Always Flyin

Yes, I would, so that those who have a legitimate need can avail themselves of the privilege and those who are not eligible cannot.

Handicapped people have to get permit to park in a handicapped parking space.

Why should people in need of a service animal not have to do something similar?

People should not unnecessarily be subjected to the untrained pets of others in the confined space of an airplane.

Always Flyin

I agree there are issues with reading comprehension at play here.

You did NOT say that you and he each had an emotional support animal. You said the HE had two.

Thanks. The rhetoric on the Board sometimes takes off. I am guilty of it on occasion as well. I am sorry about the loss of your Dad. That is not what any of this is about. Cheers.

Always Flyin

That would be the little red triangle in the lower left corner of each post under the poster's name. Click on it to report an abusive post, i.e., a post violative of FlyerTalk standards.

jackonferry

I've seen them cause some disruption. I was sitting in a window seat in F a few months ago. A woman in the same row in the other window seat had a small companion dog on her lap. It cried pretty incessantly, albeit not loudly. She got up frequently to go to the bathroom. She took the dog on a leash with her. On the trips to and from the bathroom the dog would get up on its hind legs and check out the people in the aisle seats. The dog woke one guy up who was not too pleased.

I asked the purser afterward what the story was. It was the first time I had encountered companion animals like that. He explained the rules. I swear I am not making this part up: he claimed he had recently worked a flight to Hawaii where the person had a companion pony or miniature horse. I have to admit, I am curious how that worked.

jkhuggins

We're there already. Think about the fight about whether or not airlines ought to serve peanuts aboard an aircraft, given the presence of passengers with severe peanut allergies ...

Rights are always a balancing act. We've all had bad experiences dealing with passengers who disrupt our peaceful existence ... talking, kicking the seat, body odor. There's not an easy answer.

Absolutely wrong. Title III of the ADA applies to any place of public accomodation, which includes transportation facilities.

But don't just take my word for it.

And, yes, the airlines can set whatever policy they want. But they can conveniently say "well, we've chosen to use the ADA's definitions", and make their own lives much easier.

Have you read all the articles about how TDCs can't recognize all the forms of ID they're required to by law? Yes, we're talking about the airlines, not TSA, but I don't have any more confidence in airline employee's ability to distinguish between a valid and an invalid service animal certification.

But you're asking for much more beyond that.

Let's take your example. Yes, one is supposed to have a permit to park in a handicapped space. But handicap parking spaces aren't enforced by having a parking authority employee standing next to the parking space 24/7 and checking the ID of anyone who wants to park there. We rely on the honor system, along with periodic random enforcement.

Guess what? That means that, occasionally, people who aren't handicapped park in handicapped parking spaces, depriving those who have a legitimate need for that space. And what's society's response? We live with it --- because the cost enforcing handicap parking permits 24/7 on every handicap parking space everywhere is too high.

ND Sol

But just to clarify, the ADA does not apply to aircraft. That is the province of ACCA.

jkhuggins

ACCA? Who are they? (I Googled it, but kept coming up with organizations for accountants and for the arts ...)

Regardless, I'm not sure the distinction matters. ADA applies to the airline, which uses aircraft. It's the provider that's the issue, not the artifacts.

ND Sol

My bad, not ACCA but ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act). The ADA does not apply to aircraft so the architectural requirements that are contained in the ADA are not required to be complied with. How many planes have handicap accessible restrooms?

Always Flyin

Yep. I deal with that already. 1 out of 4 flights I take on SQ are "nut free" because someone claims a nut allergy.



Right. Balancing both sides.



Complete your research before quoting law. Had you looked deeper into the case, you would have seen this conclusion in the judge's final order:

It makes the airlines' life easier NOT to adopt the ADA, which allows private rights of action.

I trust an airline employee more than a TSA "officer". In an event, difficulties with enforcement are not a valid grounds for denying adequate relief to those affected by people who are gaming the system to their own benefit, and to the detriment of other passengers.

When I was [much] younger, I had a 20-foot, 200-pound, Burmese python. Seriously. How would you like it if I was seated next to you with him wrapped around me as an "emotional support" animal?

No...it is not the honor system. There is a law that prohibits parking in a handicapped parking space. It is enforced. [Go to California--it is really enforced with a huge fine.]

And people speed and people run red lights. Guess what? We catch them occasionally and issue them fines for violating the law.

The bottom line to your argument is that you think people should be trusted to comply with the law. Well, they don't. So you need enforcement. Enforcement in this case would require showing your compliance card to board an aircraft with an animal. Yes...that is so extreme.

Always Flyin

ACAA: Air Carrier Access Act

And you are wrong on the ADA.

jkhuggins

Thanks for ignoring my whole statement. Let me quote myself again:

Yes, there's a law against parking in a handicapped parking space in my state too --- with huge fines. And you know what happens? People park in handicap spaces occasionally without the proper permit and don't get fined.

We don't post cops next to every handicap parking space and verify that every person who parks in every handicap parking space at every moment in time has the proper permits. We rely on random enforcement, and the good will of most people not to park in those spaces (or perhaps the fear of getting caught).

No, that's not my bottom line. There are different ways to enforce the law. Some laws are enforced through involuntary compliance; others are enforced through voluntary compliance. Each has benefits and costs which must be balanced.

Papers, please ...

Very well; I concede my error on that point.

Ari

You need a note from a medical health professional unless it is a bona fide service animal; what exactly do you want?

squeakr

is for reporting a post that is a personal attack, rude, or otherwise disruptive to the topic at hand. It is the little red triangle to the left of each post on FT.

Thanks for asking!

squeakr

co Mod TS/S

Always Flyin

Standardized training and certification. You know, like I said earlier.

Always Flyin

Here, there are no standards, no training requirements, and no minimum requirements for certification (show us a letter from a "health care professional", who issued it without being provided any standards for when it should be issued).

There is also no random enforcement. There is minimal enforcement of almost non-existent standards.



There are no laws that enforced solely through voluntary compliance.



Oh, please. How tired is that?

You mean like the papers you have to show when stopped driving your car? Or the papers you have to show when flying internationally?

There is abuse of the system. Everyone knows it and it affects other passengers. It is just so terrible, isn't it, to require compliance with standards before you bring a loose animal into the passenger compartment of a plane?

I note you didn't respond to my query about my pet python...