as219

Completely agree.

We could say the same thing about small children, couldn't we? Why should some badly behaved and poorly supervised child have the right to make me miserable just because they're humans? What gives parents that right?

I reiterate: poorly trained, badly behaved and inadequately supervised animals have no business being on a plane... it there is no need for blanket assertions about all ESAs based on a lack of understanding or the misbehavior by the few.

as219

Here's my question: if your Lab is well behaved and able to stay in the personal space afforded by your purchased seat(s), why shouldn't you be able to simply pay a fee and have it on board?

24left

Two answers (and I guarantee there are more):

1. The person and their Lab are only thinking about themselves and how well-behaved they think their dog is. They are not thinking about the turkey, or the pig or the goat or the other farms animals and misc wildlife that people have been able to get onboard due to poorly drafted legislation, poorly implemented actions by airlines and far to many people who are entitled. I.M.H.O

2. The person who is thinking about their well-bahved Lab or goat is not thinking about 300 other pax on that aircraft who may also feel the need to bring their animals onboard. I'm not paying to fly on Noah's Ark.

And as to a comment posted above, who is going to clean up the mess they create?

as219

The number of non-cat/dog animals brought on planes as ESAs is miniscule to the point of irrelevancy. And frankly, when it comes to entitlement, I think there's plenty of that to go around. Why should responsible dog owners be penalized because of the abs behavior of an irresponsible few?

This argument makes no sense whatsoever. When we travel with our well-behaved dog, we go to great lengths to minimize the inconvenience of fellow passengers. If others do not, what am I supposed to do about it? Should all children be banned because a handful are rotten? I mean, I'm not paying to fly on a nursery school in the sky.

What "mess" are you talking about, exactly? Our dog goes before we get on the plane and holds it until we arrive. I don't know how the 0.00001% of barnyard animal ESAs do their thing, but it's really not my problem.

24left

The world is full of entitlement. I have no illusions that I can solve that problem.

Why are you taking this personally? I assume you are a dog owner and your dog may be well-behaved. Clearly, you may not be the problem.

Why should we ALL have to put up with this nonsense in the first place?

And last I checked, as fliers, we are all being penalized on more than just this issue, because of bad behavior by a few others.


Not only are there posts in this thread about dogs peeing and worse in the cabins, but we have all seen reports of other misbehaved animals onboard.


In the end, you seem to be taking this issue personally. That's rather unfortunate.

As for ESAs and the fraud being committed by some, it is to the great detriment of those who are disabled and require the help of animals such as a seeing-eye dog.


If there are so many people who can't manage flying without some sort of comfort, I will be harsh here and suggest they either take meds (choices is theirs), get a pet rock or stay at home. If a young couple can't find comfort with each other and need the addition of a comfort animal in order to fly, I would suggest there are issues in that relationship.

I am not backing down on my view and you are entitled to yours.

----

I feel for American Airlines, and other U.S. carriers who are forced to accept this current reality.

As a poster wrote upthread, until some dog jumps on someone - perhaps a young child - or until some comfort Bengal tiger mauls someone, none of this will change.

It also seem to me that the ESA people (real or fake) have a stronger lobby group than the people with allergies or the people who don't want to fly with animals onboard who are not in a proper carrier under a seat.

Sad state of affairs, IMHO.
.

kb9522

They shouldn't. Which is why children should be banned on most flights save a few departures that normal people wouldn't normally consider taking. But unfortunately that will never happen.

GNRMatt

That is a bit extreme. However, I do believe airlines should be able to ban parents of children who cannot be controlled on a plane. I've been on flights where the kids did not listen at all, and were a major safety hazard to themselves and others on the planes.

For example, recently on a SJU-PHL flight, during landing, when everyone is supposed to be in their seats with seatbelts on, there were 2 kids near me running down the aisles. The parents seemed mortified (and the kids were awful the entire flight), but they had no control over their kids and let them get away with this. FA's should have the right at this point to identify the family, report them to AA and inform them that they are no longer welcome on the airline since they have endangered others. Just my 2 cents.

as219

The reason I take it personally is that if I stay quiet while statements that I believe to be fundamentally untrue go unchallenged, it perpetuates damaging stereotypes. I'm well aware that many people think ESA's are bogus or that the designation is so overused virtually all ESAs must be fraudulent, but it doesn't change the reality that they are necessary to certain people. Moreover, I believe the "problem" of pets on planes is widely overblown relative to all the other bothers of flying these days. Reading FT, you'd think that pets outnumber people 2-to-1 on most flights. I mean really.

Yes, we've all "seen reports." So what? This is really an non-problem.

Why unfortunate? If enough people complain, the rules are changed, and my wife can no longer bring her ESA on flights, it's going to be rather personal to me and to a lot of other people.

Service dogs aren't going anywhere regardless of what does it doesn't happen with ESAs. There's no detriment here.

This honestly just speaks to your ignorance about what ESAs are and what they do for the people who rely on them. But that's kind of beside the point, actually. If you have such big issues with animals, maybe you should 'take meds...or stay at home.' I've been clear in this thread and elsewhere that badly behaved animals should not be allowed on planes and their owners be held fully responsible.

I completely understand. You're entitled to have uninformed views about anything you want. I'm of course also entitled to point out that they are uninformed, and provide a different perspective. @:-)

24left

The only difference is I didn't call you ignorant or uninformed.

.

JonNYC

Which, in turn, doesn't change the reality that most of them are, in fact, bogus and abuse is absolutely rampant.

lobo411

Because humans are superior to animals. What gives me the right to eat pork but not people?

skylady

I have a prescription for an ESA, but that won't work in my profession, so I go to work without one, and manage to make it happen. Every day.

24left

While we have been discussing the recent AA news event - real or perceived - with the pax being deplaned....I was also waiting for video to surface of the "alleged" applause from the AA cabin crew. I am still waiting.

A colleague just share this awesome piece from The New Yorker. Very entertaining.

You will enjoy it. ^

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...0/pets-allowed

.

hbtr

I for one certainly understand how some people have a legitimate need for an ESA. But I have heard enough people brag about how easy it was to get a physician's approval just to get out of paying extra to bring their pet on board, and I have observed enough untrained or ill-mannered animals oon board that I think 'rampant abuse' is a reasonable description.

Not to mention the physicians who make it easy to abuse the system. But that's a reactive approach - once an incident occurs it's too late. I was on a flight where the landing was aborted as a result of an out of control animal (and uncooperative owner) on board. Just because it happens occasionally doesn't mean that untrained animals are a trivial problem!

skylady

This woman was not kicked of because she was seated next to an animal, maybe the thread title could be changed?