bluedemon211

Bolding mine. Not to take exception with just your post, but seen this in many others. We throw the word "disability" around too liberally. While I empathize with allergy sufferers (as I am one too), we are not a "protected class" when discussing disabilities.

LarryJ

Because that is how the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) is written.

Changes would have to come from action by the Department of Transportation and/or Congress.

halls120

No, in many cases we are people who have been medically determined to have a condition that results in demonstrable medical consequences when exposed to a given stimulus we are allergic to. I personally don't have to worry, because I'm never going to encounter the substance that I am allergic to in an airplane.

I just find it fascinating that Congress and DOT have apparently prioritized the mental health of one group of persons over the physical health of others.

And I feel bad for the airlines that are stuck in the middle of the debate.

bocastephen

I don't believe they are prioritizing anyone over another, but rather have failed to address potential conflicts between two people with different disabilities requiring different accommodation that results from one person's accommodation affecting the other.

Frankly, I'm not even sure it's possible to address this fairly because starting to 'rank' the seriousness of one person's ailment vs another opens a much larger can of worms with far broader implications.

The easy fix is just shuffle seats around or offer a financial incentive for one party to travel on another flight.

rufflesinc

Sure it is. You just say that one person's accommodation should not impact others. Kind of like negative rights vs positive rights.

bocastephen

Great - so the passenger with a ES or service pet should not be impacted by the passenger with an allergy?

Aussienarelle

Well first UA would need a system to identify folks with allergies - currently they have no system. It is up to the allergy sufferer to talk to the Gate Agent.

UA does have a system to identify people who will be traveling with pets as it is one of the items when you are looking to book a flight.

I am not certain about the UA system for Service Animals.

Hopefully the rules that some states are implementing for ESAs may address some of these issues.

halls120

If a UA passenger with an allergy wants to ensure that they are not booked on a flight where pets will be carried in the cabin, UA should provide a process whereby an allergy sufferer - upon booking - can indicate their condition and have their PNR noted as such. At the same time, a UA passenger who wants to bring an animal in the cabin ought to be required to provide that information to UA at booking as well. At that point, it shouldn't be too difficult for UA to resolve the matter ahead of time.

rufflesinc

No, you're starting at the wrong point. The ESA is the accommodation and should not be impacting other pax.

Boraxo

It is not harassment to ask someone a question. They can refuse to answer. I agree that the preferable course would be to request action from an FA but given the history of intransigence/indifference I think it make sense to undertake the initial inquiry. FYI the law does not make it illegal for another customer to ask about the disability. But even so the question I suggested relates to the nature of the service provided by the faux service animal - which as the government has noted is entirely permissible.

Given the plethora of phone video I would welcome your response as I am sure it would be quickly posted to social media. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and people who utilize faux "service animals" will get the reception they deserve in the court of public opinion.

PsuedoEuropeanGuy

I've used this before on my own pets. It's good but its just expensive compared to the cost of getting the animal to ride in the cabin.

In particular, it depends on the weight of the animal.

I believe my small cat was the cheapest possible rate and that was $200 each way. My larger dog was above $350. I was relocating (from east coast to west coast) so I didn't mind paying the cost as a one-of but paying that rate both ways more than once would be quite expensive.

Aussienarelle

So perhaps part of the issue is the fee for animals in the cabin. It should be the same, or more than Pet Safe.

UA would also need to start verifying the ESA paperwork.

mmack

THIS IS the issue. If air carriers charged passengers to take their animals into the cabin, regardless of emotional need, there would be a lot less foolery

LarryJ

They do. Not only the paperwork, but they contact the mental health care professional who provided the documentation.

From https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...e_animals.aspxCharging for the accommodations required by the ACAA, including the carriage of ESAs, is prohibited by the ACAA. For this to happen, the DOT and/or Congress would have to enact a change in the ACAA allowing such charges.

eng3

I had a similar experience. I was in Y bulkhead window and the dog was better behaved than you describe. But the dog was large. The dog was in the middle seat. The head went under the bulkhead, the passenger basically straddled the dog's body and the tail went under the seat and I guess rested on the bag of whoever was behind.

Yet the FA still asked the person next to her to push her bag further under the bulkhead. To me, the dog is now blocking my egress.

When accommodation of a disability (real or fake) trumps safety, I think we have a big problem. Like you say, where do we draw the line?