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

221–230 of 263 posts

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#221

Post by bagacrap »

mmglr wrote: post #213
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…

Certainly you could go on netjets.com and fly private if "enclosed-air spaces" are such an issue. Ridiculous right? The way I understand the argument so far is: Pets should be allowed on planes and everyone else must deal with that. Pets should not be allowed so pet owners must deal with that. Neither option sounds reasonable to me. Really it looks to me like there is a market for safe and reliable pet air transport.…

That pet owners must deal with the headaches of owning a pet, and not unduly inconvenience others, seems like a perfectly reasonable stance to me.

In fact, some animals are not allowed to be kept as pets at all. I'm fine with extending that to all types of animals. Dogs are out there spreading covid right now but I can't go to the gym. That makes so much sense.

I don't understand the pet owners' sense of entitlement.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#222

Post by fuzxi »

neaanopri wrote: post #67
Ansil849 wrote: post #44

I'm finding a lot of the comments in this thread to be hurtful. Yes, many were abusing the system to register pets as service animals. No, that is not a reason to forbid the practice which was genuinely helpful to people like myself who have a phobia of flying coupled with anxiety and having a service animal genuinely helps get through a flight without the need for medication. The problem is the desire to not devote…

I completely agree with you, and I'm thinking of blind people and some people with epilepsy who have animals which can detect and manage their seizures.

Service animals like you described are not the same as emotional support animals, which are not trained to perform specific tasks or even necessarily to behave well in public. They're just regular animals that provide some psychological benefit to their owner.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#223

Post by lotsofpulp »

jfengel wrote: post #104
HideousKojima wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any hard numbers on how many people used it in good faith vs. milked the system?

I don't really care how many people "milked the system". It's no skin off my nose that they got away with something. The better question, I believe, is how often flights were disrupted by poorly trained animals. It certainly happened; how much? Then we can at least attempt to compare the benefits against the actual costs. The impression I get is that a lot of people don't care about the costs. They simply care that t…

Airline companies care about the costs. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm also not comfortable being that close to an animal from random people, especially ones that have proven they can be dangerous.

If I was encountering a service animal every once in a while from a disabled person, it might be okay. But it feels like everyone other person has one, and I have no idea what the owner or trainer is like and that raises the risk profile quite a bit.

There's a very high likelihood that the same people that ignore leash laws are on flights with an animal in close quarters to me.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#224

Post by unishark »

RandallBrown wrote: post #155
unishark wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Delta allows pets in the cabin. Was your dog too big or something?

Probably. Isn't that only pets small enough to fit under the seat?

Yes I believe the carrier has to go under the seat. It is basically a piece of luggage.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#225

Post by strstr »

mLuby wrote: post #191
strstr wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does this fail after a moments scrutiny? Pet owners have an alternative: put them in cargo. People are categorically more important than pets. To suggest anything else is insulting, frankly.

(Note: putting kids and pets in the same category seems a bit bold.)

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#226

Post by MereInterest »

devteambravo wrote: post #212
MereInterest wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read up on the term "Invisible Disabilities". Not every disability is obvious, not every disability is immediately provable to satisfy an adhoc request, and not every disability has immediate effects. Your suggestion would lead to people being further marginalized, if every person feels that they can barge in for 2 minutes each. Add up more and more people each stealing away 2 minutes, and that is quite a lot…

My point exactly. Btw, I'm one of those invisibly disabled people you mention. "Luckily", I also have massive scarring all over, so I don't have to explain myself to people as much.

Thank you, and sorry for missing the sarcasm in your post. I had interpreted your post as giving a suggestion, rather than as being the inevitable and absurd conclusion of the parent's reasoning.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#228

Post by casey77 »

whalesalad wrote: post #189
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 ho…

Parents pay full fare for children to fly so I wouldn’t call them equivalent. Some dogs are great while others are awful. Just like children.

Re: US ends era of emotional support animals on planes

#230

Post by pdonis »

DeRock wrote: post #179
pdonis wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost. Right now the problem for pet owners (of which I am one) is that there are no acceptable options, even at a significantly increased cost. Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option unless your pet is small enough to fit in its…

> Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option Well, whats your suggestion then? If there was a better option, it feels like the airlines would have taken advantage of that opportunity. My guess is that the alternatives are too logistically/operationally expensive, and the pet owners aren't willing to bear that cost. > Airlines have options to supp…

> whats your suggestion then?

A poster upthread said he would be quite willing to purchase a second seat for his pet if the airline would let him. So would I.

> I see a lot of this sentiment in the comments, comparing infants and pets. One is essential to the continuation of our species. The other is a comfort, choice and privilege.

Air travel is also a comfort, choice, and privilege. Suggesting that airlines could, for example, sell people a seat for their pet is not equating infants or children and pets. It's a business suggestion, that's all.

Post reply on HN