Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Emotional Support Animal Policy

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 5, 2013, 12:37 am
  #46  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Programs: AA, DL Gold Med , UA, AS, WN, HHonors Silver, Marriott, IHG Rewards Club, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by rsteinmetz70112

One of the primary motivations for people to abuse the ESA designation is to avoid the fees imposed on mere pets.
The solution would be to continue to waive the fees for true "certified" service animals (animals that have been formally trained to assist in certain tasks) but not to waive the fees for ESAs (which are basically untrained glorified pets).
Peter T. is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 12:46 am
  #47  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 2,400
Originally Posted by rsteinmetz70112
One of the primary motivations for people to abuse the ESA designation is to avoid the fees imposed on mere pets.
Or to stay in hotels that do not allow pets.
tatterdema is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 1:16 am
  #48  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
Originally Posted by tatterdema
Or to stay in hotels that do not allow pets.
Or live in apartments that don't allow pets or require additional deposits and fees.
rsteinmetz70112 is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 9:40 am
  #49  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Inland Empire, semi-regularly going between LAX/ONT/SNA and IND/STL
Programs: Rapid Rewards, SkyMiles, AAdvantage
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by BizFlyin
I'm not personally convinced people "need" emotional support animals
I'm not personally convinced you're a mental health professional qualified to make this sort of judgment.
BerenErchamion is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 9:46 am
  #50  
nsx
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,625
nsx is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 9:58 am
  #51  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Inland Empire, semi-regularly going between LAX/ONT/SNA and IND/STL
Programs: Rapid Rewards, SkyMiles, AAdvantage
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by nsx
That's a fair point, but bizflyin's dismissive attitude is not what one would expect of a credentialed, trained mental health professional sharing a serious, honest opinion of a matter of legitimate professional concern. Thus, it seems unlikely.
BerenErchamion is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 11:06 am
  #52  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Originally Posted by rsteinmetz70112
One of the primary motivations for people to abuse the ESA designation is to avoid the fees imposed on mere pets.
On WN it would be $150 RT, about half of the the cost of most of the vet trips for my pets. If one is devoted to their pet, that should not be a problem. Of course, if they could get free vet exams by claiming a disability, they would do that as well.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 12:38 pm
  #53  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Minneapolis, originally from Cincinnati
Programs: Diamond with Delta, Hyatt and Hilton. 2 MM and Plat with America (thank you citi:))
Posts: 2,345
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
On WN it would be $150 RT, about half of the the cost of most of the vet trips for my pets. If one is devoted to their pet, that should not be a problem. Of course, if they could get free vet exams by claiming a disability, they would do that as well.
I am not sure if WN has this policy or not, but one thing that irritates me the few times we have had to fly with pets is the pet carrier counts as your carry on!! If an airline is going to charge an absurd fee to bring a pet on board, they shouldn't count the pet as a carryon. If someone is flying with a pet and travelling light they sure don't want to be spending extra waiting in line to check a bag and claim a bag with their pet with them.

I can just imagine the screaming if an airline said they were going to charge a parent a parent $75 for a fee to have a lap infant with them and/or state they couldn't have a carryon if they had a lap infant.
ILovetheReds is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 5:42 pm
  #54  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Programs: AA, DL Gold Med , UA, AS, WN, HHonors Silver, Marriott, IHG Rewards Club, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 323
Many airlines charge absurd fees many things.

$100 penalty fee if your check-in luggage is overweight by just 5 lbs?


Originally Posted by ILovetheReds

I can just imagine the screaming if an airline said they were going to charge a parent a parent $75 for a fee to have a lap infant with them and/or state they couldn't have a carryon if they had a lap infant.
Please don't give the airlines any more ideas.
Peter T. is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 10:22 pm
  #55  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: DCA, lived MCI, SEA/PDX,BUF (born/raised)
Programs: Marriott (Silver/Gold), IHG, Carlson, Best Western, Choice( Gold), AS (MVP), WN, UA
Posts: 8,737
Originally Posted by ILovetheReds

I can just imagine the screaming if an airline said they were going to charge a parent a parent $75 for a fee to have a lap infant with them and/or state they couldn't have a carryon if they had a lap infant.

SSSHHHHHHH......airlines are listening and looking for ideas.
djp98374 is offline  
Old Oct 5, 2013, 11:14 pm
  #56  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Another forum
Programs: Good Riddance FT!
Posts: 2,005
Originally Posted by BerenErchamion
I'm not personally convinced you're a mental health professional qualified to make this sort of judgment.
That's why I used the word "personally." I don't want to get into an argument, I'm sure you have much more experience than I with mental health professionals.
BizFlyin is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2013, 12:25 am
  #57  
nsx
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,625
You know, BF, that violates the rule against personal attacks. However it may qualify under an exception that I sometimes make for a post that is so funny even the target can't resist a grin.
nsx is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2013, 1:08 am
  #58  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 2,400
Originally Posted by nsx
You know, BF, that violates the rule against personal attacks. However it may qualify under an exception that I sometimes make for a post that is so funny even the target can't resist a grin.
+1. Made me grin!
tatterdema is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2013, 5:47 am
  #59  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Another forum
Programs: Good Riddance FT!
Posts: 2,005
Originally Posted by nsx
You know, BF, that violates the rule against personal attacks. However it may qualify under an exception that I sometimes make for a post that is so funny even the target can't resist a grin.
No offense intended, just a joke!
BizFlyin is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2013, 8:33 pm
  #60  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
Originally Posted by ILovetheReds
I can just imagine the screaming if an airline said they were going to charge a parent a parent $75 for a fee to have a lap infant with them and/or state they couldn't have a carryon if they had a lap infant.
There is a petition to require that children be required to be secured in an approved in a government-approved child safety restraint system. The FAA's reason for not requiring such a system (as required for children traveling in automobiles) is that some parents would chose to drive rather than fly but because automobiles are so much less safe than aircraft it would cause more deaths.
rsteinmetz70112 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.