Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Delta Air Lines | SkyMiles
Reload this Page >

Emotional Support Animals, Service Dogs and Comfort Pets: The Definitive Thread

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Emotional Support Animals, Service Dogs and Comfort Pets: The Definitive Thread

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 28, 2017, 12:25 pm
  #511  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: RDU
Posts: 5,242
Originally Posted by pvn
it doesn't apply at all to regular pets, since pets are only allowed in the cabin if they are in a carrier that fits under the seat.
Exactly, ESA's don't go in carrier and may take up the space of 2 or 3 seats.
zitsky is offline  
Old May 28, 2017, 12:28 pm
  #512  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Programs: DL, Marriott & IHG Platty; HH Diamonte
Posts: 861
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
It would be better if the "compromise" applied also to emotional support animals and not just pets.
That's what i meant - if the animal, regardless of status, is too big, the passenger should have to buy a seat for it IMHO.
pharmawalk is offline  
Old May 28, 2017, 2:30 pm
  #513  
pvn
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MEM
Programs: Starbucks Green Card
Posts: 5,431
Originally Posted by pharmawalk
That's what i meant - if the animal, regardless of status, is too big, the passenger should have to buy a seat for it IMHO.
that's already the policy. Whether it's actually enforced or not is a different matter.
pvn is offline  
Old May 28, 2017, 2:57 pm
  #514  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: RDU
Posts: 5,242
Originally Posted by pvn
that's already the policy. Whether it's actually enforced or not is a different matter.
From the numerous stories on this board, it would seem like the rules are rarely enforced.
zitsky is offline  
Old May 28, 2017, 3:50 pm
  #515  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
Originally Posted by pvn
it doesn't apply at all to regular pets, since pets are only allowed in the cabin if they are in a carrier that fits under the seat.
The suggestion was to allow pets in the cabin providing that the owner purchases an extra seat if needed. I suggested that people with ESAs should also be required to purchase the second seat if needed.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old May 28, 2017, 3:52 pm
  #516  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
Originally Posted by pvn
that's already the policy. Whether it's actually enforced or not is a different matter.
It wasn't enforced on my most recent flight. Two people in C+ were relocated to the very back of regular coach so that an uncaged dog could stretch out in the bulkhead row. From the behavior, I assume it was an ESA.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old May 28, 2017, 8:19 pm
  #517  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CHS
Programs: Delta, AA, BA, United, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Honors Diamond, SPG Marriott Gold, Sixt Platinum
Posts: 1,142
Maybe it's not the money.
I think a lot of pet owners go to the effort and expense of getting the ESA letter so the dog can get out of the carrier and sit on their lap.
beachmiles is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 4:47 pm
  #518  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
The suggestion was to allow pets in the cabin providing that the owner purchases an extra seat if needed. I suggested that people with ESAs should also be required to purchase the second seat if needed.
I do think that this would help cut down on some of the abuse of ESA. I think that people are really loath to put pets in the cargo hold with all of the horror stories out there about what can happen to them. I would certainly never do it to my dog. My animal fits perfectly under the seat, he is very small. I find the pet pricing to be infuriating.
jdrtravel is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 6:48 pm
  #519  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: Formaldehyde Medallion DL DieMiles
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by jdrtravel
...I find the pet pricing to be infuriating.
The pet fee is just another example of a fee that has no realistic relationship to the actual incremental cost to the airline.

It is only that high because the airline is in position to unjustly dictate terms.

That said, I do not support the practice of declaring a pet to be an ESA in order to fraudulently avoid the fee.

Pet owners should be fighting the fee, not ducking it.
StayingHomeIsBetter is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 6:55 pm
  #520  
Moderator: Hyatt; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WAS
Programs: :rolleyes:, DL DM, Mlife Plat, Caesars Diam, Marriott Tit, UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, invol FT beta tester
Posts: 18,944
Originally Posted by jdrtravel
I find the pet pricing to be infuriating.
Originally Posted by StayingHomeIsBetter
The pet fee is just another example of a fee that has no realistic relationship to the actual incremental cost to the airline.

It is only that high because the airline is in position to unjustly dictate terms.
... which is also known as "pricing" I mean things like french fries and sodas are sold in fast food establishments for significantly more than their incremental cost to the restaurant.

If *everyone* wanted to travel with a pet then the price would probably rapidly approach the incremental cost. In the absence of that condition, an airline could just as well choose to price it high enough to discourage it if they feel it's a hassle and/or annoys other customers (whether said annoyance is justified or not)
Zorak is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 7:29 pm
  #521  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Originally Posted by Zorak
... which is also known as "pricing" I mean things like french fries and sodas are sold in fast food establishments for significantly more than their incremental cost to the restaurant.
The free market argument only goes so far with airlines, IMO. They form an essential part of the infrastructure of the country and are in various ways tax-payer subsidized (some airports and airlines more than others). They risk inviting more regulation the more obnoxious they become with fees.
jdrtravel is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 7:46 pm
  #522  
Moderator: Hyatt; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WAS
Programs: :rolleyes:, DL DM, Mlife Plat, Caesars Diam, Marriott Tit, UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, invol FT beta tester
Posts: 18,944
Originally Posted by jdrtravel
The free market argument only goes so far with airlines, IMO. They form an essential part of the infrastructure of the country and are in various ways tax-payer subsidized (some airports and airlines more than others). They risk inviting more regulation the more obnoxious they become with fees.
I'm sympathetic, believe me*, but I don't think freedom to travel equates to right to travel in a mode of conveyance that is convenient, sort of like the old saw about how freedom of speech doesn't mean the government has to provide you with a free printing press. Not sure how strongly I feel this though so maybe I could still be persuaded.

*long-time pet owner, though currently between cats (and likely to remain so as long as I keep traveling frequently), though I haven't ever flown with a pet
Zorak is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 8:36 pm
  #523  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,375
Originally Posted by Zorak
... which is also known as "pricing" I mean things like french fries and sodas are sold in fast food establishments for significantly more than their incremental cost to the restaurant.

If *everyone* wanted to travel with a pet then the price would probably rapidly approach the incremental cost. In the absence of that condition, an airline could just as well choose to price it high enough to discourage it if they feel it's a hassle and/or annoys other customers (whether said annoyance is justified or not)
yet again an instance of macroeconomics vs microeconomics (from the guy who's not anywhere fluent in theories of economics) ... the airline's analysts and decisionmakers clearly believe the fees are reasonable, but a goodly number of travelers feel they're exorbitant, an unreasonable imposition on personal freedom to travel with a pet, etc etc

over the past 30 years we have willingly paid whatever fees were required to bring a cat in an approved under-seat carrier on the plane with us ... none of the trips were hassle-free, but none of the hassles involved other passengers or FAs

pic is from Apr 2015, DCA-MSP-SEA
Attached Images  
jrl767 is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 8:45 pm
  #524  
Moderator: Hyatt; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WAS
Programs: :rolleyes:, DL DM, Mlife Plat, Caesars Diam, Marriott Tit, UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, invol FT beta tester
Posts: 18,944
Originally Posted by jrl767
over the past 30 years we have willingly paid whatever fees were required to bring a cat in an approved under-seat carrier on the plane with us
Please tell me you have a FF card in your cat's name from some airline
Zorak is offline  
Old May 29, 2017, 9:10 pm
  #525  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,375
Originally Posted by Zorak
Please tell me you have a FF card in your cat's name from some airline
I'll tell you, but it would be a lie:
1987 - UA, LAX-SEA
2001 - CO, SEA-EWR-BWI
2015 - DL, DCA-MSP-SEA
(obviously three different cats)
jrl767 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.