jkhuggins

How wonderfully generous of you. Would you rather have such a passenger flipping out at 25,000 feet instead? Or is air travel only for the privileged few who live perfect lives?

It's not like anyone has alleged that these support animals have caused any inconvenience to other passengers --- other than some confusion among the flight crew about how to handle them, that is. Why would it matter to you what comfort items another passenger chooses to bring aboard?

If you're that bothered by support animals aboard aircraft, perhaps you ought to be the one staying home rather than them ...

If the regs say that the passenger has to have documentation, then so be it. But if the operator doesn't ask for the documentation, it's not the passenger's fault ...

Travelpro777

I'm all for pets flying free so long as they're reasonably well behaved ( I'm all for pets in restaurants and other public places for that matter).

doctall41

the thought did cross my mind. I remembered reading a thread on FT about this very thing several months ago.
THe lady did produce a laminated card to the supervisor. he looked at it, said "I don't have my glasses. Does it say you are allowed to keep a piece of luggage on your lap during take off, because that's against FAA regulations". I thought that was kinda funny.
On the first flight, the lady was row 1, aisle. they asked her to move to window so her doggie bag would not impede the ability to exit in case ogf an emergency.
By the way, the entire flight, this lady was a huge pain in the rear, spilling water, getting up and down, asking her seatmates (strangers) to get up and down, hold her stuff, etc.
I was glad I was across the aisle.

FQ5757

I worked with a guy who was a veteran with PTSD and had a Golden Retriever for emotional support. On one cross country flight (don't remember carrier), the FA actually encouraged him to let the dog in the middle seat. And it was bulkhead.

bajajoes

==================================================

I don't know about "2" but some Soldiers with PTSD are being provided with
"emotional support animals" to help them deal with their trauma. FYI.^

Cholula

Folks, we've deleted two posts where the topic was nothing more than commenting on each other rather than on the topic.

Please keep the comments to the topic only and not on each other.

And, folks, if you have an issue with a post, hit the RBP button and don't retaliate in the thread.

Thanks to the 98% of you who don't personalize their comments and who play by the rules.



_________________________
Cholula
TS/S Co-Moderator

CDTraveler

Sorry for being OT, but I'm likely not the only one wondering what an "RBP button" might be?

Always Flyin

I have no problems with a legitimate service animal on board with reasonable restrictions. I do have a problem with passengers bringing pets on board masquerading as service animals so they can avoid the restrictions on pets (fees and number allowed in the cabin).

The US Airways debacle with a full size pig brought on board is indicative of the abuses of the system.

Support animals need to have required training. There should be some national standards and certification so the carrier is satisfied the animal is truly a service animal.

In the case of legitimate service animals, they do receive public socialization training. Good.

No training is required of "emotional support" animals. I truly loved my red-eye flight with the purported emotional support animal on the lap of the woman behind me that yipped the ENTIRE flight while she kept cooing, "Now LuLu, you have to stop barking."

jkhuggins

I'm wondering if this makes things far more complicated than they need to be.

First: according to the Wikipedia article, the ADA restricts the "service animal" designation to dogs. No cats, no monkeys, no pigs. That would eliminate one class of problems; carriers can simply concern themselves with just dogs.

Beyond that ... how much effort do we want to expend on creating certifications for service dogs? What kind of certification documents will you create? Moreover, how will you train thousands of airline employees to recognize those certifications and not forgeries?

Yes, in the current system, some passengers can "cheat" the airline out of pet carrier fees by claiming that their pet is a service animal. But, IMHO, the amount of money the airline loses is probably much less than they'd spend in implementing a policy that verifies whether or not a given animal is really a service animal. It just doesn't make financial sense.

Plus, consider the negative publicity that will inevitably result when a flight crew denies boarding to a passenger with their legitimate service dog, solely because they can't verify the dog's status. (We shred TSA for this sort of thing all the time.)

In short ... I don't think such a policy would be worth pursuing for most airlines.

Always Flyin

I never said or implied any such thing in my post.

An airplane is an enclosed small space that is incapable of readily stopping so someone can leave the cabin.

An animal that is not required to be trained, caged, or muzzled in that space? Yes, I have a problem with that. See my post above.

There needs to be legitimate training and certification of ALL service animals before they are allowed on an aircraft as a service animal. Period.

So allergy sufferers can just deal with it? People who have a fear of animals due to bite injuries can just deal with a loose and untrained animal in the cabin?

"Or is air travel only for the privileged few who live perfect lives?"

Other passengers can just put up with an untrained animal defecating [United flight out of NRT] and barking the entire flight [personal experience]?

When do the rights of someone wanting to bring their untrained pet on-board supersede MY rights on an aircraft?

Yes, because I am so out of line to expect a service animal to be properly trained and certified.

But thank you for personalizing it. Perhaps you need training. See the FT rules for posting for a start.

Of course it is. The passenger is required to have it regardless of whether it was asked for or not.

The post to which I was responding stated one passenger had two "emotional support" animals. That is not permitted in the regs so is prima facie evidence of abuse of the system and should not have been permitted.

Always Flyin

Because the current system doesn't work.

You are obviously not aware that the ADA does not apply to airlines. Airlines are not restricted to just allowing dogs on board.

Airline employees can apparently recognize drivers licenses and state ID cards. Similar type of government issued ID for service animals, which requires completion and certification with certain standards is warranted.

I am not an airline. I don't care about the fees. I care about passengers subjected to untrained animals in a confined space.

If the passenger doesn't bring the certification card, that is the passenger's problem.

If you get bit or deal with a barking dog behind you for an entire flight, revisit that statement.

Always Flyin

You most certainly did: "Was travelling with my dad and his 2 Emotional Support Pug's."

"His" two purported emotional support animals.

And exactly where in my post did I intimate such a thing? Oh, I see. You just wanted to take a cheap shot. Do you feel better?

Always Flyin

Regular passengers cannot bring two animals on board with them.

The regs allow a privilege and define the scope of that privilege. Unless those regs allow bringing on two animals, and they don't, it is NOT allowed.

CDTraveler

So you would create more bureaucracy and expense and place the burden of bearing that cost upon those with a legitimate need for service animals, including emotional support animals?

No, thank you.

We are in the process of putting my son and his cat through training for the cat to work as visiting animal in medical care facilities, and have spent some learning the rules/laws for service animals. It is a long process, with training and tests, and no small cost. If we had to pay government fees and do even more testing, we just wouldn't do it.

Many of those who genuinely need service animals already spend a significant part of their income on medical expenses, and paying some government fee for a credential so airline passengers don't get bothered by lapdogs is an insult they don't need.

geeprice

Apparently you are having some issues with reading comprehension, If he was travelling alone I would have not been with him now would I?

If you wan't the details it was:
2 passengers(Me and my Dad)
2 Dogs
2 Letters
And he only ever did 2 round trips with the dog's, on trips were he was going to be gone for months at a time, and there is no reasonable alternate way of transportation between the two points besides flying.

I have no problem gaming the system to my benefit, I would hazard a guess that almost all of us have done it at some point, and for now the ACA is so poorly written that you could drive a pig through it, and by the way I have fully read the ACA act in the past and cant recall anywhere in there that specifically says that ESA's are limited to one per person though that would be logical, but then the ACA isn't built on logic.


P.S. it was a cheap shot on my part, and for that I apologize, I was reacting to your comment that he should have been relegated to the last middle seat.