yyznomad

I was somewhat kidding.
I can understand what you're saying. However, aside from liking/disliking "pets", another challenge arises on the definition of what a realistic pet would be for everyone.

I don't care for having pets, but I don't necessarily dislike other peoples' pets (e.g. dogs, cats, and some small animals).
The main issue I have is how much one requires to suffer or endure to accommodate someone else's challenges/issues that require a solution that could negatively effect others around them.

Part of the solution requires the compassion of the other passengers, but compassion doesn't necessarily cancel out potential unintended negative outcomes for them.

Until there is a way to "pet-proof" such that others around the ESA-required pax won't be effected, there won't be/can't be any reasonable compromises in general (aside from musical chairs in the cabin).

Global321

The dominoes are falling...

From AP:

American Airlines is banning emotional-support animals in a move that will force most owners to pay extra if they want their pets to travel with them.

The airline said Tuesday that it will allow animals in the cabin free of charge only if they are trained service dogs. The change takes effect Monday, although passengers who already bought tickets can fly with a companion animal until Feb. 1.

The move follows a similar decision by Alaska Airlines and is likely to be copied by other carriers. The U.S. Transportation Department cleared the way for the crackdown against companion animals last month.

American said passengers with a service dog will need to complete a government form vouching for the dog’s health, training and temperament.

Other animals, including dogs not trained as service dogs, will only be able to fly in the cargo hold or a kennel that fits under a seat in the cabin. Either way, American will collect a pet fee ranging from $125 to several hundred dollars.

(Rest of the story can be found in the link.)

StuckInYYZ

While I'm not a big fan of pets in cabin (at least not large ones), let's look at it from a different angle based on what I bolded (to play devil's advocate)...

Is it the pet owner's problem that you (and your wife) are allergic to cats and dogs? Why should they be inconvenienced because you are allergic? Is it fair to inconvenience them because of your allergy?

I'm not using this as an attack... but there has to be a balance to the policy. I am a dog (and in a past life, a cat) owner. One of my friends is allergic to large amounts of pet dander (eg, they can play with my dog, but they can't visit our friend who owns four cats without allergy medication). In general, when we meet, we have to meet at my place or somewhere neutral because of my friend's allergy. (our compromise/solution)

Now while you can say to you it's a medical issue, to them it's an inconvenience.... true. But it can easily be argued, you shouldn't be flying if you have a dog or cat allergy because you don't know who has a dog or cat or how much they shed (fur or dander) and how much of that shed is on them or left on a seat by a previous occupant. While the average cat/dog might be stressed on their plane trip (many humans are too), sometimes there is no choice. Putting a pet in a kennel/animal hotel isn't necessarily "stress free" for them either. The airlines (and any regulatory bodies) need to come up with a balanced approach to this. Unfortunately there will be teething issues, but if done on an active basis (eg, don't let this policy just sit there for years without a review), then we will eventually come up with something.

yyznomad

Can we be distinct on one thing here?

IMHO:

1. A pet is not an ESA
2. An ESA is not a pet

I can see how an ESA can be viewed as a pet, but by definition, they weren't trained as a pet, but as an ESA. My understanding is that a true ESA is trained for that role in a very, very specific way.

And I think this is where the airlines are drawing the line, so that people can't arbitrarily bring their pet and claim it to be their ESA just like that.

Thoughts?

Global321

My 2 cents.

I think what you describe above is the definition of real support animals.

As for ESA's, aren't all pets ESA's, at least in a broad sense?
When you are having a bad day, feeling down, doesn't your dog coming up to you and wanting to play just boost your spirits?
Cuddle up with a cat make you feel better? Isn't that why we have pets... to emotionally feel better? If not, why have a pet?

But to be clear, I am not saying they qualify to fly on a plane. I do not think they do.

yyznomad

Exactly. I did mean ESA in the pure definition. And that's what the airlines seem to be clamping down on.

And of course, one can certainly consider a pet as their own ESA, in their own mind. Nothing wrong with that. Always nice to get the Oxytocin flowing.

teddybear99

Exactly.

I had cats growing up, but really never connected with them as they were more my parent's. I got Bayani, my first dog, in 2009, and when he passed back in October, it really hit me. When I finally found another that I connected with back in December, Dakila, I come home from rough days at work, and his demeanor waiting for me at the door wagging his tail uncontrollably, is such a uplift, I am glad he is here. I still need to get him to be more relaxed, but the issues I have with him will be corrected over time as he learns this is his forever (for his lifetime) home.

abaheti

A pet on a plane is not a necessity (service animal is different). Is it their problem I am allergic, no, I guess not. But society is based on people being courteous towards each other (well, it used to be, but I'll avoid political discussion). That's why you shouldn't wear a gallon of bad cologne on a plane, do your phone calls on speaker in a restaurant or gate area, listen to your music on a plane without a headset, let your kids play video games on a plane at high volume without a headset, pack really stinky cheese and onions in the lunch you bring on a plane, etc... Is is the pet owner's problem when fido is in my space or slobbering on me? Barking? Smells? Defecating in the airport? Service animals are highly trained and the societal benefits of the risk/bother of a service animal far outweigh any inconvenience to me. Pets, not so much.

Small, shared spaces like planes, subways, elevators demand behavioral norms. I was taught as a kid that my right to do what I want pretty much stopped once it impinged on or bothered someone else, that is just being polite. Pets on planes are just one manifestation of the problem -- one that was, maybe until recently depending how these regs play out, enabled through a legal loophole that many pet owners abused.

SPN Lifer

Emotional support skunks have their own issues. Indeed. Mabuhay! Hear, hear!

yyznomad

Well, if truly ESA, they should be fine in theory!
Same goes for an ESA Tarantula.

Global321

From OMAAT:

United bans emotional support animals

United Airlines will continue to accept emotional support animals for reservations booked before January 11, 2021, and for travel on or before February 28, 2021. For travel as of March 1, 2021, United won’t transport any emotional support animals.

Read more here.

yyznomad

For the service animals they will accept:

I guess no paper work required for less than eight hours, so as per OMAAT, anyone can declare that their dog is a service dog?

rickg523

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but it sounds like no relief attestation form is required for flights shorter than 8 hours.
The crux here is what documentation proves the dog is a service animal (specifically trained for a particular task), not just your pet, more than a doctor's note saying you need a psychiatric service animal, which anyone could no doubt buy online.

Guate87

Humans have to wear masks, animals should have to wear masks.

There is no medical proof that animals cannot spread Covid.

Global321

Yes. The new DOT rules say you can self certify. No need to pay someone else. So it will likely be as bad or worse... but that is also why I think it is the beginning of the end.

It will not get any better and they will need to rewrite it again, even tighter.

So we are still 1-2 years away from getting this resolved.