US Dept of Transportation moving for new regulations barring emotional support animals on aircraft and requiring proof of training for service animals

[bcla]

Animal relief areas aren't just for what someone may consider non-essential pet and ESA animal travel. They are also nice to have for service animals even if service animals are often trained to go in the lesser desired ways and conditions.

Also working dogs at airports, like sniffer and/or police dogs. This was a promotional photo for Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport:

I’m not sure if this is taking things too far. It’s a pet boarding and day care facility on airport property in Denver, but not in a terminal.

http://www.paradise4pawsdenver.com/services/

 

[Moliphino]

The problem is, the fee is $125. At least, that's what it cost on American when we moved 4 years ago. You also give up your right to a carry-on, the pet carrier counts as your carry-on. We flew down 3 cats and a dog when we moved. It wasn't a particularly pleasant experience for a number of reasons. One poor cat yowled, every second he was in the air, the rest were just miserable.

We ended up bringing wee pads for the dog, and had her do business on them in a family restroom. While there are animal relief stations, they are outside security, so you have to come back through after using them. In my case, I had the dog, a cat in a carrier whose zipper broke at the beginning of the journey (it was holding together, but iffy), a 12yo and a 9yo. And the one carry-on we actually could bring. Going through security an additional time just wasn't going to happen for us.

Overall, it was one of the worst travel days of my life, and I can't imagine putting myself or my pets through that again, merely for companionship. I'm not a stranger to anxiety issues, so I'm sympathetic, but there has to be a better way than schlepping pets onto airplanes.

There's also a size limit for having a pet in the cabin (needs to fit in a carrier that fits under the seat). Calling your larger dog an ESA can get around needing to check your dog in as cargo, which, given many airlines' track records with animal safety, I can't entirely say I blame people for.

 

[Brianstl]

When it comes to certification of service animals, what questions can be asked and the inability to ask for proof are the results of how Justice Department regulators have decided to interpret and implement the law. The laws itself doesn't state the proof of a dog being a service animal can't be asked for.

 

[QueenIsabella]

There's also a size limit for having a pet in the cabin (needs to fit in a carrier that fits under the seat). Calling your larger dog an ESA can get around needing to check your dog in as cargo, which, given many airlines' track records with animal safety, I can't entirely say I blame people for.

Yes, I believe it was 25lb and you need a soft-sided carrier that can fit under the seat in front of you. That's why it replaces your carry-on. I think my DD(then)12 would have been a wreck if we'd had to put her dog in the cargo hold. The whole experience was pretty miserable for all of us--I can't imagine doing it on a regular basis. In our case, though, we were moving 800 miles--driving seemed like it would be worse.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Forgot to say--that pet board and care facility looks really nice if you had several hours' layover between flights, or were flying your next leg the next day. It looks like a great way for your pet to get some exercise after being cramped and flying.

 

[LSUmiss]

There's also a size limit for having a pet in the cabin (needs to fit in a carrier that fits under the seat). Calling your larger dog an ESA can get around needing to check your dog in as cargo, which, given many airlines' track records with animal safety, I can't entirely say I blame people for.

This is the only time that I would try to claim an ESA illegitimately. My dog is NOT cargo. Thankfully I have never had to fly with him & never would unless it was some absolute emergency & I couldn’t drive. But for me it would have to be an apocalyptic type situation as there would never be a need for me to fly pretty much anywhere with my dog.

 

[Jonfw2]

I'm fine with all these new rules as long as they don't apply to my service snake, Vicky Viper.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

And how do we as a society get to determine whose needs outweighs the other.
Is it a first in first serve? If you book first you get to tick the severe pet allergy box and no animals are allowed? Or they tick first and you are warned that there are pets in the flight?

I think that's a great idea.

 

[Coffee54]

This is the only time that I would try to claim an ESA illegitimately. My dog is NOT cargo. Thankfully I have never had to fly with him & never would unless it was some absolute emergency & I couldn’t drive. But for me it would have to be an apocalyptic type situation as there would never be a need for me to fly pretty much anywhere with my dog.

I have no sympathy. ESA have no business on any flight. It's bull. If you need support take some pills to help you rest.

 

[DisneyKoyote]

While I love dogs and honestly like to see them on the plane/restaurant/wherever, I am 100% behind this change. It's annoying to see people take advantage of a policy that's meant to help those who actually need it. This is why we can't have nice things bc it'll always be exploited in some way lol.

 

[LSUmiss]

I have no sympathy. ESA have no business on any flight. It's bull. If you need support take some pills to help you rest.

My quote has nothing to do with the legitimate use of ESAs. I specifically stated that I admittedly would game the system if I ever had to fly my dog somewhere b/c he is NOT cargo so I won’t subject him to that. Thankfully I should never have to do this. But your comment to “take some pills” would not help my situation if I ever needed to.

 

[Coffee54]

While I love dogs and honestly like to see them on the plane/restaurant/wherever, I am 100% behind this change. It's annoying to see people take advantage of a policy that's meant to help those who actually need it. This is why we can't have nice things bc it'll always be exploited in some way lol.

So true. It's gone too far. Put on your big boy pants and stop being a wimp. All of us have problems and don't melt when something goes wrong.

 

[mummabear]

My quote has nothing to do with the legitimate use of ESAs. I specifically stated that I admittedly would game the system if I ever had to fly my dog somewhere b/c he is NOT cargo so I won’t subject him to that. Thankfully I should never have to do this. But your comment to “take some pills” would not help my situation if I ever needed to.

"Game the system" is a real nice way to spin lying.
So the Dog is NOT cargo? It also isnt an ESA dog right?

 

[Coffee54]

My quote has nothing to do with the legitimate use of ESAs. I specifically stated that I admittedly would game the system if I ever had to fly my dog somewhere b/c he is NOT cargo so I won’t subject him to that. Thankfully I should never have to do this. But your comment to “take some pills” would not help my situation if I ever needed to.

Here's something I think you already know. According to the law your pet is just common property. I don't like pets at all. I've had to call code enforcement on my neighbor more than once because they won't pick up the dog crap on their property.

 

[mummabear]

So true. It's gone too far. Put on your big boy pants and stop being a wimp. All of us have problems and don't melt when something goes wrong.

The big thing about ESAs to me is that ALL pets are there to emotionally support their owners, that is what a pet does.
And if you are in such a state that you need a constant cuddling companion to be able to walk to the supermarket, spend a day at Disney etc, I think it should be required to be recieving some sort of other treatment for your condition as well, counseling, medication.

 

[Coffee54]

"Game the system" is a real nice way to spin lying.
So the Dog is NOT cargo? It also isnt an ESA dog right?

I wonder if she picks up the fog crap. Lol.

 

[JaxDad]

Just yesterday I saw a somewhat elderly couple shopping in the local supermarket with their little dog in the cart. I couldn't help but think that it was not an Emotional Support ANIMAL. Rather, they were Emotional Support HUMANS, who just couldn't leave their dog at home by itself, because it probably yaps and yaps with separation anxiety.

 

[Colleen27]

Certainly, but the question would be, if someone has their pet in a carrier for flying, and does remove it to go to the bathroom, where does the little darling do it's business? Inside the security area, I've never seen any pet areas.

That is changing. We just flew Detroit to Denver to Santa Ana and then home via Oakland to Midway to Detroit. I noticed pet relief areas inside the airport, past security, at Detroit, Denver and (I think) Oakland. I didn't go in to see what sort of accommodation they offered, but they're there and you can take a pet to do its business without going outside the secure area.

It's a good point. I would think the likloehood of someone being frightened of rabbits is lower than dogs as well. I dont know about allergies to their fur.


So people with sensitive allergies need to sort arrangements but people who need emotional support better not be inconvenienced?
I mean sure anxiety can be difficult but breathing is pretty crucial.

Exactly. And how do we as a society get to determine whose needs outweighs the other.
Is it a first in first serve? If you book first you get to tick the severe pet allergy box and no animals are allowed? Or they tick first and you are warned that there are pets in the flight?

Any animal with fur is potentially allergenic. And just like dogs, some breeds of rabbits shed more heavily than others and there are certain times of year when the shedding is worse. In my entirely unscientific, anecdotal experience, allergies to rabbits seem somewhat less common to dogs and cats, but that's very likely because fewer people have repeated exposure to rabbit fur to develop and identify an allergy to them.

As far as your other questions, I think they shed light on the real reasoning behind this change - the airlines have no problem with managing those contradictory passenger needs when they're getting paid a pet fee to do it. What they oppose is having to deal with animals in flight when they aren't making money from it. If Bobby is paying to have an animal on the flight and Susie is allergic, that's just bad luck and they're expected to deal with it. But when Joey has that same species on a flight as an unpaid service animal, the airlines are suddenly concerned about Susie's comfort. And really, the backlash makes sense considering how likely it is that at least some people are using the ESA designation solely and expressly to avoid pet fees - I have a couple of friends who did so when relocating across long distances, because they couldn't take the time to drive but weren't willing to leave their pets behind - but it is disingenuous to pretend it is about the comfort of allergic or animal-adverse travelers.

 

[LSUmiss]

"Game the system" is a real nice way to spin lying.
So the Dog is NOT cargo? It also isnt an ESA dog right?

Right...whatever you want to call it. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Again I specifically said I should never have to do this so it’s all hypothetical.

 

[LSUmiss]

Here's something I think you already know. According to the law your pet is just common property. I don't like pets at all. I've had to call code enforcement on my neighbor more than once because they won't pick up the dog crap on their property.

Well that’s your loss. Since I don’t view my dog as property, I would do what I had to do to protect him. Women used to be viewed as property too so “laws” can change FYI. And I’m not your neighbor so I’m not sure the relevance of that comment.