DisneyObsessed

But this does not address phony Emotional Support Animals

Troopers

To be clear, service animals are limited to dogs per federal law. All other animals are emotional support.

Troopers

Correct, but the question was in regards to service animals.

I recall that there are proposed legislation to address fake ESA.

rsteinmetz70112

The Americans with Disabilities Act does not recognize ESAs. Only the Air Carriers Access Act and the Fair Housing Act. The cheaters often do thise best to confuse the two.

rsteinmetz70112

I think you're right but the post I was responding to said there was. I searched and could not find one, only a reference to a CBS news story that allegedly said there was such a law. So I asked to more information.

drphun

I thought there was up to a $5,000 fine for falsely claiming a service animal under the ADA, however I am unable to locate it now. Perhaps it is under something else like impersonating a person with a disability to obtain benefits or some other fraud statute? Additionally about 19 states have specific laws regarding service animal fraud.

The support animals on airplanes thing is the Air Carrier Access Act: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...se14.4.382_123

You can't ask but the airline can:

"(e) If a passenger seeks to travel with an animal that is used as an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, you are not required to accept the animal for transportation in the cabin unless the passenger provides you current documentation (i.e., no older than one year from the date of the passenger's scheduled initial flight) on the letterhead of a licensed mental health professional (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, including a medical doctor specifically treating the passenger's mental or emotional disability) stating the following:

(1) The passenger has a mental or emotional disability recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Fourth Edition (DSM IV);

(2) The passenger needs the emotional support or psychiatric service animal as an accommodation for air travel and/or for activity at the passenger's destination;

(3) The individual providing the assessment is a licensed mental health professional, and the passenger is under his or her professional care; and

(4) The date and type of the mental health professional's license and the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued.

(f) You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the cabin. With respect to all other animals, including unusual or exotic animals that are presented as service animals (e.g., miniature horses, pigs, monkeys), as a carrier you must determine whether any factors preclude their traveling in the cabin as service animals (e.g., whether the animal is too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin, whether the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, whether it would cause a significant disruption of cabin service, whether it would be prohibited from entering a foreign country that is the flight's destination). If no such factors preclude the animal from traveling in the cabin, you must permit it to do so. However, as a foreign carrier, you are not required to carry service animals other than dogs."


Penalties for using false pretenses to enter a secure area of the airport (like the jetway):

18 U.S. Code § 1036 - Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport

(a)Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter—
any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
any secure or restricted area of any seaport, designated as secure in an approved security plan, as required under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated under that section; or
any secure area of any airport,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b)The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—
a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.
(c)As used in this section—
the term “secure area” means an area access to which is restricted by the airport authority, captain of the seaport, or a public agency; and
the term “airport” has the meaning given such term in section 47102 of title 49.

rsteinmetz70112

That's not much they can do to verify, in other "guidance" airlines are discouraged from looking too closely and encouraged to ask a few questions of the passenger and look for vests and other signs indicating the animal is really ok.


This applies to people not animals. Read closely it doesn't prohibit someone going through security with their own ID to enter the gate area. It doesn't cover lying about the status of an animal, if TSA would even care. That's the airline's problem, just like dragging too much carry on baggage through screening. Even using someone else's boarding pass to get on the plane may mot be a crime, but would be a contract violation. After all there is no real fraud.

saneman

Pet owners should be forced to buy an extra seat. Those small dogs are freaking annoying. They are not quiet. And I just resent having to sit next to a pet owner and the pet. It's not the same as a backpack under the seat. If it was just luggage, then there should be no problem putting it in the overhead bin., Oh wait, someone tried that already.

justhere

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. But you know what, that's ok. In fact, I'd love to be ignorant of a disabled traveler's needs. It would make like just that much simpler. I don't know of anyone that chooses to be disabled and give up some of the things that ignorant people take for granted. Things such as being able to walk from the door of the plane to the last row. Things such as being able to walk from their seat to the bathroom without someone's assistance. Things such as being able to stand unassisted for a few minutes so that you can line up with everyone else.

As you take these things for granted, allow me to explain why else you are wrong. The person I travel with cannot walk up and down the jetway. They can take a few steps, with assistance to get from the door of the plane to the first few rows. Which also means that they can take the ~10 steps from their seat, again with assistance, to the door of the aircraft where a wheelchair awaits. They can do that without holding up the rest of the passengers by timing their exit to when some able-bodied, full of themselves, person takes their sweet-a$$ time getting their bag down from the overhead. To tell someone that they must remain seated only because they need a wheelchair to get up and down the jetway is so demeaning and thoughtless. Those few steps are one of the only things this person can do for themselves (albeit with an arm to steady them). To basically tell them, "yes I know you could get off now and not hold anyone up, but to kb9522 you aren't really a person so we don't care that we are treating you differently because of your disability. You just sit there and twiddle your thumbs needlessly because of some arbitrary decision by someone who doesn't understand." I can see why that's not demeaning.

And if it wasn't completely clear how little you understand from the first part of your post, you decided to show the world just how closed-minded you are with the second part. Open seating isn't an issue. It's actually a benefit. Because of open seating this person can preboard so that they can get a seat close to the front of the plane. That's one of the reasons the law is written that way for airlines that provide open seating. If they weren't to preboard, they would likely have to transfer from the wheelchair to an aisle chair which takes a lot longer than just taking the 10 steps to the seat and airlines tend to want to board those folks first anyway. In fact, airlines that offer assigned seats means we have to call in advance to make sure we get seats close to the front of the plane. On legacies where you have to walk through first class, even the closest available coach seats can require the use of an aisle chair.

So no, there's no scam. We would gladly trade the seats we get near the front for the back row of the plane if it meant that we didn't have to deal with the disability.

Not everyone's disability is the same. Some people do need more assistance, some less. And that should determine the best way to exit the plane. Not some arbitrary, presumptuous, method that has absolutely no bearing on the real world.

So the next time you think you know all there is to know about how disabled people should just "take a seat" and let those of you who are blissfully ignorant pass by, perhaps you'll stop for a moment and consider that it's not as clear cut as you'd like to think it is and what is a simple task to most, may be one of the only things someone else can still do on their own. Don't demean them and take their dignity away by implying that they are an inconvenience to everyone else.

drphun

It is fraud. The person commits fraud by making a false statement to avoid the pet process and fee, and be allowed onto the jetway with their pet. You'll notice that there is a combination lock on the door to the jetway - that signifies that it is the entrance to a secure area. The federal government has a lot of statutes regarding fraud and lying to a federal official that they can use. That put Martha Stewart in a federal prison.

rsteinmetz70112

It might be fraud if someone lied about the status of their pet to avoid paying a fee. But that isn't what I wrote above. It would not be fraud if the airline did not have a fee for pets. Even if they did that does not violate 18 U.S. Code § 1036, TSA doesn't care if you bring a pet through security.

toomanybooks

You know, if someone psychologically needs to carry along a dog or other living creature to make it though a flight, why exactly may I not say I need to have my specific alcoholic beverage to do the same?

Why? What is so special about furry allergenic creatures that they get some dispensation?

Maybe I need to have my favorite bourbon that WN fails to supply or I will melt down. Why is that different from Xanax?

dlaue

As I have pointed out frequently in the past, the illegal activity occurs when a state licensed mental health provider creates a "diagnosis" based on a questionnaire. This violates the medical practice act in every state, country, and territory. The Federation of State Medical Boards (along with their analogs in the Psychology, Social Work and other behavioral science boards) could adopt formal practice standards declaring this practice as "unprofessional conduct." This would draw the attention of the licensing authorities and result in disciplinary actions and the attendant deterrance.

If nothing else, the price of these phony documents would skyrocket...far beyond the fee for a legitimate pet transport.

disalex

I believe the answer is a combination of this and lawsuits against the mental health provider that wrote the letter if anyone is attacked or injured by a fake emotional support animal. Let a few practitioners lose lawsuits over issuing these letters and see how reluctant they become to issue them at all.

justhere

Charles Perrault is that you? You do realize that you even provided the proof that the US Code you quoted doesn't apply? Your argument is that "the person commits fraud...to avoid the pet process fee, and be allowed onto the jetway with their pet". The Code you quoted is about using fraud to gain access to the airport secure area. Someone trying to avoid the pet process fee has every right to be in the secure area (jetway in this case) as they purchased a ticket for that flight and have previously presented valid ID to the TSA. That they are trying to avoid the pet fee is not in any way, shape, or form, defrauding the US Government.

Whether or not they should have paid the pet fee is a civil matter between the airline and the passenger.