FWAAA

That's an easy one. Nearly 100% of the animals whose travel is paid would be in an underseat carrier. It's extremely rare for an animal to be permitted to be outside a carrier unless it's a service animal or emotional support animal (all of which travel for free).

The real question is how does one tell a service animal (performing tasks for its handler) from an emotional support animal (which is, by definition, a pet)? Neither is required to wear any vests, banners or other clothing. If you're not at the ticket counter, witnessing the check-in process, it might be difficult to distinguish between the two once onboard.

24left

I couldn't resist.

Hopefully you'll accept my humour on this

kb9522

While it may be true that service animals are not required to wear vests, many do. This is because of how they are trained... when the vest goes on the animal knows it is time to work. It's also why you're not supposed to pet a working animal while the vest is on.

bhomburg

The airport agents at check-in will only let ESANs fly when they have been properly entered into the system and added to the PNR by Special Assistance beforehand. They don't verify the documentation, they just sometimes demand to see it.
The Special Assistance desk does verify the documentation and when they are not happy, they do not authorize the animal. I have a friend who was sent back to her psychiatrist as the documentation didn't include some minutiae detail about where her license was issued. So yes, they do care. (BTW, visits to the therapist to take care of the documentation cost money).
If you turn up at check-in with an ESAN without it being pre-authorized (last minute-bookings), the check-in agent will refer the passenger to contact Special Assistance. If the documentation can be faxed/e-mailed on the spot during Special Assistance's limited business hours and everything is OK, they add the animal and you're good to go. Outside of SAC business hours, no chance.
I have no idea if the gate agents do checks routinely.

The cabin crew on my flights mostly know that I`m coming with a dog. Some even remember her from previous flights, and we get a special welcome. As I said, AA cabin crew mostly are huge dog/animal lovers.
By and large, AA remains the most welcoming airline to us, and that's one big reason why I keep flying them despite all the negative changes to the FFP and the less-than-ideal seating on the newer aircraft.

Yep. Pets have to be in a carrier at all times (it depends on the crews if they look the other way and let it be if passengers take them out mid-flight. They sometimes don't say anything). Also, no carry-on pets allowed on any intercontinental flight. You will see pets only on domestic and Canada/Central America routes. All animals in the cabin on TATL, TPAC and South America flights are service animals or ESANs and travel for free (except if the passenger buys an additional seat, which I do sometimes).

It's mostly apparent from the animal's behavior. Trained service animals don't make a fuss. My dog walks to where we sit (she even mostly remembers where, and always wants to turn left ) without paying attention to anything else, lies down and stays put. No approaching other people, no barking, no jumping, no begging for food etc.

BearX220

I don't like dogs. But I've sat next to pax with genuine service animals who were good as gold. They did not occupy a seat (which IMO is a disgusting prospect, especially for subsequent occupiers). They nestled on the floor and made no moves for the duration of the flight. They did not jump around or relieve themselves. The contrast between them and this bestiary of fake out-of-control support animals is obvious. It's mystifying why the airlines bend over backwards to accommodate the latter.

Don't be too sure. We don't know. The complainant should not have raised the prospect of an "unplanned stop," which was as a threat. But the account of vindictive FAs applauding her removal is plausible if not verified.

If the choice is between discriminating against an undisciplined menagerie in the cabin or people who don't want to travel that way, whether they're zoophobic or not, I'm anti-animal every time.

The pig owner, weasel owner, barfing / crapping dog owner, etc. who thinks "the world should revolve around her" is way more objectionable than the paying customer who wants a modicum of peace and quiet.

KenTarmac

BearX220.

Don't take my words out of context. Quote my whole statement or don't comment on what I said at all.

Do yourself a favor and re-read the last sentence of my post.

as219

I'm just curious, what is your professional qualification such that you feel you can make such blanket settlements? Are we talking a Ph.D. or your gut feelings?

100% agree. A poorly trained dog has no business in the cabin of a plane. Period.

We absolutely send this paperwork in, and yes, they check. I can't speak for everyone of course.

The extreme attitudes about ESAs are puzzling to me. My wife has travelled dozens of times with our small dog as her ESA. Not once has anyone said anything; never an issue, never a problem. I think the real issue here is that when you put lots of people in a tin can, with personal space diminished, the opportunity to rub - and be rubbed - the wrong way is generally heightened. It's everyone's responsibility to minimize bother to others, particularly on a plane. If all people had well-trained animals and were generally considerate people, would there even be an issue here? And yet the entire issue always devolves into uninformed, fact-free rants about how ESAs are inherently bogus. All I can say is that I wouldn't wish on anyone the kind of condition that ESAs are there to help ameliorate, even those who make sweeping generalizations on a handful of rotten apples.

dp4m

As my mother also travels with a small emotional support dog, I can guarantee with certainty that at least the following airlines take pre-registration and documentation very seriously and it's a problem if you show up without it:

- AA
- Delta
- JetBlue

PUCCI GALORE

When I started reading this, I checked that the date was not 1st April. I could not and cannot believe when I am reading. Forgive me for not entering into the realm of discussion as to the relevance of Emotional Support animals. I have never seen this in Europe. I have my own opinion about that but although I am a nurse this is now outside my remit. The only animals that I have ever seen on my carrier were guide dogs for the blind. No one, I think would deny any person that.

I have read in this thread about animals who are either not properly house trained or who are not in proper control. I had heard stories about pigs, but that someone should bring one into an aircraft beggars belief.

If what I read is all true, then it would seem to this outsider that the situation is out of control and I suppose my training makes me wonder why so many people appear to be in need of emotional support of any kind.

I have just read some of the posts out to my husband. He has dealt with the public as long as I have only he was a policeman. His exact words were " Have they all gone mad? How on earth is this allowed on health or any other grounds."

rickg523

Once a dog jumps onto another passenger (and surely if it urinates or defecates) it and its owner lose priority and should be forced to leave the fuselage if a human passenger objects.
Well behaved support dog should be welcome. But rambunctious housepet - get off.
Allergy issues on public transport are a more nuanced issue and must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Blanket rules will fail in deriving the optimum result.

24left

@ PUCCI GALORE

Flying in America went to hell long before what you see in the images below. This insanity makes it worse.

There are many more examples, but these are just two of the most idiotic.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...rt-animal.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/travel...booted-flight/

.

Gig103

That looks wonderful. I'm only upset when people are lying about their animals being 'emotional support' in order to save on a fee. Or that I can't buy a seat for my labrador retriever and won't lie about it, nor will I trust the cargo hold based on the horror stories.

lobo411

If animals can be chemically sedated and fully contained in sealed chambers, so that they have absolutely no impact on other passengers, then there would be no issue.

In everything, humans over animals. Period.

JonNYC

Some liberal you turned out to be!

Mark_T

I'm surprised that people still make the same basic mistake when attempting to get some sort of preferential outcome to a problem due to a medical condition...

... if you elevate the potential impact of the condition to where there is any doubt about your ability to complete the flight without incident the GA/Crew will have the option, arguably the obligation, to bring the matter to a swift conclusion by removing you from the flight pending medical approval for you to fly, or a flight without the 'problem' element.

It seems to happen time after time and I can hardly blame the airline staff for taking the 'easy' option to solve the immediate issue that is delaying departure...