Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can someone else determine that your animal does or does not bring you emotional support ?
For many people their animals are considered part of their family and there is a connection. These airlines won't be able to disprove this, because there is nothing fake about it.
The airlines should spend their time worrying about potential terrorists on the plane instead.
Am sorry that "connection" with a family pet is *NOT* what the ADA was about in creating service animal exemptions.
Know several persons who are no more ill than a molting canary but have service for their dogs. Ditto the scores of persons who daily flaunt "No Pets Allowed" signs in supermarket/food stores and other such places here in NYC. Manager and employees have given up in many places trying to enforce that law as each culprit has some sad tale of woe and misery how their dog is a "service" pet.
Service dog tags are almost easy to get as illicit drugs these days if you know where to look. A few dollars in the right doctor's palms and voila, you now *need* a service dog.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was poorly and rather broadly written which is why there is such difficulty in shutting down various abuses. Anyone can claim they need an emotional support/service pet and dare you to deny. Doing so most surely means being hauled into court where the outcome most often favors the so called "disabled".
Again am not blaming those with certified and or serious disabilities; but the entitled emotionally insecure who feel the world must run according to their time, and will use and abuse any law they can to see that happen.
How much are passengers paying to allow their pets aboard in passenger areas? Do they pay as if the pet is an additional passenger? I really have not flown for many years. But, besides from other passengers with allergies; I would worry that pets could be a potential flying hazard in any crash. I would think that the pets are not in any secure cage while on the airplane; so, in the event of a crash, they could become projectiles. Airlines still have regulations requiring both luggage and passengers to be secure during takeoff and landing - does that apply to the new "service animals"? The pets could also pose potential problems for passengers escaping burning or wrecked aircraft - even the leash could be an obstacle.
How much are passengers paying to allow their pets aboard in passenger areas? Do they pay as if the pet is an additional passenger? I really have not flown for many years. But, besides from other passengers with allergies; I would worry that pets could be a potential flying hazard in any crash. I would think that the pets are not in any secure cage while on the airplane; so, in the event of a crash, they could become projectiles. Airlines still have regulations requiring both luggage and passengers to be secure during takeoff and landing - does that apply to the new "service animals"? The pets could also pose potential problems for passengers escaping burning or wrecked aircraft - even the leash could be an obstacle.
I am not sure, but I don't believe that people are charged extra for service animals on a plane. They shouldn't be - would you penalize a blind person for traveling with a seeing eye dog?
As for the allergy and safety issues, people can be allergic to many things, including perfume, scented soaps and shampoos, and peanuts. Also, there are lots of things that can become a projectile during a crash: purses, laptop computers, and infants in their mothers' arms, all of which are more frequently found on planes than service animals. I strongly doubt that when a plane goes down, the most dire threat to those on board is the possibility of "death by Fido."
I am not sure, but I don't believe that people are charged extra for service animals on a plane. They shouldn't be - would you penalize a blind person for traveling with a seeing eye dog?
As for the allergy and safety issues, people can be allergic to many things, including perfume, scented soaps and shampoos, and peanuts. Also, there are lots of things that can become a projectile during a crash: purses, laptop computers, and infants in their mothers' arms, all of which are more frequently found on planes than service animals. I strongly doubt that when a plane goes down, the most dire threat to those on board is the possibility of "death by Fido."
It's funny, we're having a discussion about this very issue on the Long Island board. I brought up the point about people that have a fear of dogs (like myself). I'm not allergic, but I am very uncomfortable around ALL dogs (no it doesn't matter if it's a Pit or a tiny Poodle). If I were flying and had to sit next to someone with a dog, I would need my seat moved or be taken off the plane.
Dogs are becoming such a nuisance in everyday life. People take them to the grocery store, 7-11s, airplanes, ferrys, EVERYWHERE.
It's funny, we're having a discussion about this very issue on the Long Island board. I brought up the point about people that have a fear of dogs (like myself). I'm not allergic, but I am very uncomfortable around ALL dogs (no it doesn't matter if it's a Pit or a tiny Poodle). If I were flying and had to sit next to someone with a dog, I would need my seat moved or be taken off the plane.
Dogs are becoming such a nuisance in everyday life. People take them to the grocery store, 7-11s, airplanes, ferrys, EVERYWHERE.
I don't think people should be taking pets (as opposed to legitimate service animals) where they are forbidden just because they want to, but would you really deny someone with a legitimate need, like the blind person I just mentioned, the freedom afforded by a service dog due to your discomfort?
If your fear is a true phobia, you have my sincere sympathy, because dogs are everywhere, and it must be awful to be terrified at the sight of one. There is help for people with phobias, have you looked into it? If it's just a matter of dislike, I'm sorry, putting up with things that make you uncomfortable sometimes is part of being a member of society.
I don't think people should be taking pets (as opposed to legitimate service animals) where they are forbidden just because they want to, but would you really deny someone with a legitimate need, like the blind person I just mentioned, the freedom afforded by a service dog due to your discomfort?
If your fear is a true phobia, you have my sincere sympathy, because dogs are everywhere, and it must be awful to be terrified at the sight of one. There is help for people with phobias, have you looked into it? If it's just a matter of dislike, I'm sorry, putting up with things that make you uncomfortable sometimes is part of being a member of society.
I have no problem with TRUE service animals. But I know that MOST of the dogs that are dragged around by their owners are not service animals.
I have no problem with TRUE service animals. But I know that MOST of the dogs that are dragged around by their owners are not service animals.
How do you know? I've seen service dogs, and service dogs in training, that wore a vest designating them as such. I don't know if they are mandatory for certified dogs. But dogs are not the only kind of service animal. I met a woman once whose service animal was a little monkey that was trained to fetch things for her that she could not get for herself, due to her limited mobility.
How can someone else determine that your animal does or does not bring you emotional support ?
For many people their animals are considered part of their family and there is a connection. These airlines won't be able to disprove this, because there is nothing fake about it.
The airlines should spend their time worrying about potential terrorists on the plane instead.
And in the off chance that I ever fly commercially I don't need to be sneezing my ass off because some jerk won't pay the baggage fee.
How can someone else determine that your animal does or does not bring you emotional support ?
For many people their animals are considered part of their family and there is a connection. These airlines won't be able to disprove this, because there is nothing fake about it.
The airlines should spend their time worrying about potential terrorists on the plane instead.
Yeah, well, my granddaughter is a part of my family and I have to pay for her to fly. She weighs less than the last "emotional support" animal I saw on a plane and takes up less space.
The airlines need to worry about total weight on the plane, the ability of employees and other passengers being able to navigate the aisles of the plane, the loss of the sale of the adjacent seat if the animal is large, the safety of the other passengers, the cleanliness of the plane, and how things like how barking, clucking, snorting, and whatnot impact the flying experience of other passengers.
Of course pets provide emotional support, that's why people go through the expense and trouble of having them. I have a chronic debilitating disease, when I have flare ups and am homebound, their company is very comforting and really does help me feel less depressed. They add a great deal of quality to my life, to include emotional support, but I am capable of functioning without them. So are most people who now are imposing their "emotional support animals" on the rest of society, they just want the animal with them.
Besides, because of my disability, I am not realistically capable flying without another human but my husband or some other companion isn't allowed to fly free. That ticket has to be paid for by me. ESAs (not bonfire service dogs, which is a different rant) should not be free. If the airlines can force an obese person to buy two seats to fly, when clearly they are incapable of flying without half their body, this should fall under the same theory. Just charging a reasonable fee for the ESA would cut down on most of this nonsense. If it's that important they will come up with the money.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
There needs to be a compromise where there is a space for those with service dogs and those who do not wish to eat around an animal. I am not suggesting the disabled person be put off to the side, as if ashamed of the person, just some sort of middle ground where both sets of customers can be happy.
This said, FAKE service animals - the idea alone is just selfish and incredibly lame.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
