Effective March 1, 2018, Enhanced Requirements Service/Support Animals
Jan 20, 2018, 8:04 am
#121
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 111
I've seen some interesting news clips on youtube. The badly behaved animals don't belong on planes and give legit properly trained service animals especially dogs who are properly trained & well behaved a bad name. I have no issues with service animals in training in a variety of settings so they are used to people & places as long as their trainers are keeping an eye on them.
Jan 20, 2018, 8:46 am
#122
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: Formaldehyde Medallion DL DieMiles
Posts: 12,646
Jan 20, 2018, 8:51 am
#123
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: Formaldehyde Medallion DL DieMiles
Posts: 12,646
I'm just curious.
Do you truly believe that there is no problem?
Or, are you just trying to be argumentative?
A fair question.
I would assert that "I hate that people travel with their pets" is also wrong.
I do feel that there has been a lot of abuse of the ESA concept and welcome this is a first step towards instilling some rationality.
But, at the same time, if someone wants to bring a well-behaved pet, keep it contained in a carrier, and follow all of the rules appertaining thereto, they should be able to bring a pet onto the plane.
The big distinction from my perspective is that, with ESAs (real or spurious), the pax get to remove the pets from the carriers.
DL needs to step up and accept its share of responsibility for incentivizing folks to try to game the system.
What is the incremental cost to DL when someone brings on a pet carrier instead of another piece of carry-on luggage, places that luggage under the seat in front of them, and leaves the pet there? I submit that it must be trivial.
How can DL justify a $125 fee, each way, for an in-cabin, in-carrier pet? Other than the fact that they have all the power when it comes to making rules and, thus, can take flagrant advantage of the traveling public.
I do not condone gaming the system, but I can understand how some may feel that they are justified in doing so.
There is abuse on both sides of the issue.
As long as they are smaller than a 2 year old and either sit on your lap for the whole flight or are willing to lay down under the seat in front of you. 
https://esadoctors.com/can-get-emoti...cation-online/
https://www.certapet.com/faq/how-to-...upport-animal/
https://www.esaregistration.org/
https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Sup.../dp/B01DC8WM16
You are the first person to use the term forgery in this a discussion. So, you are introducing a red herring into the discussion.
No one is suggesting that abusers are creating their own forms on their computers and signing a fake doctor's name.
In contrast, however, it appears to be far too easy to get a certificate based upon a phone interview with a "mental health professional." Or, in the case of the 4th link above, with no interview at all.
For the new restrictions to have teeth (pun intended), DL is going to have to have some way of screening out the products of document mills.
Requiring that a DL-supplied form be filled out would seem to be an effective control.
It will be interesting to see if the other airlines follow suit, and how many lawsuits from document mills follow.
Do you truly believe that there is no problem?
Or, are you just trying to be argumentative?
A fair question.
Wow
This is just so wrong, immoral and disgusting on so many levels one cannot put it in words.
This as a welcome change. Need to put an end to people scamming the system and trivializing people with actual, quantifiable disabilities. I hate that people travel with their pets, and certainly do not wish to sit next to an ESA, but if someone has a legit disability and needs it to travel, I will suck it up for the flight.
This is just so wrong, immoral and disgusting on so many levels one cannot put it in words.This as a welcome change. Need to put an end to people scamming the system and trivializing people with actual, quantifiable disabilities. I hate that people travel with their pets, and certainly do not wish to sit next to an ESA, but if someone has a legit disability and needs it to travel, I will suck it up for the flight.
I do feel that there has been a lot of abuse of the ESA concept and welcome this is a first step towards instilling some rationality.
But, at the same time, if someone wants to bring a well-behaved pet, keep it contained in a carrier, and follow all of the rules appertaining thereto, they should be able to bring a pet onto the plane.
The big distinction from my perspective is that, with ESAs (real or spurious), the pax get to remove the pets from the carriers.
DL needs to step up and accept its share of responsibility for incentivizing folks to try to game the system.
What is the incremental cost to DL when someone brings on a pet carrier instead of another piece of carry-on luggage, places that luggage under the seat in front of them, and leaves the pet there? I submit that it must be trivial.
How can DL justify a $125 fee, each way, for an in-cabin, in-carrier pet? Other than the fact that they have all the power when it comes to making rules and, thus, can take flagrant advantage of the traveling public.
I do not condone gaming the system, but I can understand how some may feel that they are justified in doing so.
There is abuse on both sides of the issue.
https://www.certapet.com/faq/how-to-...upport-animal/
https://www.esaregistration.org/
https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Sup.../dp/B01DC8WM16
You are the first person to use the term forgery in this a discussion. So, you are introducing a red herring into the discussion.
No one is suggesting that abusers are creating their own forms on their computers and signing a fake doctor's name.
In contrast, however, it appears to be far too easy to get a certificate based upon a phone interview with a "mental health professional." Or, in the case of the 4th link above, with no interview at all.
For the new restrictions to have teeth (pun intended), DL is going to have to have some way of screening out the products of document mills.
Requiring that a DL-supplied form be filled out would seem to be an effective control.
It will be interesting to see if the other airlines follow suit, and how many lawsuits from document mills follow.
Last edited by Canarsie; Jan 20, 2018 at 10:09 am Reason: Consolidation.
Jan 20, 2018, 9:24 am
#124
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SJC / DPS
Programs: AS G75K, UA Silver
Posts: 1,757
But now there's the odd situation where an in-cabin pet that is properly paid for requires a lot less documentation than an emotional support animal. If this was under the guise of safety, you'd think the requirements would be the same..
Jan 20, 2018, 9:26 am
#125
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,356
This seems to be new (or at least newly published): Note, in bold, the policy about purchasing a second seat. This is good, and should put an end to the false view that a support animal is entitled to encroach on another pax's space.
Where should my service or support animal sit?
Where should my service or support animal sit?
- The service or support or animals may be placed at the feet of the passenger with a disability at any bulkhead seat or in any other seat as long as no part of the animal extends into the aisle. Animals must be of a size to not exceed the “footprint” of the seat.
- The animal or animals may not extend into the foot space of another passenger who does not wish to share foot space with a service or support animal.
- Service and support animals may ride in the passenger's lap for all phases of the flight, including ground movement, take off, and landing, provided the trained animal is no larger than a lap held child (under 2 years of age).
- The animal must remain with the passenger at all times.
- The animal cannot occupy a seat.
- If no single seat will accommodate both animal and passenger without causing an obstruction, the passenger may check the service or support animal as baggage, at no charge (see Animal Travel in Hold), or purchase an additional ticket for the animal, allowing the animal to occupy that space on the floor. The passenger can buy a second ticket at the same rate as the original ticket.
- There is no guarantee of additional space beyond 1 seat per ticket.
- Passengers with trained service or support animals are permitted to occupy flat-bed seats, but may require assistance from the flight attendant.
Jan 20, 2018, 9:50 am
#126
Join Date: Sep 2016
Programs: DL PM, Marriott, IHG
Posts: 193
The ESA option has, unfortunately, allowed some percentage of people to exploit the system as a means of not paying the $125. Fortunately, most people are honest enough that the ESA is not being massively abused.
Jan 20, 2018, 10:04 am
#127
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8
As a previous person asked, what happens to those who passengers with service or emotional support animals who book tickets within 48 hours? I'd imagine that if Delta allows any customer to purchase a ticket at the airport for the next flight out except passengers with animals that would be an ADA/ACA discrimination concern.
I was under the impression that the ADA basically requires employees to take customers at their word that the animal is a service animal (although emotional support animals don't need to be accommodated except in rental housing). Does the ACA work in the same way?
I was under the impression that the ADA basically requires employees to take customers at their word that the animal is a service animal (although emotional support animals don't need to be accommodated except in rental housing). Does the ACA work in the same way?
Jan 20, 2018, 10:05 am
#128
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: Formaldehyde Medallion DL DieMiles
Posts: 12,646
"Credentialed professionals" who are willing to certify that a person has an emotional disability based upon a phone conversation?
Just like there are "Credentialed professionals" who are willing to prescribe Viagra or Aricept over the phone without a face-to-face physical exam?
Here is the certification from the DL-provided required form:
"I certify that the customer has a mental health related disability listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and is under my care."
Significant to me is the "is under my care."
Key to these new restrictions being effective is the concept that DLs new ESA help desk is going to have to verify, at least on a sampling basis, some medical license numbers. They will also need to be alert to how many certificates are signed with the same name, such as Dr. Dewey Cheathem.
It gets down to whether this is a serious effort on DL's part to curb abuses, or just a shallow PR ploy.
Admittedly opinion, not "evidence". So, you might choose to discount the following. After all, he is only a Professor of Psychology:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...rowing-problem
While 19 states have found credible reasons to crack down on fake service dogs, I will anticipate that you will assert the distinction between service dogs and ESAs, hoping to leave the implication that owners of ESAs are otherwise motivated and would not yield to the temptations that service dog owners yield to.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...als/807676001/
And, here are the folks who successfully registered a stuffed dog just to prove that they system was prone to abuse:
'Emotional support animal' system so broken we registered a stuffed, fake dog WJLA
So, have you been on 230 consecutive flights that did not have an animal on board?
If there was an animal on board how would you know whether or not it was an ESA, since their are no requirements for visible identification of ESAs (or service dogs, for that matter)?
They key is that it will give DL 48 hours to screen for abuse and fraudulent paperwork. If they have the guts to do so.
They do now: "I certify that the customer has a mental health related disability listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and is under my care."
Just like there are "Credentialed professionals" who are willing to prescribe Viagra or Aricept over the phone without a face-to-face physical exam?
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.
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.
"I certify that the customer has a mental health related disability listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and is under my care."
Significant to me is the "is under my care."
Key to these new restrictions being effective is the concept that DLs new ESA help desk is going to have to verify, at least on a sampling basis, some medical license numbers. They will also need to be alert to how many certificates are signed with the same name, such as Dr. Dewey Cheathem.
It gets down to whether this is a serious effort on DL's part to curb abuses, or just a shallow PR ploy.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...rowing-problem
While 19 states have found credible reasons to crack down on fake service dogs, I will anticipate that you will assert the distinction between service dogs and ESAs, hoping to leave the implication that owners of ESAs are otherwise motivated and would not yield to the temptations that service dog owners yield to.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...als/807676001/
And, here are the folks who successfully registered a stuffed dog just to prove that they system was prone to abuse:
'Emotional support animal' system so broken we registered a stuffed, fake dog WJLA
If the "problem" is "too many animals on planes regardless of their status" then I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Clearly some people think any number is too many; some people think the same of children.
FWIW, I have been on 230 flights since I last saw an ESA on board.
FWIW, I have been on 230 flights since I last saw an ESA on board.
If there was an animal on board how would you know whether or not it was an ESA, since their are no requirements for visible identification of ESAs (or service dogs, for that matter)?
Absolutely. Even if it's all just perception (I think it's plenty more) then people with ESAs will still veer away from Delta.
And people with allergies and things will veer toward Delta.
But I also think this will empower gate agents and flight attendants to be bolder if they suspect abuse.
And people with allergies and things will veer toward Delta.
But I also think this will empower gate agents and flight attendants to be bolder if they suspect abuse.
They do now: "I certify that the customer has a mental health related disability listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and is under my care."
Last edited by Canarsie; Jan 20, 2018 at 12:45 pm Reason: Consolidation.
Jan 20, 2018, 10:15 am
#129
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Upper Sternistan
Posts: 10,028
As a previous person asked, what happens to those who passengers with service or emotional support animals who book tickets within 48 hours? I'd imagine that if Delta allows any customer to purchase a ticket at the airport for the next flight out except passengers with animals that would be an ADA/ACA discrimination concern.
I was under the impression that the ADA basically requires employees to take customers at their word that the animal is a service animal (although emotional support animals don't need to be accommodated except in rental housing). Does the ACA work in the same way?
I was under the impression that the ADA basically requires employees to take customers at their word that the animal is a service animal (although emotional support animals don't need to be accommodated except in rental housing). Does the ACA work in the same way?
If you book a flight within a week, and it's an international flight and you don't have a valid passport, that's your problem - not Delta's.
I don't see why this responsibility to comply with stated rules is any different.
Jan 20, 2018, 10:56 am
#130
Join Date: Jan 2006
Programs: Delta DM (3 MM) ; Sky Club (Lifetime)
Posts: 326
Fantastic move, Delta.
I don't believe that there is anyone who would truly deny an individual with a true disability the accompaniment of their canine companion which is their lifeline.
How I would have liked for this policy to have been in effect for the recent trans-con during which a huge dog took up most of the legroom allotted to two adjacent seats, and barked constantly.
Or even more ridiculous, on another trans con where the dog under my seat (belonging to the person seated behind me) had a loss of bowel control several times during the flight.
I did feel badly for both the dogs and the other passengers with me in the front cabin on these flights.
I believe that all passengers seated nearby on both occasions needed emotional support by the time the planes landed.
For those wondering, the loud conversations between the individuals to whom the animals belonged confirmed the obvious ...these were their pets, pure and simple.
Hopefully, the polices will actually be strictly implemented, though this is doubtful if carry on baggage size restriction enforcement is any example.
Perhaps Delta (and others) should consider the financial disincentives to common sense and respect for others, by reducing or eliminating their fees on checking both luggage and pets that have no place in the passenger compartments.
I don't believe that there is anyone who would truly deny an individual with a true disability the accompaniment of their canine companion which is their lifeline.
How I would have liked for this policy to have been in effect for the recent trans-con during which a huge dog took up most of the legroom allotted to two adjacent seats, and barked constantly.
Or even more ridiculous, on another trans con where the dog under my seat (belonging to the person seated behind me) had a loss of bowel control several times during the flight.
I did feel badly for both the dogs and the other passengers with me in the front cabin on these flights.
I believe that all passengers seated nearby on both occasions needed emotional support by the time the planes landed.
For those wondering, the loud conversations between the individuals to whom the animals belonged confirmed the obvious ...these were their pets, pure and simple.
Hopefully, the polices will actually be strictly implemented, though this is doubtful if carry on baggage size restriction enforcement is any example.
Perhaps Delta (and others) should consider the financial disincentives to common sense and respect for others, by reducing or eliminating their fees on checking both luggage and pets that have no place in the passenger compartments.
Jan 20, 2018, 11:31 am
#131
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: DTW
Programs: DL PM, Natl-Exec Elite, Hertz-President Circle, Marriot/Starwood-Gold, HHonors-Gold
Posts: 678
I see it as more of an attempt to curb abuses, by requiring more preparation, but I think any intelligent scamster will not be stopped by this new policy.
It is a shame that people chose to take advantage of a something designed to make life a bit easier for those that are at a dis-advantage. The situation is not much different from the people who use Grandma's handicap permit to park up front rather than walk a bit further like the rest of us. Makes me fell bad for those people with a TRUE need for an ESA or Trained Service Animal.
It is a shame that people chose to take advantage of a something designed to make life a bit easier for those that are at a dis-advantage. The situation is not much different from the people who use Grandma's handicap permit to park up front rather than walk a bit further like the rest of us. Makes me fell bad for those people with a TRUE need for an ESA or Trained Service Animal.
Jan 20, 2018, 11:33 am
#132
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Boston, MA
Programs: DL Diamond, HHonors Diamond, National Executive Elite
Posts: 2,360
What is the incremental cost to DL when someone brings on a pet carrier instead of another piece of carry-on luggage, places that luggage under the seat in front of them, and leaves the pet there? I submit that it must be trivial.
How can DL justify a $125 fee, each way, for an in-cabin, in-carrier pet? Other than the fact that they have all the power when it comes to making rules and, thus, can take flagrant advantage of the traveling public.
How can DL justify a $125 fee, each way, for an in-cabin, in-carrier pet? Other than the fact that they have all the power when it comes to making rules and, thus, can take flagrant advantage of the traveling public.
If you're moving across the country, by all means, bring your pet. If you're headed to Miami for a long weekend, hire a kennel.
Pets must remain in their carriers at all times, so there's little risk.
Jan 20, 2018, 11:53 am
#133
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,766
Fantastic move, Delta.
I don't believe that there is anyone who would truly deny an individual with a true disability the accompaniment of their canine companion which is their lifeline.
How I would have liked for this policy to have been in effect for the recent trans-con during which a huge dog took up most of the legroom allotted to two adjacent seats, and barked constantly.
Or even more ridiculous, on another trans con where the dog under my seat (belonging to the person seated behind me) had a loss of bowel control several times during the flight.
I did feel badly for both the dogs and the other passengers with me in the front cabin on these flights.
I believe that all passengers seated nearby on both occasions needed emotional support by the time the planes landed.
For those wondering, the loud conversations between the individuals to whom the animals belonged confirmed the obvious ...these were their pets, pure and simple.
I don't believe that there is anyone who would truly deny an individual with a true disability the accompaniment of their canine companion which is their lifeline.
How I would have liked for this policy to have been in effect for the recent trans-con during which a huge dog took up most of the legroom allotted to two adjacent seats, and barked constantly.
Or even more ridiculous, on another trans con where the dog under my seat (belonging to the person seated behind me) had a loss of bowel control several times during the flight.
I did feel badly for both the dogs and the other passengers with me in the front cabin on these flights.
I believe that all passengers seated nearby on both occasions needed emotional support by the time the planes landed.
For those wondering, the loud conversations between the individuals to whom the animals belonged confirmed the obvious ...these were their pets, pure and simple.
Hopefully, the polices will actually be strictly implemented, though this is doubtful if carry on baggage size restriction enforcement is any example.
Perhaps Delta (and others) should consider the financial disincentives to common sense and respect for others, by reducing or eliminating their fees on checking both luggage and pets that have no place in the passenger compartments.
Perhaps Delta (and others) should consider the financial disincentives to common sense and respect for others, by reducing or eliminating their fees on checking both luggage and pets that have no place in the passenger compartments.
I do agree that the fees are too high. $125 for an in-cabin pet is highway robbery!
The only way to stop people from bringing too much luggage in the plane and fake ESAs is for Delta employees to physically stop them. Use the baggage sizer at the gate. Verify the paperwork for an ESA, which would include verifying the information on the form and banning anyone who had used an ESA that did not behave properly on a prior flight (after all, the form includes the passenger's statement that the animal is trained, which can't be the case if it misbehaved before).
Jan 20, 2018, 12:11 pm
#134
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MEM
Programs: Starbucks Green Card
Posts: 5,431
You are the first person to use the term forgery in this a discussion. So, you are introducing a red herring into the discussion.
No one is suggesting that abusers are creating their own forms on their computers and signing a fake doctor's name.
In contrast, however, it appears to be far too easy to get a certificate based upon a phone interview with a "mental health professional." Or, in the case of the 4th link above, with no interview at all.
No one is suggesting that abusers are creating their own forms on their computers and signing a fake doctor's name.
In contrast, however, it appears to be far too easy to get a certificate based upon a phone interview with a "mental health professional." Or, in the case of the 4th link above, with no interview at all.
And the fact that you think it's "too easy" for people who need help to get help doesn't mean the animals are "fake" or "fraudulent" or whatever term you think is appropriate.
Admittedly opinion, not "evidence". So, you might choose to discount the following. After all, he is only a Professor of Psychology:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...rowing-problem
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...rowing-problem
While 19 states have found credible reasons to crack down on fake service dogs,
And, here are the folks who successfully registered a stuffed dog just to prove that they system was prone to abuse:
Are you going to complain if someone brings that stuffed dog on a plane?
So, have you been on 230 consecutive flights that did not have an animal on board?
I think it's up to the passenger to plan better.
If you book a flight within a week, and it's an international flight and you don't have a valid passport, that's your problem - not Delta's.
I don't see why this responsibility to comply with stated rules is any different.
If you book a flight within a week, and it's an international flight and you don't have a valid passport, that's your problem - not Delta's.
I don't see why this responsibility to comply with stated rules is any different.
First of all, Delta doesn't get to make up whatever rules it wants. It has to comply with the ACA.
And comparing "not having a valid passport" with "not buying a ticket within some arbitrary timeframe we just literally made up" is laughable.
Last edited by Canarsie; Jan 20, 2018 at 12:47 pm Reason: Consolidation.
Jan 20, 2018, 12:19 pm
#135
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: PDX
Programs: DL DM, AS MVP 100K, Amtrak peon, Colbert Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 4,534
I support well-behaved ESAs and I also fully support this reasonable change. Fact is, tragedy of the commons always leads to a select rotten few creating “this is why we can’t have nice things” for everyone else. Responsible pet owners know that it takes a dog of a certain temperment to be appropriate as an ESA in public (regardless of the human’s condition).
Moreover, it’s highly inappropriate for many reasons for untrained ESAs to wear the vests. In fact, I wish Delta would ban such vests for any animal that’s not a certified service animal.
Finally, for those saying take Amtrak or Greyhound, neither have a provision for ESAs as they’re not governed by the ACA. And pretty much the least safe thing anyone can do (in life, not just to travel, and not least for someone with a serious mental illness) is to drive themselves.
The divisiveness of this issue makes me sad. There’s a reasonable middle ground in the social contract.
Moreover, it’s highly inappropriate for many reasons for untrained ESAs to wear the vests. In fact, I wish Delta would ban such vests for any animal that’s not a certified service animal.
Finally, for those saying take Amtrak or Greyhound, neither have a provision for ESAs as they’re not governed by the ACA. And pretty much the least safe thing anyone can do (in life, not just to travel, and not least for someone with a serious mental illness) is to drive themselves.
The divisiveness of this issue makes me sad. There’s a reasonable middle ground in the social contract.