StayingHomeIsBetter

Don't bog this thread down with well-informed opinions.

flyerslc

The ACA, aka Obamacare, as far as I know, does not apply to airlines, only providers of healthcare services. The ACA is also the American Canine Association, a dog registry. The ACAA is the Air Carrier Access Act.
The ADA is the American Disabilities Act. Just a point of information.

flyerslc

A DSM5 diagnosis can be something as simple as a phobia of airline travel. 300.29 (F40.248) Situational (e.g., airplanes, elevators, enclosed places). All one has to do is state to one of these licensed therapists on line that one has a phobia of flying and having Sparky helps that. The professional then has to sign a letter saying that you are under his or her care for the above diagnosis. That's it. It takes minutes on line and a payment and you are done. The only way fraud here could be eliminated is if licensing authorities cracked down on what constitutes being under someone's care. These certificate mills have licensed "professionals" in each state that will do this over the phone or on line. These regulations may cut down a little bit on the acquisition of these certificates but fundamentally, the requirements are trivially easy to fulfill.

pvn

Do you think Delta is actually going to start doing this? They aren't demanding a certification of training, they're just asking the passenger to check a box.

The fact that you don't like them doesn't make them fake.

Newman55

If you need to lie to get an authorization from a "professional", that makes the authorization fake.

ijgordon

The problem is that the "lie" is not black and white. Mental illness (or whatever you want to call what we're talking about re: ESAs) is not like pregnancy.
If I said "well it makes me feel better whey Fluffy is with me on the airplane instead of worrying about him being locked up in a cage at the kennel" then one could probably argue that's it's reasonable for Fluffy to fly with me as an ESA. Where do you draw the line / what's the threshold? I don't even know if the federal government wants to go there - for now, they leave it up to the doctors. So I do see the argument that things might not really change that much on the ESA front.

Newman55

I don't think that's a reasonable argument for having an ESA. No one likes to leave their pets behind, but that's what's best for the pet and best for your fellow passengers. Flying is not a right and everyone has to make sacrifices to live in a society.

I would be totally fine with doing away with ESAs completely. If you can't get on a plane without Fluffy then go through the process of having them officially accredited as a service dog.

pvn

Sure, I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Some people in this thread seem to think they can figure out if the passenger lied simply by looking at their animal.

Howste

Uninformed, uniformed, or both?

trouble747

I intended uninformed, but they are also uniformed.

trouble747

Are you sure you don't disagree? Because my use of the word "fake" bothered you above.

Fake authorizations are fake. If an authorization is legit, then obviously I'm not referring to it when I say "fake." And I think if one's contact with a mental health professional is for a few minutes or over the internet simply to obtain an ESA authorization, the document is probably fraudulent. I didn't say anything about "looking at the animal."

pvn

What makes you think that particular statement was referring to you?

And honestly, from a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter if you think it's fake. It meets the requirements, Delta can't ignore it just because you don't like the rules.

trouble747

Well you quoted me above and said "The fact that you don't like them doesn't make them fake." I didn't suggest Delta ignore an authorization (though I think all airlines should exercise their right at a minimum to prohibit untrained animals from the cabin if they believe it will cause problems).

As I said, the government will need to address it--and it appears the industry and labor groups would support that.

cerealmarketer

They are requiring ESA owners to check a box that states Delta will deny boarding or remove the animal from the aircraft if it acts 'inappropriately.' . Something that was more grey before this - when crews and agents weren't sure if they could do more than shrug if a pet starts getting hostile. You can also bet some agents / crew will take it to an extreme, while others will look the other way now that they're having pax sign off on it.

"I understand that if my service animal acts inappropriately, that it will be considered not acceptable for air travel and will be denied boarding or will be removed from the aircraft. (Mark check box to confirm.)"

https://www.delta.com/content/dam/de...uiredForms.pdf

"I confirm that this animal has been trained to behave in a public setting and takes my direction upon command (Mark check box to confirm.)"

What's inappropriate is spelled out on the service animal page - and includes action in the gate area:

• Growling
• Jumping on passengers
• Relieving themselves in the gate area or cabin
• Barking excessively, not in response to a handler’s need or distress
• Eating off seatback tray tables

Pet misbehaves on one leg of a connection, crew reports it...and no boarding for the connecting flight.

jdrtravel

Trained service animals are trained to do specific tasks for people with specific disabilities. An ESA does not do any particular task, rather, it provides emotional comfort with its presence. All it would require is basic obedience training. I suppose I could see airlines requiring that dogs have been through an obedience training program, but I don't think that would be much help at all. First of all, anyone who has trained one dog would not need a program to know how to train another dog, it's all very easily done at home without the help of a trainer. Secondly, going through obedience school does not train a dog, it teaches the owners how to train their dog. Whether or not the owner follows through is an entirely different question (and impossible to verify).



If everyone could just relax about having dogs around, as long as they are well behaved, I think it would be much better. Humans and animals have co-existed really well for almost all of our history, not sure why this needs to be different. There is, in fact, lots of research to suggest that animals are really, really good for us. Did you know that people who are raised on farms have significantly lower rates of allergies? And that the link between human emotional well being and the presence of animals has been well studied and verified? Dogs are really really good for us. Yes, behavior issues need to be address. But come on---flying totally sucks, especially in coach. If having a cute dog on board does not make your day better then I think you have bigger problems.