BJM

CW I might agree that it's not best for someone without ES2F to actually fly. However, the animal may not be there to support emotional issues related to flying.

bhrubin

I find the idea of an emotional support animal to also be mildly infuriating. OTOH, I have yet, in all my flying, to ever have the experience of sharing a cabin with any service or emotional support animal that otherwise wouldn't fit in a small container beneath a seat.

So this seems to be a lot of whining from people for no reason--other than to feel superior or resentful about something that is actually quite rare, relatively speaking. I think we should address the idiot parents of non-behaving children kicking seats or tearing down the aisles before we worry about the rare animals in the cabin.

Unless you've been burdened in some way by a sizable animal on a flight, there really seems to be no issue here. Talk of what could or might happen is superfluous and needless chatter IMO. Allergies can be an issue with a small dog or cat, which always are permitted in a suitable container under the seat, so anyone whining about allergies for a larger animal is just whining unnecessarily.

Truth be told, if there were a service or emotional support animal that was pretty well behaved on a flight, I think it could be adorable and hilarious. And if the animal doesn't bother me any more than another loud passenger or screaming child, or any other issue that can come up on a flight, I really fail to see what the damn problem is.

Relax people. It's a dog.

gungadin

You may relax but my daughter who has asthma triggered by dog hair recently had to move from her paid EC seat because a large dog plus it's human were in the adjoining seat . I have a partially deaf friend who uses a support dog so I know it can be necessary . But I wonder, given how common it is nowdays, if there should not be a space on the booking form for allergies and support animals so the seats could be blocked .

Doc Savage

I think a lot of the "fury" comes from peoples' recognition that there is inequity, i.e., that another person is getting unfair advantage and imposing on others by cheating and claiming a "disability" where there is none. Recognition of inequity is a fairly evolutionarily old characteristic, recognizable in apes.

Most people don't mind being slightly inconvenienced by someone who truly has extra needs. The worst part of this whole "emotional support animal" nonsense is that the truly disabled are now looked upon skeptically because of the abuse by the cheaters.

bhrubin

Again, had that dog been smaller and legally permitted regardless under the seat, your daughter STILL would have issues. The SIZE of the animal is being used by you as a scapegoat for the fact that your daughter was inconvenienced by a dog and her asthma issues--period. The size of the dog is irrelevant here. The fact that your daughter has asthma issues with dog hair is the issue...and even a small dog under the seat can trigger that. You are making my case.

Aside from the fact that the larger animal may actually have been a cogent service or appropriate emotional support animal.

bhrubin

Agreed. Yet I suspect still that most people complaining about larger dogs are not actually "inconvenienced" at all but simply resent someone else doing something they cannot or would not do.

Cymbo

Like all these things in the US, it has now escalated to excessive levels. There may need to be some overall limitation on a total number of service animals on any particular flight. When that limit is triggered, the passenger would need to reserve another flight.

CHOPCHOP767

You're right, it's a dog, which is a pet and according to Virgin:

"Guests with pets cannot be seated in the Main Cabin Select seats (bulk head and exit row) or the First Class cabin."

I fly with my dog, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, often and it bothers me that I pay $125 each way for him and then see others cheat. I've only flown Virgin a handful of times, but one of the reasons for that decision is their stated policy that pets are not allowed in F.

StirredNotShaken

Thank you for the suggestion - I was asked to send details via the VX website and I'm looking forward to hearing from them. I appreciate your help, Ptownca.

BJM

How do you know they are cheating?

To Doc Savage. Did you mean 'fury' or 'furry'?

Doc Savage

A furry fury, to be exact.

USCTrojan83

No no no. I'm allergic to dogs but have little issues with small "lap dogs" kept in crates under the seat or elsewhere in the cabin. However, three times lately I've had large sized dogs in the row 1 seat on the floor, which is a lot more problematic both for comfort and allergy reasons. Another time some lady had her dog propped up on a pillow over the center armrests, thus preventing me from taking out the television. It was beyond annoying.

USCTrojan83

Nope. You try spending 5 hours unable to properly keep your legs on the floor thanks to an oversized pit bull which was classified as an "emotional support animal" taking up your leg room.

gaobest

Ugh how can pax with allergies be forced to be inconvenienced and at harm by pets on planes? It feels very wrong.

Also next time a dog is impeding the tv, I think it's acceptable to still set up the tv or ask FA for help.

I love dogs and children but don't think they should heavily inconvenience other pax. We pay VX F but i wouldn't be happy about a dog next to me. Not sure what VX can do if a dog is in F, despite their rules of dogs not in F. I'm sure there's an ADA loophole for dogs in F

steve64

You're (understandably) basing your reply on your own personal experiences. Please respect the fact that others are doing the same, and their experiences might be different than yours.

Mine row 2 aisle MCO-LAX. Medium size "bulldog" in 2A.
The inconvenience started mildly during boarding as 2 different times families with children wanted to stop to pet the doggie.
There three other "service dogs (read: not in a carrier as specified for "small pets" but in arms or on a leash as allowed by the government for "emotional support critters"). Each time another dog passed during boarding, "Fido" next to me had to come across to check the dog out.

In flight, each time the FA stopped by, Fido had to check her out. My footrest is now extended which meant Fido had to try to go under or over each time. Fido's emotionally distressed Master was quickly getting sloppy drunk. It took 2 or 3 "NO" each time Fido strayed yo get him back to his floor space. The "no's" got louder as Master got more drunk.

Master finally passed out. Service was over so the FA wasn't coming around as often. So Fido for the most part stayed in his space and peacefully licked my feet the rest of the trip. I debated putting my shoes back on but declined. There were still a few occasions where I had to try and block Fido's exit with my feet. I decided that if he does get past me, I'm not going to worry about it. I was wanting it to happen, hoping the FA would report Master and get him banned from VX.

Me ? I'm a critter lover and have 2 dogs. Dogs who stay home when I travel. My complaints are with Master and not the barely trained Fido. And with the government who allows this loophole to continue. I've nothing against true "emotional support service animals". But qualifying a critter as such needs to be tightened up along the lines of other service animal types.