okazon69

On AC302 yesterday, there was a large labradoodle in row 12 in PE, supposedly an ESA, although it was far from clear which family member of three was in need of such.

The dog wasn't wearing a harness, contrary to what the AC website states ("Your dog must remain harnessed at all times.") When I asked the service director about this, she pulled up her manual on her iPad and showed me that the harness wasn't a requirement. She did tell me she'd report the inconsistency.

I'm curious as to why pets cannot be in bulkhead rows, while service animals can be.

robsaw

Because pets are supposed to remain in their carrier under the seat in front of the passenger, which cannot consistently be done in bulkhead rows. Service animals lie at their owner's feet and not in a carrier.

If it is an ESA and not a pet:
"If you are travelling with a dog* as an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, you must advise Air Canada Reservations 48 hour in advance of travel, and provide supporting documentation in the form of an original letter on the letterhead of a licensed mental health professional (e.g. a psychologist, a psychiatrist, the general practitioner who is treating the passenger's mental or emotional disability, or a licensed clinical social worker), dated within one year of your departure date."

1Newflyer

So dogs whatever the category are not an issue in the emergency situations? But the purse or a small bag must be stalled away during take off and landing?
What about allergies to dogs or other animals, these passengers have no rights?

Livyer

I flew 696 last night (after much delay). While we were waiting to board at the gate, a young woman walked by with a smallish dog (<20lbs) on a leash. While walking past me, the dog cocked his leg and attempted to "mark" my carryon. I managed to pull it away in time (so the urine only hit the floor). I automatically said 'hey' as I did so, and she turned to me and said "relax, it's just a dog." I didn't respond, but wasn't impressed. After boarding, I noticed her boarding later with the dog still on a leash.

Transpacificflyer

Here we go again. The "rights" of the other passengers are maintained. If someone has a serious allergy, the person can advise the airline in advance. That is what they are supposed to do. The issue of passenger allergies is overblown and exaggerated. Here's a reality check;
- Yes, some people have allergies. I have them. A great many people claiming to have serious allergies cannot substantiate the condition by way of actual test results. They may have a mild allergy, which they make out to be be a life threatening condition. Others have psychological condition related allergies. All they need to do is to see a dog and they have a response.
- The scientific reality is that an animal itself will not cause an allergic reaction in most susceptible people who are 1 meter or more away. The subject has to be exposed to the allergen. If a person is that distraught or uncomfortable if located within a row +/- of a critter, the person can ask for a relocation.
- If someone has a serious allergy to a dog or cat, or has allergies that are triggered with a minor exposure to the allergen, then that person has far bigger issues than the animal allergy. The person has a serious medical condition and should not be traveling without emergency treatment for a potentially fatal reaction, and oxygen. In fact, such a person is obliged under the Air Canada procedures to provide a medical certificate that says the person is fit to fly. If the exposure will cause a medical event such as a seizure or respiratory crisis, then the passenger has an obligation to act appropriately.
- The amazing aspect of people making these claims, is that if they are so super sensitive to being on the same aircraft as a critter they don't seem to have manifestations or reactions when sitting in close proximity to people like me or my friends or work colleagues. When I visit my friends, I can depart covered in their companion critters drool, and dander. I have literally flown home covered in persian cat and golden retriever dog debris, that should provoke death reactions from these claimants. Considering the number of people who have companion animals, it is highly likely that these sensitive passengers are siting next to someone or in close proximity of someone who should set off an allergic reaction. It is very odd, that in all the years I have walked through an airport or sat on a plane, along with the millions of others just like me, we have yet to leave a wake of anaphylactic shock or bronchial crises . According to the claims of those with self diagnosed serious allergies, even the smallest exposure should give them a near death experience.

Yea, so to those whinging about service critters or companion critters on board, maybe it's time you traveled with the miracle cure for the exposure. It's called Placebo and is available OTC. And to the minority of pax with a bonafide issue, obtain a confirmation from your allergist and warn the airline before you fly. If exposed on board, ask for a relocation. Carry appropriate medication, because someone like me could be sitting next you and pax like me are more likely to cause a serious reaction since we will be moving about and perhaps even coming into contact.

InTheAirGuy

What if we don't have allergies, etc?

What if we just don't like the growing number of obviously fake service/emotional support dogs appearing on planes, and are trying to get some to do something about it? If we don't, like the previous poster, like a dog urinating on our carry on? Or a dog running loose in the MLL, upthread. Or, as I am sure we will see on this thread, a dog having a crap in the middle of the aisle?

What do we do about that?

1Newflyer

It would be good idea for you to preach likewise to travelers with pets.

mapleg

I can 100% guarantee you I would have responded. Who the heck does she think she is walking around an airport with a dog cocking his leg and urinating on whatever it sees fit. Put it in dog carrier and spare the rest of us the threat of being peed on.

Transpacificflyer

I understand the point on alleged bogus service animals. However, the people cannot bring their companion critters onboard unless the animal is certified and it is a lot more difficult to obtain that certification than claimed in threads like this. It is up to the airlines to have a consistent policy, which in fairness to the airlines is always subject to challenge. It seems that everyone has PTSD or various traumas today. That is not the airline's fault. Rather, it is up to society as a whole and the legislators who set the rules for what can be claimed as a service or support animal. You are going after the wrong entity here. The airline has to follow the regulations.

However, the issue you raise, of your preference, is actually, the driver in this matter, and I thank you for being honest as most are not, instead hiding behind bogus justifications such as allergies. However, embellishment and hyperbole do not make your case. The likelihood of incidents as you describe are a rarity. I encounter more urine on the floor of the typical AC flight than I have ever experienced with a critter peeing on me or my bag. In any case, considering that I have put my bag on the ground around SE Asia, I am more at risk from that than a bit of aseptic dog urine on my liquid repellent bag.

I understand your point about people taking advantage, and it is valid. To your list, I would also like to add that I don't like children puking, babies crying, sweaty obese people drooping into my seat area, folks who wear too much cologne, folks who have vile body stench, etc. yet, I have to deal with it. Passengers should be held responsible for their critters, just as parents and guardians should be held responsible for their children. In an ideal world we should be giving cleaning invoices to the passengers who clip their toenails on the plane, change the baby on the tray table, who pee on the lav floors and other crazy behavior as detailed on the more specific thread. Unfortunately, we do not.

You don't like animals on a plane. Ok. that's your preference. I don't care about animals being there and would gladly share my space with a dog or cat or goat. I have had to sit next to some rather vile people over the years including some obnoxious jerks in J who feature in the DYKWIA threads, so a goat would be more enjoyable. I once sat next to a young lady and her cat and didn't even notice the cat, despite my allergies. The fact is that the presence of the animals is less disruptive and troublesome than the presence of many passengers. When there is a problem with the companion animal, it is always, always the human who is responsible. Don't blame the responsible animal custodians for the actions of a few jerks. Collective punishment isn't appropriate here.

I leave you the thoughts of two kindly souls to ponder;
Heaven goes by favor; if it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Dogs look up to you. Cats look down on you. Give me a pig. He just looks you in the eye and treats you like an equal. Sir Winston Churchill

canadiancow

Maybe in Canada, but for ex-USA flights, it's a lot easier to obtain certification than claimed in threads like this.

Transpacificflyer

Ok. Let's bring this back to the issue at hand which involves anger directed at Air Canada. The anger is misdirected.
Air Canada's options are limited. People have unrealistic expectations if they think that Air Canada can address the situation.
Air Canada cannot, absolutely, cannot, violate the applicable laws that are associated with the rights of people to claim the use of a service animal without serious sanction(s) resulting. In addition to the applicable federal law, the territories and provinces have about 19 specific laws that protect the rights of people to use service animals. Your grievance is with the governments who pass the laws which regulate this matter. Take it up with your MLA/MNA/MPP/MP legislators. The airline is sitting in Rouge economy on this with someone reclining in the seat in front (aka between a rock and a hard place). I get it, there is abuse. No argument from me on that. The airline may see this as a small irritant with the potential of negative PR and sanctions if it intervenes.

canadiancow

First, no one here is talking about service animals. At least not in the US legal definition.

Honestly I'm surprised the airlines don't do more lobbying.

I have no issue with service animals. Animals that are expected to be in public, and trained to be in public.

I have serious issues with people thinking their animal knows how to behave in public, when it does not.

capedreamer

mapleg

A clinical assessment over the phone for 99 bucks and then provision of a prescription?

Quackery.

quantumofforce

I'd call it a government granted licence to print money!