SKYEG

Wow. I guess I haven't been on these ESA threads long enough. Also did not know that they can buy these vests online. What is the world coming to... Is it seriously just to save a few $ that people fake this?

appleguru

I don't have a dog, but if I did and it wasn't small enough to fit under the seat... I would 100% get it certified as an ESA, especially if it was well behaved.

has nothing to do with paying or not paying the fee; has everything to do with me not wanting my dog to suffer traveling in the cargo hold of the plane in a kennel.

if DL allowed for people to pay for seats for their pets, etc, then I'd have a lot more outrage at people "faking" ESA needs. But as it stands, if your dog doesn't fit under the seat in front of you, there is no way to fly with them not in cargo unless they are certified... so.. *shrug*, I have a lot fewer problems with people that do this than most here seem to. (Then again, I love dogs and have never had a bad experience with one near me on a plane!).

Doc Savage

Like I said above.

BSBtraveller

So what happens if one is allergic to animal fur?

Doc Savage

They're told to leave the flight.

airmotive

You are confusing "emotional support animals" with "service animals".
Service animals are the highly trained, carefully vetted dogs that serve a particular need for a disabled person.
Emotional support animals are pets whose owners spent $60 on the internet for a fake ID card and silly vest.

ijgordon

The airlines did it to themselves (or their non-dog-carrying passengers). I think it's like $150 each way just to put a dog under the seat. More than the cost of the seat in many cases. Clear money grab. Plus the various policies that were just mentioned.
So there's a loophole and people exploit it.
I thought I read recently that Congress (?) was looking to close it.

jdrtravel

I completely agree. And in addition to this, the pet becomes one of your "free" carry on items. If they charged something reasonable like $25.00 per direction I think people would not try to get around it so much. Of course, this would do nothing for animals that can't fit under the seat, which are the only ones that are allowed to fly as a pet in the cabin.

I also want to point out that this thread assumes that the dog is an ESA, but it could be trained to assist with other types of disabilities, such as narcolepsy, or to respond to seizures. And again, the vest is not required by anyone. It simply helps inform the public that the animal is not a pet, and that if you were to treat it as such, you could be distracting it from it's duty.

DiverDave

Your imagination is quite lacking. Just read about Travel blogger Alyssa Ramos, who admits to faking her ESA:

http://nypost.com/2015/12/06/people-...th-their-pets/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...rowing-problem

David

Nirvana91

The price is probably that high because of a) lawyers/liability (in case someone is bitten, or the animal acts up) and b) Cleanup fees in the event of an "accident." It just takes one dog having some stomach issues to cause the need for a deep clean or some similar delay.

Although it's unlikely that anything will happen on any one particular flight with an animal, one problem could lead to something serious which could have real costs (in both time and money) to an airline. I think these charges are reasonable and a way to spread out the costs across everyone that uses the service. Alternately, you could charge something like $3000 for a "major" occurrence, but then you've invited people to have different opinions as to what is and what is not an "occurrence," and then you've got people complaining about that fee instead of this one.

If I owned an airline I'd probably prefer to fly no animals under any circumstances, but that would be discriminatory and would certainly be a problem with the Feds (and of course various other interested groups).

I also agree with a comment earlier in this thread saying it is in bad taste to post these types of photos (personally identifiable ones of people with what may be a service animal or ESA) on FT. Heck, even when someone is "acting bad" and their photos make their way here, faces will usually be blurred out at least.

jdrtravel

I don't buy it. I think it's a money grab. Any of the humans on the airplane could just as easily cause a need for a deep clean. Furthermore, to fly as a pet (not service animal) in the cabin, the animal must be crated in a crate that fits under the seat in front of you and has a leakproof bottom.

FlagrantViola

Those dogs look pretty cool.
I'd prefer to travel next to any of them than many of the people I end up next to (obese, yappy, smelly, unable to control alcohol consumption, loud on cell phone, back-of-seat grabber, etc).

twohundredfifty

I tend to agree. My dog is a happier, less car/air/sea sick traveler than my child. Our cats on the other hand prefer to stay home.

Nirvana91

While I don't disagree about them probably wanting to make money off this, I assume that transporting a live animal (and one that is not required by law to be accommodated) would result in more risk than simply another piece of luggage. I also agree that a human is just as likely to cause a deep clean, but I think that those human risks would already be included in the price of your ticket, whereas with an additional pet, they're not.

MSPeconomist

In addition to the risk, pets can inconvenience other passengers such as those with allergies. A higher fee discourages people from traveling on DL with pets. Plus, DL is trying to maximize profits, not just break even on the transaction.