Canadian Carriers Should Focus on Needs of Passengers Requiring Support Animals, Advocate Says
Jackie Reddy February 15, 2018
High-profile cases involving exotic species may make headlines, but they detract from the needs of those who require emotional support animals in order to travel, says passenger advocate Gabor Lukacs. Canadian carriers, he adds, need to do more to focus on the requirements of these passengers.
From peacocks and pigs to dogs and cats, there’s no denying that emotional support animals are now commonplace both at the airport as well as down the airplane aisle. While instances of travelers in the U.S. flying or attempting to fly with more exotic species have garnered quite a lot of news coverage as of late, one passenger advocate in Canada says that the nation’s airlines should do more to focus on the specific needs of Canadian passengers.
Gabor Lukacs said that recent high-profile cases detract from the needs of those who rely on their support animals to travel. Just last month, a United Airlines passenger was denied boarding with an emotional support peacock while a recent Spirit Airlines traveler said that she was forced to flush her support hamster down the toilet after being told she could not fly with it.
Speaking to The Chronicle Herald, Lukacs said, “We need to move away the focus from the animal to the fellow passenger.”
While not all U.S. carriers accept a wide variety of animals, Canadian airline WestJet has made provisions for a number of species in its policy relating to emotional support animals. This includes monkeys, pigs, miniature horses as well as cats. Provisions for any other animals are decided on an individual basis.
Air Canada, however, is much more straightforward regarding its policies and allows only dogs on its flights.
Canadian carriers, Lukacs explained, must make accommodations for those with disabilities who rely on support animals to travel.
Regardless of how exotic the species of the support animal may seem, Lukacs is eager to remind passengers that it is fulfilling a necessary function. “The animal is not there as a kind of luxury, they are simply there to make sure that a person with a disability is able to enjoy the same way to travel as people who don’t have disabilities,” he said.
[Photo: Shutterstock]
You’re Reading
Looks like Mr Lukacs has found another pet project to piss off CDN airlines... The fact is that CDN airlines do have progressive policies to allow for traditional service animals. We can debate whether emotional support is a disability or not (and arguably in many cases, there might be alternatives to flying). And speaking of passenger needs - there is a true risk for people with allergies to animals - so how do we balance that need with that of people requiring an emotional-support animal... Who should prevail?
I agree with we’re. We are already witnessing prejudice even though my husband is quite obviously disabled, walking with a cane limping, with scoliosis and in need of wheelchair assistance for long distances in an airport. I have heard people make remarks about whether or not his service dog is real or just a pet. How belittling this feels. In the security line, this highly trained dog will stop on signal and wait until I pass through and upon a hand signal will pass through. A TSA line is chaotic and loud, she is surrounded by many people and much activity, but she keeps her eyes on me waiting for signal. My husband has always been separated and searched because he is in the wheelchair, so our dog responds to both his and my commands. Five years ago, we did not hear snarky comments, people watched in awe as this dog did her work. Today, people are so dismissive over another dog being allowed onboard that they ignore the kindness they used to show my husband. Now, he’s the bad guy, looked at resentfully. Usually, at some point during the flight, they begin to smile courteously and some remark at such an amazingly trained service dog we have.
Is the intent of this advocate to water down the term 'disability'? Including any wish and want into the scope of disability will in the mid-run hurt disabled people.
"...while a recent Spirit Airlines traveler said that she was forced to flush her support hamster down the toilet after being told she could not fly with it." What am I missing here? There is a very large gap between not being allowed to fly with a support hamster and then flushing said hamster down the toilet. I can think of several less dramatic options. Maybe this is not someone we want on an aircraft even when they have a support gerbil in their pocket. BTW, what did all of these people requiring support animals do as recently as a few years ago when nobody was taking support animals on aircrafts? Were they taking the bus?
Oh please no... just when I thought some reason was finally being injected into this insanity. The needs of one narcissistic individual should not trump the needs of everyone else on board, and whatever disabilities these passengers may claim to have doesn’t justify creating a nuisance or safety hazard. Air Canada is right to only allow service dogs... I guarantee there’s no such thing as a legitimate support peacock, monkey, pig, etc.