Delta Bans Puppies and Kittens as Service/Support Animals
Dec 11, 2018, 1:51 pm
#16
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
It is inconceiveable that DL has not obtained at least an informal "no action" from DOT. Large public companies don't take these risks because they just lead to nasty enforcement orders and shareholder derivative lawsuits when the fines are issued.
So, not worth debating unless you really are privvy to DL's legal work.
More to the point, good to see DL putting the interest of paying passengers ahead of animals.
So, not worth debating unless you really are privvy to DL's legal work.
More to the point, good to see DL putting the interest of paying passengers ahead of animals.
Dec 11, 2018, 1:53 pm
#17
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
I don't know how DL will enforce an age minimum. There's just no way to prove this. There are not verifiable records of animal birth. I mean, a tiny puppy or kitten is pretty obvious, but it's not actually provable. My dog is very small--7 pounds, and people always ask if he is a puppy, even though he is 2.5 years old.
Dec 11, 2018, 2:04 pm
#18
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,426
I don't know how DL will enforce an age minimum. There's just no way to prove this. There are not verifiable records of animal birth. I mean, a tiny puppy or kitten is pretty obvious, but it's not actually provable. My dog is very small--7 pounds, and people always ask if he is a puppy, even though he is 2.5 years old.
https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/specific_...ccination.html
Dec 11, 2018, 3:18 pm
#19
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Wouldn't that be up to a Vet to certify? Dogs have to be at least 3 months old (13 weeks) and a cat, with certain vaccines, has to be at least 2 months old. Plus, the 28 days for the vaccine to become effective gives another month or 4 weeks. Wouldn't that information be included, or assumed, with the rabies vaccination certificate?
https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/specific_...ccination.html
https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/specific_...ccination.html
I do not see vets agreeing to certify information about an animal's age for an airline that could expose them to any kind of liability. Vets provide certificates only for things they know for certain to be true, which are things that have happened in their office, like a vaccine. I mean, on my dogs vet records it says his age, but that's just based on the DOB that I reported to that vet office when we started using them.
Dec 11, 2018, 5:05 pm
#20
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Programs: DL PM/MM, Hilton Silver, SPG+, Hertz PC
Posts: 7,899
Sure, If the dog has been trained to hold it for 12 hours at home and fluid and food intake was managed before the flight then I don't see the issue. My dog (not an emotional support animal) used to tire himself out on long walks (runs) and sleep for like 10-12 hours straight right after. I'm sure I could have trained him to hold it for 12 hours if I tried. If service animals can be trained to hold it for 12 hours, so can ESA's. It is a violation of the plain language of the CFR. One can debate the merits of the policy, but the CFR is clear. If the CFR intended to prohibit ESA's on flights over 8 hours, it would have done so rather than made the requirements more rigorous.
Dec 11, 2018, 5:55 pm
#21
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Is this a thing that is happening? Or is this like the widespread voter fraud that's actually not a problem at all?
Dec 11, 2018, 5:59 pm
#22
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Programs: DL PM/MM, Hilton Silver, SPG+, Hertz PC
Posts: 7,899
A risk is a risk, even when the event does not take place, in the end.
I'd say the burden of proof should be with the pet owner stating that his/her dog is trained to hold it for 12 hours straight.
I'd say the burden of proof should be with the pet owner stating that his/her dog is trained to hold it for 12 hours straight.
Dec 11, 2018, 7:25 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
The question is not "burden of proof" or "what ifs", the question is "does a blanket ban of ESAs on flights over 8 hours comply with the plain language of the CFR?" It clearly does not because the CFR plainly contemplates ESAs on flights over 8 hours. And I do not have a dog in this race.
Dec 11, 2018, 7:27 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
It is inconceiveable that DL has not obtained at least an informal "no action" from DOT. Large public companies don't take these risks because they just lead to nasty enforcement orders and shareholder derivative lawsuits when the fines are issued.
So, not worth debating unless you really are privvy to DL's legal work.
So, not worth debating unless you really are privvy to DL's legal work.
Dec 11, 2018, 7:40 pm
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
You keep coming back to the question of whether it is a violation of DOT's rules.
What you are missing is that DOT may well have and most likely has determined that it will not enforce the rule under the circumstances provided by DL. It likely has told DL this. That is what a "no action" letter is all about.
It is also why debating something that isn't up for debate is irrational. Could be a violation. Could not be a violation. Doesn't matter to DL if it's not going to be enforced under the circumstances of DL's new policy.
Dec 11, 2018, 7:47 pm
#26
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Houston
Programs: UA 1K and Million Miler, *A Gold, Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium, Hertz Five Star,
Posts: 1,301
Delta says that their new policy is "consistent with the principles" of the ACAA. That's a nice way of saying it violates the plain language of the act, but they think they'll get away with it. Their blanket ban on 8 hours clearly violates the plain language of the act and would be struck down by a court.
Dec 11, 2018, 7:49 pm
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MEM
Programs: Starbucks Green Card
Posts: 5,431
Dec 11, 2018, 8:18 pm
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Please read what I wrote.
You keep coming back to the question of whether it is a violation of DOT's rules.
What you are missing is that DOT may well have and most likely has determined that it will not enforce the rule under the circumstances provided by DL. It likely has told DL this. That is what a "no action" letter is all about.
It is also why debating something that isn't up for debate is irrational. Could be a violation. Could not be a violation. Doesn't matter to DL if it's not going to be enforced under the circumstances of DL's new policy.
You keep coming back to the question of whether it is a violation of DOT's rules.
What you are missing is that DOT may well have and most likely has determined that it will not enforce the rule under the circumstances provided by DL. It likely has told DL this. That is what a "no action" letter is all about.
It is also why debating something that isn't up for debate is irrational. Could be a violation. Could not be a violation. Doesn't matter to DL if it's not going to be enforced under the circumstances of DL's new policy.
Seriously, a few things. First, is there a private right of action under the ACAA? (Can an individual directly sue DL notwithstanding what the DOT says about their own regulations?) Second, can't an individual sue the DOT to enforce their own CFR in a way that isn't arbitrary and capricious-- i.e. make the DOT comply with the plain language of the CFR and not what people wish the CFR said?
Again, I have no dog in this race and am not in favor of puppies peeing on planes. I just don't think this complies with the CFR.
Dec 11, 2018, 8:24 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Which is it-- "arguable at best", or "a law that needs to be struck down"? This post contradicts itself. The opinion expressed in your post is well noted. The legal view expressed in your post is contradictory . . . at best.
Dec 11, 2018, 8:59 pm
#30
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Houston
Programs: UA 1K and Million Miler, *A Gold, Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium, Hertz Five Star,
Posts: 1,301
Sure, If the dog has been trained to hold it for 12 hours at home and fluid and food intake was managed before the flight then I don't see the issue. My dog (not an emotional support animal) used to tire himself out on long walks (runs) and sleep for like 10-12 hours straight right after. I'm sure I could have trained him to hold it for 12 hours if I tried. If service animals can be trained to hold it for 12 hours, so can ESA's. It is a violation of the plain language of the CFR. One can debate the merits of the policy, but the CFR is clear. If the CFR intended to prohibit ESA's on flights over 8 hours, it would have done so rather than made the requirements more rigorous.