US ends era of emotional support animals on planes • Hacker News Board

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#181

Post by volkl48 » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #85

vectorphresh wrote: post #42

A clear example of “This is why we can’t have nice things”, if ever there was one. This definitely sucks from a consumer point of view, but understandable when the focus becomes passenger safety. Service dog training can be verified and as such abusers can be filtered out of consideration.

Merchants are not allowed to ask for proof of a dog being a service dog. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm >When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, req…

The ADA does not cover airlines. Airlines are covered by the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA).

Airlines are allowed to require specific documentation.

https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#182

Post by DoreenMichele » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

13rac1 wrote: post #173

DoreenMichele wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing you linked to is the personal opinion of someone with what looks like a personal blog. I have had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I homeschooled my two gifted-learning disabled sons for years, which means I effectively ran a two student school under the laws of California for years. I also spent some years homeless in part due to my own disability. Before I was diagnosed with a seri…

> The first thing you linked to is the personal opinion of someone with what looks like a personal blog. Anything you or I write here is effectively the same thing. ;) Equal valuation. This blog does cite the ADA and IAADP though. You seem focused on the bureaucratic hoops and seem to think I want them enforced more strictly? I haven't mentioned that. Please evaluate only the words I use. You seem to be making a poin…

Homeless people are routinely defensive because they are homeless and the entire world treats them like crap on a routine basis.

It's really not as simple as "you can tell who is abusing the system at first glance." That's not how that works. I know many people like to think the world is nice and straight forward like that, but it usually isn't.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#183

Post by ehnto » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

pfisch wrote: post #151

pfisch wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is abusive for airlines to charge $250 per roundtrip for a ~10 lb carryon that fits under your seat. They are operating a scam. This was the only way around it.

I love all the downvotes with no explanation about how this is a defensible practice in any way. I could understand if airlines kept a blacklist for people who have animals out of control, but they don't even do that right now with their absurd overcharging. I could also understand putting down a refundable deposit and a $20-40 charge(though you can bring much heavier carry-ons for free). The airlines' practices are…

I didn't downvote you, but your original comment was extremely generalized which makes it annoying to argue against, because you have to point out all the caveats or else people will cling on to them each subsequent iteration.

Eg:"Not all animals are 10lbs, not all animals fit under a chair, not all airlines charge $250, not all flights are the same distance, it's not just a carry-on (disingenuous) not all flights make money (so how can you claim it's a scam when they lose money)

Etcetera. It's just a tedious and lopsided way to argue.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#184

Post by freeflight » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

flflfppp wrote: post #142

cj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience. The decision wasn't for my personal convenience. It's much more convenient to throw an animal in the cargo hold. It really is not fun to deal with an animal with you on a crowded plane. Convenience is not the motivating factor at least for me... it's simply treating the animal humanely, which to me means avoiding…

Then you should have absorbed the inconvenience of driving cross-country, not abusing a system meant to help people that need it. Also, I'm perplexed by people's use of the word "humane" when it comes to pets. If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the hum…

> If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom.

This is quite reductive considering that most pets are animals that have been domesticated by humans for hundreds and thousands of years.

In many cases we've bred them towards certain tasks and behavioral patterns, in the process we also bred out of them traits they often would need to survive in nature.

When humans did that then humans took on a responsibility, you can't just handwave that away with "these are animals, they are unworthy of any consideration".

> I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human.

It's preposterous to claim humans are not animals to justify inhumane treatment of other living, and in many cases highly emphatic, beings.

And not to get me wrong here: I'm not some kind of hardcore vegan who thinks all animal products should be banned. I'm merely recognizing that as the dominant species on this planet we have certain obligations towards the rest of it's inhabitants and particularly those we've utilized to get us where we are today.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#185

Post by hackeraccount » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

hpoe wrote: post #5

So something I only recently found out myself is that there is actual no real requirements in order to register an animal as an "emotional support animal", I found that out after my sister registered her dog as an emotional support animal to get around her apartments "no pets allowed" rule. Another interesting thing is that I have a friend who builds apartments in a college town for students. The apartments for years…

I looked for it on youtube but couldn't find an old Saturday Night Live sketch with the players talking about things they ruined for everyone. It was "this is why we can't have nice things" before it's time. The only one I remember was John Belushi saying that he would go out hitchhiking and then murder the people who picked him up. Which thinking about it doesn't really sound funny but in context was actually.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#186

Post by randmeerkat » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

cj wrote: post #137

jonas21 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only alternative was to drive cross-country, or... What was wrong with this alternative (other than being inconvenient for you)?

I don't have a car.

You missed out on a great life experience. My partner and I had an incredible time moving across the country and driving our pets with us.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#187

Post by bryanrasmussen » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

flflfppp wrote: post #142

cj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience. The decision wasn't for my personal convenience. It's much more convenient to throw an animal in the cargo hold. It really is not fun to deal with an animal with you on a crowded plane. Convenience is not the motivating factor at least for me... it's simply treating the animal humanely, which to me means avoiding…

Then you should have absorbed the inconvenience of driving cross-country, not abusing a system meant to help people that need it. Also, I'm perplexed by people's use of the word "humane" when it comes to pets. If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the hum…

>open your front door and let them walk out to freedom.

I'm pretty sure my drunken parents' methods of pet care were not in fact humane or in any way to the benefit of the pets who were killed by it.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#188

Post by jacurtis » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

volkl48 wrote: post #172

macdamaniac wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pretty unpopular take on this, being married to someone with severe pet allergies. That take is, dogs (and cats) have no place on an airplane, and responsible adults shouldn't get pets that they can't find sitters for or board while they are away. Planes are enclosed-air spaces, and the allergens from your dog make anyone with allergies miserable for the entire duration of the flight. Every single time we en…

I'll entirely support this take, as one of those people (allergy side of things). I'll also mention that it's the contact side of it too. If I touch anyone's dog, I have to wash my hands, because one absentminded rub of my face is all it takes to go full allergy misery. Sitting on any furniture that a dog has been on for a length of time (say, your couch)? Also going to cause me problems. Pets shed, airplanes have ca…

> "Pets shed, airplanes have carpeted floors and airplanes aren't exactly deep cleaned between flights, at least in non-COVID times."

Just to reinforce the truthfullness of this. Most planes only get cursory garbage removal between flights. Thats it! They are only cleaned every 24 - 48 hours. But a plane might make 4-12 flights between cleanings, and even these cleanings aren't serious. They do a vacuum and spray sanitizer on main surfaces, but that's it.

In fact one of the reasons that diseases spread so much on planes is not because of people on your flight or the re-circulated air as most people assume. But often disease spreads from people that sat where you are sitting on a flight 1-3 flights ago.

And of course allergenic have similar characteristics to viruses and bacteria. So they follow the same pattern.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#189

Post by whalesalad » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

hpoe wrote: post #5

So something I only recently found out myself is that there is actual no real requirements in order to register an animal as an "emotional support animal", I found that out after my sister registered her dog as an emotional support animal to get around her apartments "no pets allowed" rule. Another interesting thing is that I have a friend who builds apartments in a college town for students. The apartments for years…

Yep. My wife and I did this and flew first class with two dogs. There is an element of "you cant ask me why I need this animal" from the ADA.

Then again, I had a therapist who vouched for this and actually do have mental health problems that my Shepherd without a doubt helps me with.

No way in hell I am putting the dogs in the cargo hold. The passengers around us and flight attendents were absolutely enamored with how well they behaved.

While I tend to agree that this has been abused - it frustrates me that obnoxious children get a pass.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#190

Post by watwut » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

flflfppp wrote: post #142

cj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience. The decision wasn't for my personal convenience. It's much more convenient to throw an animal in the cargo hold. It really is not fun to deal with an animal with you on a crowded plane. Convenience is not the motivating factor at least for me... it's simply treating the animal humanely, which to me means avoiding…

Then you should have absorbed the inconvenience of driving cross-country, not abusing a system meant to help people that need it. Also, I'm perplexed by people's use of the word "humane" when it comes to pets. If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the hum…

That system is bare minimum required by law.