Originally Posted by
3Cforme
Delta, for one, makes a clear distinction between service animals and emotional support animals, and outlines documentation requirements for the latter.
AA does that as well with pretty much the same language (
check out the form). In a case I was personally involved with (a companion who wanted/needed to bring an ESAN) AA asked the mental health professional for additional information and a copy of their license before OKing the dog. The procedure was neither easy nor particularly cheap - in fact, for the average person, it's cheaper to pay the pet fee than for all that Dr. paperwork.
The same applies for service dogs - AA demands 'real' paperwork nowadays, and it all has to add up. The days where you could slap a service dog vest on an animal and show one of these downloaded-from-the-internet "certifications" to get it on an AA plane are long gone, if they ever existed.
Originally Posted by
Always Flyin
All the passenger has to do is say the animal is a service animal and they don't have to show anything to bring the animal on-board, without cost, and outside a carrier. It is far, far easier than claiming the animal is an emotional support animal.
The only thing the airline can do is ask the passenger what type of service the animal provides (they can't ask what health issue the passenger has) and as long as the answer is credible, the animal goes on board..
That is not true. AA asks for proper documentation, which includes a medical professional's 'prescription' in case of service dogs that serve a medical purpose like seizure alert dogs. Granted, this is more than the letter of the law requires...
Originally Posted by
BigBopper
I don't argue that those that have legitimate needs deserve to have their trained service animals on the plane however I also have a right to safe travel. This means not being forced to sit next to animal that I'm allergic to.
US lawmakers have decided this matter in favor of the animals, and US airlines choose to comply to the detriment of passengers like you. In other parts of the world, things are the other way around - at TK, if there's a passenger on a flight who claims a pet dander allergy in the same cabin as a passenger wishing to transport an in-cabin pet or service animal and backs that claim up with supporting medical documentation, the pax with the animal gets booted off the flight.
"Fair middle ground" - I've seen that at work with AA actually. GAs alerted potential seat neighbors about that they will be seated next to a service animal when they showed up at the gate and asked if they were OK with it or would they want to be reseated. Of course, with today's load factors often at 100% and ever more cramped seating configurations, that's not always possible and we end up with situations as described by the OP.
Personally, I'm all for making passengers with animals (as well as 'oversize' passengers) pay for a seat they plus the animal fit in without occupying their neighbor's space - be that two seats or a premium cabin seat.