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

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#201

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

volkl48 wrote: post #181

lotsofpulp wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

My mistake. But I think it might be similar to the ADA rules since the website specifies documentation only for emotional support animals or psychiatric service animals, so I assume

>Airlines can request specific documentation and/or 48-hours advance notice for emotional support animals and psychiatric service animals.

Also, I assume that Dept of Transportation website is now out of date with the newest rule changes requiring only service dogs.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#202

Post by joegahona » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

jacurtis wrote: post #162

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.

I used to work in property management and we charged extra fees each month for pet rent. I initially was against it when I started working there, but by the end I completely understood why they did it. The reality is that animals are rougher on homes than humans are. Even things like the backyard will have more wear and tear on it with a pet than with humans and all of this has to be dealt with during turn over. A pe…

What I don't get is why can't this occur via a massive deposit on the front end, that the landlord can then itemize and prove when the tenant moves out? Rent forces all people to pay a monthly charge for their pet, regardless if their pet is a disaster or well behaved.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#203

Post by joegahona » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #95

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.

That's really not fair since pets do cause quite a bit of damage on average and as someone who likes pets, I feel like such a policy of not having pet rent would make it even more difficult to find a place that even allows pets.

Toddlers cause more damage than single adults. Should landlords be able to charge more for, say, a single mother with a mentally disabled child who is prone to throw things?

In both cases -- pet or children -- damages should be extracted from a security deposit. j

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#204

Post by objectivetruth » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

hackeraccount wrote: post #166

tarboreus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as a blind person I support restrictions on emotional support animals, which is a concept that has been abused more often than it is used. I'm sympathetic to people who want to bring their animals with them, but pretending that your animal is needed to support you emotionally isn't the answer. If you want to create a movement to allow animals at every venue, then start it and society can have that debate. But fi…

Worked for pot.

Say what you will about shady California weed doctors, but they don't usually poop on a plane or bite people sitting next to them. :-)

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#205

Post by liuhenry » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #183

pfisch wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

It's worth noting that the Department of Transportation final ruling devotes a section to economic impact [1], and estimates a ~$55M increase in fees paid by passengers traveling with ESAs to airlines.

> The current policy amounts to a price restriction which requires that airlines forgo a potential revenue source, as airlines are currently prohibited from charging a pet fee for transporting emotional support animals

> Removing the current requirement that carriers must transport emotional support animals free of charge will allow market forces (i.e., carriers as producers and passengers as consumers) to set the price for air transportation of emotional support animals as pets. This provision will allow carriers to charge passengers traveling with emotional support animals (dogs and other accepted species on board of an aircraft) with pet transportation fees. This represents a transfer of surplus from passengers to airlines, and does not have implications for the net benefits calculation of the final rule."

[1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/S...

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#206

Post by liuhenry » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

jacurtis wrote: post #180

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…

My aunt flies frequently for business (at least once a week). She has routinely had to move because of people with pets (or "emotional support animals"). This isn't to be rude, but because she is highly allergic and it is not only uncomfortable for her, but dangerous. Have you ever been on a flight where someone with peanut allergies is on the plane? The flight attendants announce that someone on the plane is allergi…

I'm sympathetic to this point, but won't it continue to be a problem as long as airlines still allow pets?

The DOT ruling cites an industry statistic that 784k pets and 751k ESAs were transported in 2017 [1]. I can certainly believe that it's grown more lopsided since then, but it still seems that a significant number of flights would have animals on them after this rule takes effect.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/S...

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#207

Post by DoreenMichele » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

13rac1 wrote: post #197

DoreenMichele wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I haven't said "you can tell who is abusing the system at first glance." either.

The thing you quoted did say that, which is what I'm responding to:

> "Each time an employee has an encounter with a fake service dog (and yes, they know when you're lying),

Have a great day.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#208

Post by mindslight » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #116

mindslight wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you on the overall abuse of the system. But given that the alternative is often putting the animal in the cargo hold, it's understandable. It's too bad regulators haven't banned that practice while they're at it.

> I'm with you on the overall abuse of the system. But given that the alternative is often putting the animal in the cargo hold That is hardly the only alternative. There are other forms of travel and it is quite likely that your pet will be better off at home with a sitter or boarded while you're gone.

I personally tend to do inconvenient things instead of justifying the least worst expedient option, but it's wrong to pretend that everyone does. From what I've read about stowing your pet, it's basically inviting animal abuse (being left to sit on a hot tarmac, etc).

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#209

Post by pfisch » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #183

pfisch wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

All airlines as far as I'm aware do charge around $125 per flight. Distance doesn't matter.

I think it is reasonable to charge more for larger animals. If your dog takes up a seat then a ticket price is a fair price.

If you have a well behaved animal it is basically just a carry-on.

If some flights aren't profitable that doesn't justify price gouging people with animals that weigh nothing and use up no jet fuel. Increase ticket prices and baggage prices. That actually makes sense.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#210

Post by pfisch » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

liuhenry wrote: post #205

ehnto wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

It's worth noting that the Department of Transportation final ruling devotes a section to economic impact [1], and estimates a ~$55M increase in fees paid by passengers traveling with ESAs to airlines. > The current policy amounts to a price restriction which requires that airlines forgo a potential revenue source, as airlines are currently prohibited from charging a pet fee for transporting emotional support animals…

Yeah, "market forces". Because they don't all just charge $125 right now per flight and not give a fuck.