are enforced through involuntary compliance; others are enforced through voluntary compliance. Each has benefits and costs which must be balanced.


Enforcement in this case would require showing your compliance card to board an aircraft with an animal. Yes...that is so extreme.

Papers, please ...

ACAA: Air Carrier Access Act

And you are wrong on the ADA.

Very well; I concede my error on that point.

The bottom line to your argument is that you think people should be trusted to comply with the law. Well, they don't. So you need enforcement. Enforcement in this case would require showing your compliance card to board an aircraft with an animal. Yes...that is so extreme.

You need a note from a medical health professional unless it is a bona fide service animal; what exactly do you want?

Sorry for being OT, but I'm likely not the only one wondering what an "RBP button" might be?

is for reporting a post that is a personal attack, rude, or otherwise disruptive to the topic at hand. It is the little red triangle to the left of each post on FT.

Thanks for asking!

squeakr

co Mod TS/S

You need a note from a medical health professional unless it is a bona fide service animal; what exactly do you want?

Standardized training and certification. You know, like I said earlier.

Thanks for ignoring my whole statement. Let me quote myself again:



Yes, there's a law against parking in a handicapped parking space in my state too --- with huge fines. And you know what happens? People park in handicap spaces occasionally without the proper permit and don't get fined.

We don't post cops next to every handicap parking space and verify that every person who parks in every handicap parking space at every moment in time has the proper permits. We rely on random enforcement, and the good will of most people not to park in those spaces (or perhaps the fear of getting caught).

Here, there are no standards, no training requirements, and no minimum requirements for certification (show us a letter from a "health care professional", who issued it without being provided any standards for when it should be issued).

There is also no random enforcement. There is minimal enforcement of almost non-existent standards.



No, that's not my bottom line. There are different ways to enforce the law. Some laws are enforced through involuntary compliance; others are enforced through voluntary compliance. Each has benefits and costs which must be balanced.

There are no laws that enforced solely through voluntary compliance.



Papers, please ...

Oh, please. How tired is that?

You mean like the papers you have to show when stopped driving your car? Or the papers you have to show when flying internationally?

There is abuse of the system. Everyone knows it and it affects other passengers. It is just so terrible, isn't it, to require compliance with standards before you bring a loose animal into the passenger compartment of a plane?

I note you didn't respond to my query about my pet python...

There are no laws that enforced solely through voluntary compliance.


Sigh. Voluntary compliance plus random enforcement.

There's no cop sitting outside my door waiting for me to file my 1040 tax returns every April 15th. On the other hand, if I don't file my return, there's always the possibility that I might get audited, with much more severe penalties if it turns out that I owed the government money.


There is abuse of the system. Everyone knows it and it affects other passengers. It is just so terrible, isn't it, to require compliance with standards before you bring a loose animal into the passenger compartment of a plane?

I agree that there's abuse of the system, and I agree that people ought to follow the rules. I'm just not sure that your prescription isn't worse than the original problem.


I note you didn't respond to my query about my pet python...

'Cause I got no problem with it. If you're comfortable with a python hanging around your neck, so am I ...

Sigh. Voluntary compliance plus random enforcement.

There's no cop sitting outside my door waiting for me to file my 1040 tax returns every April 15th. On the other hand, if I don't file my return, there's always the possibility that I might get audited, with much more severe penalties if it turns out that I owed the government money.

I guess I just got confused when you said above: "Some laws are enforced through involuntary compliance; others are enforced through voluntary compliance." I guess you didn't mean what you said.


I agree that there's abuse of the system, and I agree that people ought to follow the rules. I'm just not sure that your prescription isn't worse than the original problem.

Nor am I. See? We agree on something! :)

I guess I just got confused when you said above: "Some laws are enforced through involuntary compliance; others are enforced through voluntary compliance." I guess you didn't mean what you said.

What I said was true, but incomplete. If that's sufficient cause to criticize my integrity, so be it.

I noticed nobody jumped all over ND Sol's back when he misstated the acronym of the relevant agency as ACCA. But, hey, that's life in the NBA ...


Nor am I. See? We agree on something! :)

Never in doubt from my perspective ...

Ok.

ND Sol! You bad person. You misstated the acronym of the relevant agency as ACCA.

:D

Standardized training and certification. You know, like I said earlier.

That brings me back to my original suggestion:

If you feel that way, then lobby Congress to change the law or the FAA to modify the correspondig CFR (I don't recall the exact interplay of the ACAA and the FAA's CFR with respect to ESAs).

What I said was true, but incomplete. If that's sufficient cause to criticize my integrity, so be it.

I noticed nobody jumped all over ND Sol's back when he misstated the acronym of the relevant agency as ACCA. But, hey, that's life in the NBA ...



Never in doubt from my perspective ...

Ok.

ND Sol! You bad person. You misstated the acronym of the relevant agency as ACCA.

:DOff to goalie's penalty box for me since I typed a "C" instead of an "A". :p

(BTW, ACAA is not an "agency", but is a law, but don't worry, I won't jump all over anyone's back.) ;)

Yes, I would, so that those who have a legitimate need can avail themselves of the privilege and those who are not eligible cannot.

Handicapped people have to get permit to park in a handicapped parking space.

Why should people in need of a service animal not have to do something similar?

People should not unnecessarily be subjected to the untrained pets of others in the confined space of an airplane.Your suggestion of an official training and credential system is ridiculou$, exce$$ive and complete overkill for the scale of the "problem" as you describe it, and in no way comparable to the parking permit system.

I have a handicapped parking permit. To get it, I took the form to one of the specialists I see, she completed it and I mailed to the DMV, who in turn mailed me my parking permit. Cost: 1 first class stamp. Every state has something similar: a form to be completed by a licensed physician and a permit given out by the existing government agency which deals with motor vehicles and no additional bureaucracy was created for the permit process.

You want legislation to set up an agency of the government, which would first hire staff, then solicit expert testimony and eventually set standards for training, then hire and train evaluators, and set up offices in all 50 states because that's the way federal programs work. These offices would then issue credentials to tested and approved trainers of service animals and eventually to the animals themselves after testing.

Next anyone who needed a service animal would be required to have the animal trained by an authorized, licensed trainer to standards set by the federal government, which may or may not match the needs of the individual, and then tested by government evaluators to a government set standard in order to get a credential to take their service animal out in public or on a plane.

The cost of federal program would of course be borne by the taxpayers, and come from the current "surplus" in the federal budget :rolleyes: while the individual needing the service animal would pay out of pocket for all the extra training and testing, and you know, don't you, that medical insurance does not pay for service animals, even guide dogs for the blind?

All this so you won't be disturbed by a barking dog on a plane?

FT's ToS prohibit me from stating exactly what I think of such an attitude.

I have a handicapped parking permit. To get it, I took the form to one of the specialists I see, she completed it and I mailed to the DMV, who in turn mailed me my parking permit. Cost: 1 first class stamp. Every state has something similar: a form to be completed by a licensed physician and a permit given out by the existing government agency which deals with motor vehicles and no additional bureaucracy was created for the permit process.

So we already have a useless bureaucracy dealing with air travel. It's pretty simple: you get a form, take it to your mental health provider, s/he fills it out and you mail it to TSA with a picture of the service animal. They send you a placard which you hang from the service animal.

Other than training a few service animals to open the mail and run a lamination machine, we already have what we need.

So we already have a useless bureaucracy dealing with air travel. It's pretty simple: you get a form, take it to your mental health provider, s/he fills it out and you mail it to TSA with a picture of the service animal. They send you a placard which you hang from the service animal.

Just to clarify, an "emotional support animal" is not the same as a "service animal" in the eyes of the law (and also in many practical ways).

So we already have a useless bureaucracy dealing with air travel. It's pretty simple: you get a form, take it to your mental health provider, s/he fills it out and you mail it to TSA with a picture of the service animal. They send you a placard which you hang from the service animal.

Other than training a few service animals to open the mail and run a lamination machine, we already have what we need.:rolleyes:Maybe you should read the whole thread before responding.

The poster I was responding to wants every service animal to have standardized training and certification of the training to be carried with the owner. Mental health providers have zip to do with service animals, they might suggest emotional support animals to their clients.

... and not many animals of any species would put up with a placard hanging from their neck.

Back to the OP. WN charges $75 for a carry on pet (cat or dog) and nothing if it is a "service animal." Not really hard to figure out.

Give me a break. This crap has to be stopped.

"Emotional support"? If you are that emotionally fragile, stay home.


Yeah especially the disabled vets with PTSD who got it just to inconvenience TSOs and to get to fly with pets with them, right? I was told by a TSO at SDF that if I was unable to walk into the scanner and "assume the position" that I and my wheelchair should "just stay home."

Back to the OP. WN charges $75 for a carry on pet (cat or dog) and nothing if it is a "service animal." Not really hard to figure out.

That's the bottom line. And what kind of papers does WN require upon check-in or boarding? any idea?

I think we hit a nerve here with this topic.

That's the bottom line. And what kind of papers does WN require upon check-in or boarding? any idea?

I think we hit a nerve here with this topic.Here's the law:

(d) As evidence that an animal is a service animal, you must accept identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags, or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal

from this article, (http://www.dlrp.org/html/topical/aircarrier/aircarrier_serviceanimals.html) which also explains the laws relating to "credentials" required for emotional support animals.

Give it a rest. I've never seen a service animal cause a problem on a plane. If there were any allergies, they can be resolved quietly and privately.

Half the flights I take are disrupted by loud, bratty, seat-kicking, irritating children that can't even maintain the composure of a dog or a cat. We should worry about those and moving them to the back behind a soundproof barrier.

By the time the kids are raising hell at 30,000 I'm already worked up after the TSA abuse at the checkpoint. When the stewardess comes by with the booze to soothe the nightmare of air travel, that too has been jacked up in price to larcenous levels.

An occasional bark would be a huge improvement from the almost guaranteed screaming, whining, and seat kicking which have become an accepted part of air travel.

Please, if you're on my next flight, and you have an emotional comfort animal, share him with me. Meeting a well behaved animal companion will be a nice break from the stress.

Besides, air travel is already a three ring circus, so there have to be animals somewhere. The service tigers could not make it past the TSO tasked with stealing our pen knives and nail files.