seat38a

Man Lawyers Up After Being Badly Bitten By Emotional Support Animal on Delta Flight - View from the Wing
Just because someone needs an ESA does NOT give that animal the right to maul another passenger nor does the animal being ESA or a service animal give the owner legal right to abdicate their responsibility as the OWNER of the dog. Go to the link above to see the pictures from the man who was mauled by the ESA animal while being pinned in at his window seat. The right of the person needing to fly with an ESA animal DOES NOT trump the mauled mans right to fly safely without bodily harm. On top of the fake ESA problem, there is also this misguided belief by the owners of fake ESA animals, that their pets being ESA makes then not liable for cleaning up after their pets, controlling noise etc.. They usually learn the hard way when their neighbors call animal control and "its a service animal" doesn't fly with the animal control officer and they get fined.

Couple of years ago, even Disney stopped issuing line passes to the disabled and handicap because of the high number of people were abusing it. To some of you who have pointed out that faking ESA is justified because of the cost of being honest is too high, all I'll say is that I've learned over the years that sleazeballs don't stop at just ONE lie or fraud!

josephstern

I like it that Delta is (yet again) taking the lead here.

Question is, does this push all of those traveling with their sugar glider off to another airline? If so, that's great, as I mostly fly Delta.

Or, will all other US carriers follow suit, which would be great overall, but then Delta loses the distinction.

RooseveltL

Delta is amazing/excellent! Kudos for this.

dlaue

Passengers who claim a need for an emotional support animal should not be allowed to fly on future flights until they get a followup letter from a health professional stating that they no longer need the animal. This should apply across all airlines.

If an airline is on notice that a passenger needs the animal, the airline might not be able to defend against a lawsuit if the airline allowed the passenger to fly without the animal and the passenger caused some problem.

rufflesinc

That's usually how it works. A good idea gets copied.

pvn

That doesn't make them fraudulent.

thesaints

Actually, it does. Should evidence be brought up that they released those certification without following state-of-the-art procedure at a minimum they would lose their license.

pvn

They might be fraudulent. The fact that it's very easy to get these doesn't mean they aren't following procedures.

And until it's proven otherwise, the paper is legit. Delta can't legally deny a pax on the basis that a bunch of naive internet posters are mad that some of these might be fraudulent.

This policy isn't going to change anything. It's just wishcasting.

HornsKeith

It'll at least make it a bit more challenging than the current process whereby you only need to spend $22 on an ESA kit from Amazon.

Keith

Newman55

So what would you do to remove non-legitimate ESAs from the getting on board? Or do you deny that this occurs?

thesaints

It is all part of a wider problem caused by the pendulum having swung from an extreme, where no accommodations were made for disabled people, to the other.

flying_donkeys12

RooseveltL

I think there are two different topics of focus here:
Delta's ability to deny boarding based on less than valid credential
VS. (MORE IMPORTANT)
If a customer boards an aircraft with an animal who damages the aircraft or another passenger - Delta now has documented record to pursue legal action against the passengers and doctor. I would go so far to say they can pursue it criminally if passenger is breaking the law - as the passenger and a doctor have signed away their reputation if something goes left.

IMO, it is the equivalent of a bar serving an overly drunk customer knowing he/she must drive. If that person causes death or property damage - the bar is potentially as liable equal to the drunk driver.

thesaints

The doctor only certified the patient condition, not the animal suitability. Definitely the ESA docs issuer would be, though. "Knowing they must drive" seems to be a hell of a thing to prove in court.

pvn

I haven't seen any evidence that it's a widespread problem. Also the way the law currently stands makes doing any more extremely difficult (the new policies could already be beyond what is legally permissible).