Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 263 posts

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#191

Post by mLuby »

strstr wrote: post #150
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are aware that people sometimes have to move, right? Not everyone wants to take their pets on planes just because they are going on vacation.

Yes, people need to move. Which would you prioritize? Pets or GP’s spouse? Pets are a choice.

So permanently abandon a vulnerable creature because GP's spouse can't take Claritin for a few hours?

I'm being hyperbolic, but still the "pets (or kids) are a choice" argument falls apart after a moment's scrutiny.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#192

Post by tw04 »

IMO the correct path from the get-go was only allowing licensed therapy dogs. It's still not perfect, but unlike "emotional support animals" there are actually pretty strict testing guidelines. I went through it with one of my old dogs to volunteer at a children's shelter and the testing authorities that I worked with took it VERY seriously. Likely because I'm sure they'd face pretty serious backlash if a dog they passed were to attack someone at a nursing home/hospital.

The support animal thing of "I just need this animal near me" without any regards to the temperament of the animal itself never made sense to me.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#193

Post by watwut »

randmeerkat wrote: post #186
cj wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I drove long distance and it was not much experience. Most difficult is to have discipline to not drive too much.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#194

Post by dr_orpheus »

cj wrote: post #93
mwfunk wrote: post #70

I'm all in favor of people who need them having emotional support animals, but for as long as this has been a thing I have been totally shocked at how many people I personally know (who I thought were better people than this) completely abusing it to bring their pets with them everywhere (planes or anywhere else where you don't normally take pets). And joking about abusing the system, and joking about how awesome it…

Edit: Removed comment, sparked unconstructive discussion.

I haven't gotten far enough to see how expensive it actually is but there are services that will transport your pet. Seems a lot better than air as they have more room and get checked on regularly.

https://www.petvanlines.com/

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#195

Post by seany »

flictonic wrote: post #127
seany wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never abused this, but I have flown with dogs a few times. It is such a huge pain in the ass. To make things worse, a lot of airline reps (you often have to call to book) really have no idea what the real rules are. Some legs have cage size restrictions, some airports have temp controlled areas, some don't (so you have to pay attention to the weather at lay overs)... the list goes on.

My experience is that it's quite easy flying on a major carrier with a dog that fits under the seat. Many airports have started to add pet bathrooms as well.

I have two Malamutes...

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#196

Post by adkadskhj »

DeRock wrote: post #65
adkadskhj wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also because there's a market for this even from people who aren't "trolling". Flying is difficult for pet owners, full stop. There really needs to be safe, affordable options for pet/dog owners to travel. As the horrible things airlines have done to pets makes it absolutely clear to many that we can't put our animals lives in the Airlines hands.

> There really needs to be safe, affordable options for pet/dog owners to travel. Why? Are you suggesting some form of subsidy? Transporting live animals is expensive, and pet ownership (let alone flying with them) is not a human right. If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost.

> Why? Are you suggesting some form of subsidy? Transporting live animals is expensive, and pet ownership (let alone flying with them) is not a human right. If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost.

Not at all lol. What is the option though currently, renting a private jet?

edit: To think of it differently, the airlines have chosen, and that choice of theirs resulted in deaths of pets, repeatedly. They want to let pet owners pay for tickets but not give them the safety of traveling without killing their pet.

If they're going to allow pet travel it should have safety regulations just like people - that don't result in pets being left on a 130deg tarmac for literal hours, and dying.

The "free market" should not get to decide things that kill people, pets, etc.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#197

Post by 13rac1 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #182
13rac1 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Again, I am not referencing people who are homeless. I haven't said "you can tell who is abusing the system at first glance." either. I think we generally agree though. Thank you for the conversation.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#198

Post by joegahona »

liuhenry wrote: post #167
throwaway201103 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just for existing. Pets can and do cause a lot of damage. They can urinate on the floors or walls, leaving odor that is very difficult to remove. They can chew up or scratch up doors, walls, floors. A pet can easily do thousands of dollars in damage in a one-year lease term. Of course not every pet does this but you don't know in advance. On the other hand landlords compete for tenants. So they may want to a…

Logically, the "surcharge for potential damage" should be a security deposit, or fines and penalties against specific behavior. You'd have the same issues with tenants that were excessively noisy, or held parties and spilled alcohol in the hallways, or scratched doors/walls/floors from moving bikes, furniture, etc. So it seems inconsistent to apply the nonrefundable fee only to the case of pets.

Yes exactly. Or toddlers, who cause much more damage than pets. Good luck charging people "toddler rent."

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#199

Post by joegahona »

0xffff2 wrote: post #105
joegahona wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a huge beef with "pet rent," as it's charging people a non-refundable fee for an animal each month, simply for existing. If landlords would prefer their tenants not have pets, simply do not allow them.

Is my landlord charging me rent "a non-refundable fee for a human each month, simply for existing"? Why shouldn't a landlord offer the option if that's what they're comfortable with? Why is strictly less choice better for a pet owner?

Presumably the rent is the same whether it's just you, or you and an autistic child.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#200

Post by jerjerjer »

0xffff2 wrote: post #124
forscyth wrote: post #90

When can we end the era of shrieking babies on planes?

I know it's totally unrealistic, but I really wish it was economically viable to run an airline that was 100% first class and had great customer service and a strict "no babies or assholes" rule. I can't afford to charter a plane for every flight, but I would definitely pay 50-100% over a regular first class ticket to never have to deal with the annoyance of flying on any major US carrier.

No babies on flight would be awesome. No more screaming.
Post reply on HN