makeUturn

The fake ESA animals are getting out of hand. I am slightly allergic to most pets and have had to fly with sniffles and sneezes a few times during the past two years because of a pet on board. It is not enough to complain, but if the fake ESA animal keeps escalating as it is now, we will soon see very few flights without an animal or even multiple animals on board. I agree with previous posters that there should a mandatory training and certification program for ESA animals. Of course someone would come up with a way to purchase fake certificates. In the case of the passenger being attacked by an ESA, that animal should no longer be allowed to be claimed an ESA and only allowed to fly in a kennel like a normal pet.

jamesteroh

I think it would help a lot. Can you imagine the outrage if airlines started charging $150 for parents to bring a lap child on board to encourage them to buy a seat for their small child? People whining that pets shouldn't be allowed on an airplane are starting to become as common as people complaining about kids on an airplane.

Just like there are times parents have to fly with their infants there are times people have to fly with their pets and I don't think the airlines should be punishing people for it. People aren't going to fly with a pet in most cases unless they have to and if it's a small $25 fee most people will just pay it but when it becomes a $300 fee roundtrip plus the pet is suppose to be your carryon (that's the thing that pisses me off most about this fee) it's no wonder people are registering their pets as ESA.

So far I have just paid the fee since I only have to fly with a cat a few times a year and have never had an issue bringing my rollerbag on board with a pet but the first time I am required to check a bag as soon as the wifi starts working on board I'm going to be jumping online registering the cat as a ESA just so I can carry on.

FWAAA

Uhh, negative.

Some airlines do limit the number of pets per flight, but US carriers possess no authority to limit the number of seeing-eye dogs, service animals, therapy dogs or emotional support animals on a given flight. Federal law is funny that way . . .

PTravel

Or could it be that the airlines charge high fees because they want to discourage in-cabin pets? WN, which is otherwise quite liberal regarding additional fees, charges $95 one-way for an in-cabin pet.

flyerCO

Yes it precludes an animal from encroaching. However the DOT rules say it is you to be moved if an issue arises. Thus the rules make for somewhat of a nightmare. Can want to treat it as IDB, but it won't be.

PTravel

I'm not looking for an argument, but I'm curious: how many times have you had to fly with your pet, as opposed to simply wanting to? And if I'm not being too intrusive, can you explain why?

flyerCO

Airlines do charge for lap infants. 10% of adult fare, which can easily be $100 or more. Only free for domestic flights.

PTravel

Are you sure about that? I'm not challenging you. It's been a long time since I read the applicable CFRs, but my recollection was that an animal, whether service, ESA or pet, could be refused boarding if it didn't fit within its owner's space.

Doc Savage

Why in the world do you think you can dictate what an airline charges for a service?

Airlines charge the high prices to discourage people from bringing pets on board. I applaud all efforts to keep the cabin animal free. Animals bark and generally make noise. Animals get nervous and void bowel and bladder. Animals cause problems for people with asthma.

Unless you are moving permanently long distance, there is no need to schlep your poor, stressed pet along with you. If you absolutely feel compelled to bring it, the price is published.

Faking a disability is disgusting. But I guess there are a lot of people out there who have no shame.

flyerCO

Sorry to disappoint. Airlines can't limit number of ESA/service animals.

Doc Savage

I guess our airplanes will soon look like rural South American buses, then.

pvn

All ESAs are essentially "just a pet". The "certification" as it stands today is for the human, not the animal. That is, the human gets a "prescription" from a ... professional (of some sort, I don't think it necessarily has to be a medical doctor, possibly a licensed therapist/psychologist, whatever) and then that patient gets whatever animal he personally wants. Nobody is certifying "official ESA" animals. There may be trainers who specifically train animals to serve as ESAs, but that's irrelevant to airlines and the regulations.

jamesteroh

I was referring to domestic flights. Can you imagine the outrage if parents were told there was a $150 o/w fee for a lap infant and they also couldn't have a carry on?

gooselee

You certainly seem to, based on your need to rebut every comment here directed toward you.

If you fell asleep on the subway and someone stole your wallet, you'd be sure to profusely thank and appreciate them for doing so, right? After all, they had the opportunity to take advantage of you, so why shouldn't they?

This.

This is all true. Currently, there is no standard used by airlines to certify animals that serve as ESAs. However, the conversation you keep responding to is about a suggestion that perhaps training/certifying the animals themselves is a potential solution to the growing problem of misbehaving ESAs on aircraft. The post I was originally replying to, which took us down this path, was in regards to a suggestion by PTravel that a new certification focused on the ESA itself be put in place/required for travel.

jamesteroh

I feel that same way about loud infants. Would you feel the same way if airlines started charging a $150 fee for a lap held infant? Just like there are reasons people need to bring their infants with them people need to fly with pets.