reimero

The dog was flying as an "emotional support animal" and subject to those regulations and requirements. Here's a link to the original news article from 2017: https://www.ajc.com/blog/airport/emo...hhDssxl26NwoN/

When an animal is flying for "emotional support" or as a trained service anumal, the airline cannot require that the animal be caged or in a pet carrier; they CAN require that pets otherwise be in carriers. It's also worth noting that this occurred right around the time passengers were getting more and more outlandish with their ESAs, attempting to claim exotic pets like spiders and ostriches as ESAs. It's not for me to say whether the dog was legit in this case, but the much bigger storyline clearly indicates that this happened at the same time ESA abuses were becoming more frequent and more glaring (it was at the point of being a "wink and a nod" method of circumventing pet fees.)

Reading between the lines (historically) it's pretty clear the airlines were looking for an excuse to tighten up the rules without angering disability and mental health advocacy groups, and this incident gave them what they needed.

Carl Christensen

Your response is ridiculous and absurd. The photos of his face clearly show what happened. One should not have to fear this on a plane. This should be a never occurrence. What difference is it how much the guy weighs - are you insinuating that the dog is trained in defending his master's armrest???

jdrtravel

Actually, there is evidence based research that suggests that certain disorders (as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) can be treated (or symptoms reduced) by an ESM.

reimero

I've not been able to track down the filing, but this is an instance where words matter (in legal-ese). More specifically, because of the press coverage and the sheer number of witnesses, I would argue that the claims that the plaintiff was attacked by that particular dog on that particular Delta flight HAVE been substantiated, and that there was immediate physical harm that was inflicted by the dog upon the plaintiff. I cannot imagine that either Delta or the dog owner would deny that the attack happened.

The real legal questions are:

• What were Delta's obligations toward protecting one passenger vs. respecting the medical needs of another passenger?
• Who was at fault for the attack?
• To what extent does industry policy and practice protect the airline?
• Was the dog legitimately an emotional support animal, or was the dog allowed on under false pretenses?
• Was the dog properly trained, as required of an ESA?
• Did the plaintiff provoke the attack?

So the legal response will look something like:
"Delta admits that (plaintiff) is a resident of (place) and was a passenger on (flight) on (date). Delta admits that (plaintiff) was attacked by (defendant's dog) during the boarding process. Delta admits that treatment was given by (persons) and that (plaintiff) was taken into medical care. Delta denies that proper procedures were not followed. Delta denies that the dog was not listed as an ESA. Delta denies negligence in dealing with animals on planes. (etc.)"

ijgordon

jdrtravel

The changes also seem to attempt to shift as much liability as possible to the pax (making pax sign a form that the dog is trained, is safe, etc).

AntonS

ESA is a complete nonsense and the lawsuit should be against government. But Delta and other airlines can require same type of certification for ESA as for service animals, which would lower wide spread abuse of ESA policies.

​​​

jdrtravel

It's actually not. This perspective is just as unhelpful as people who think it's OK to have a fake ESA to save money and end up bringing dangerous animals on a/c. The truth, like always, is actually in the middle and will require compromise. Some people are really able to be helped in significant ways by a ESA. We need to find a way for that to continue to work for them and to prevent abuse.

Do you really think that the government and airlines would go to such great lengths to accommodate ESAs were there not real evidence for their utility?

sdadept

found the ESA owner... But seriously, yes I do. People love animals and its not such a stretch to say that they help a person. Is that worth that person being able to maul someone else or inconvenience others on a large scale is the question. IMO ESA owners should just drive. They will be happier and everyone else safer that way.

jdrtravel

This is not realistic. Not everyone can drive, and especially very long distances, and especially in the winter.

IMO airlines need to adapt to the reality that people have animals and create appropriate seating arrangements. Again, this would involve compromise. People with animals that are not small enough to fit under the seat in front of them just need more space. I would suggest that both the pax and the airline share in this cost.

Also, if they created seats that had space next to them for large kennels (like max one or two per flight), many owners would not feel stuck between the terrible options of having to fly your pet in the luggage hold, which has been deadly for many animals, or to lie about ESA. I would bet the many pet owners would be willing to to pay for in-cabin kennel space were it to be offered, and this would solve a lot of problems. I

The suggestion that people never bring animals on airplanes is just not realistic.

Gynob001

I think there is a confusion between general pet ownership and emotional benefits as opposed to emotional support and plane travel. In most cases pet ownerships were found to beneficial were related to trauma or specific stressful events. What kind of traumatic events could occur (except in case of severe turbulence, and other major events) during a flight? Late delivery of beverages, lavatory occupied, neighbor not communicative....? When you type emotional support animals, myriads of sites appear guaranteeing "certification" in 24 hours etc. This has become a business, not a clinical issue.

rufflesinc

Yes, to appease whiny snowflakes who can't be expected to take care of themselves. People are getting soft these days, no one is pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and dealing with adversity.
if they can ban liquids and laptops, they can certainly ban animals

eqeqeqx

Can't make my mind up on whether this was some guy having a laugh, probably bringing a friend with him to the airport to take the turkey back home when it was not allowed on board,
or a genuine nut: https://www.ajc.com/news/national/tu...qIQRrPXWRSnuL/

jdrtravel

That's one view of things. A different perspective is that in recent years we've learned a tremendous amount about human psychology in general and trauma in particular, and that we've developed all sorts of amazing ways to help people who previously would simply have to suffer. Furthermore, in my life I see many people who face terrible adversity with great strength. I'm sure you would not say that getting help with a mental illness is being "soft" but it certainly looks like you said that. Personally I think it's a great act of strength to seek help, especially in a world where doing so gets you called a "snowflake."

AntonS

I think the problem is deeper.

I am lucky to travel and have friends in different countries. Unfortunately in the United States I see way too many people who are emotionally unstable or otherwise can not handle themselves and have all sorts of physological issues, compared to other developed countries.

Some of them suffer from past trauma or mental ilnesss but many, at least in my experience, seem to be due to social issues, including:

lack of good fiends and social interractions
lack of time / vacations / working multiple jobs
lack of access to good education
lack of access to good medical care
junk food, obesity or lack of means or understanding importance of eating healthy
easy access to drugs

Some of these issues also contribute to mental inless.

​​​​​​So instead of relying on ESA, shrinks and antidepressants , maybe we should try to address the root causes?