dlaue

Seen at Terminal 1, LAX. A comfort duck!

snoopoz

The doctor who wrote that prescription must be a quack.

returnoftheyeti

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...0/pets-allowed

davesam12

Have comfort animals gone too far?

Yes.

jrjcopp

What he said.

PAX62

Considering a lady tried to bring a goldfish into Disneyland (in a open top aquarium no less) as a "comfort animal"...yes, this crap needs to stop.

There should be no reason that service dogs, therapy dogs, and comfort animals should not have a legal certification and be required for entry into establishments. You need to be issued a placard to park in a handicapped space, why is this any different?

camaross

Who cares? Is the animal bothering you? What percentage of people flying do you think have a non-canine support animal? 0.0001%? Of all the things to worry about at the aiport or on a plane, this wouldn't even make my top 100 concerns.

jeffandnicole

Amazingly the duck even had a free drink coupon and ID to prove it was over 21 years old!

returnoftheyeti

pinniped

I posted this take on a similar thread a few months ago: I think on most routes, you're right: the incidence of people trying to use the "support animal" nonsense to get a free pet onboard is very, very rare. (Not to be confused in the slightest with people bringing legitimate service animals onboard, which are highly trained and certified.) I had flown hundreds of flights and not noticed them personally.

But then I flew to Florida and saw pets all over the airport, some with the silly "support animal" vest on, some not.

So now I think it's probably somewhat route-dependent. And no, the dogs and cats (it's usually those two...no ducks in my experience) don't bother me. On one hand, I can't blame someone for trying to get around a bogus airline fee...or even if you don't think it's bogus, one that's risen a lot faster than inflation over the years. But on the other hand, I know a lot of people are allergic to pets and feel they shouldn't have to fly with them except in cases where the legal protections for seeing-eye dogs (and similar service animals) are in effect. The airlines make the fees for pets quite high in part as a deterrent, so I can see where people circumventing them is annoying to some.

Cohall

Now I kind of want a comfort duck...

But really, the airlines are fully to blame for the abuse of this. If they made the in-cabin pet fees even close to reasonable, people wouldn't be so actively trying to circumvent the rules. Paying between $190-$250 round trip for my 15 pound dog to take up exactly the same space, and replacing the carry-on I'm already allowed, is tough to swallow. It's an offensive fee, that has no relation to any real cost for the airline (of course, that's true of many of the stupid airline fees).

I pay the fee for my dog, because that's the type of person I am, but I actually don't really blame others for telling the airlines to F off with their stupid charges.

LegalTender

Would learning people around you paid $12.50 General Admission bother you in a $375 Box Seat?

WN charges $95 to transport pets. Avoiding it should have consequences.

Fares tend to rise as fee revenue disappears.

NextTrip

I am highly allergic to dogs and especially cats. So, yes it does bother me! The occasional service dog at the front of the plane is completely understandable. But, on one flight, I had to change seats in the middle of the plane mid-flight because of a serious reaction I was having to a cat that had previously sat ON the seat I was occupying. Glad the flight was not full and I could do so.

dlaue

Reminds me of riding public buses in Ecuador.

satman40

Give the blind their seeing eye dogs, after that forget it,,