Animals on Planes

  • Hi Guest, welcome to the help forum. You can get fast answers to your customer service questions here. We have a dedicated team of advocates who are ready to help. Just go to the section that matches your question and ask us!
  • If you've posted a question or issue for our advocates to assist with, please be sure to check back frequently for responses and requests for clarification.
  • Did you know you can get email notifications when something new posts to your favorite forum? It's easy. Just click the "watch" link right next to the "post new thread" button at the top of your favorite forum. The rest is easy. Now you'll never miss another conversation.
  • Want to become an expert user? Drop by the How to use this forum section and all will be revealed. We'll show you how to make the most of your experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.

johnbaker

Verified Member
Oct 2, 2014
1,097
1,809
113
47
The ADA also recognizes breathing as a basic right but it doesn’t seem to matter. It’s my understanding that airlines don’t have to abide by the same rules as public places.
And there are now “service animals” in doctors offices. Those of us with severe animal allergies are being further and further restricted.
Excuse my venting but this is very serious. I have written to all kinds of agencies. I will contine to contact the AAFA because they appear to be the only ones who get it.
Have you written your Congressperson / Senators? They're the ones who took the lobby money to add the exceptions. They're the ones who need to remove them.
 
Feb 24, 2018
66
227
33
31
This is not so much a case of one type of disability being second-class or there being second-class citizens, or any condition being less important than another. It is a case of that key phrase: reasonable accommodation.

It is never a reasonable accommodation for me or my medical equipment (eg, a service animal) to not be able to avail myself of public transit or a public area due to your needs, whether your needs are a disability, a fear, or anything else. Period. Full stop. "Remove that human for this public space" is not a reasonable accommodation.

"But!" you say, "I (or another person with asthma, allergies, or fears) has to remove HIM or HERSELF from that same public space! And it is not really an option for that person!" That may be true in practice, but that person is not being removed from that space. That person is removing himself or herself due to an inability to manage a medical condition (or fear or aversion) in a given circumstance. He or she may feel that he or she has no choice, but that is different from being removed. Or, he or she may announce, "If I am on this plane with this dog I will have a life-threatening allergic reaction" and be removed at the discretion of the crew for medical reasons, the same way they can remove someone if that person expresses symptoms indicating she may have a heart attack in flight.

Incidentally, I am fortunate to be the partner of a hypoallergenic service animal.

To the individual who described the service pug, this is alarming. No airline should be allowing you to hold an ESA in your lap while you fly. I am glad your companion allows you to travel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CycleAZLindyB
Aug 29, 2018
281
339
63
59
This is not so much a case of one type of disability being second-class or there being second-class citizens, or any condition being less important than another. It is a case of that key phrase: reasonable accommodation.

It is never a reasonable accommodation for me or my medical equipment (eg, a service animal) to not be able to avail myself of public transit or a public area due to your needs, whether your needs are a disability, a fear, or anything else. Period. Full stop. "Remove that human for this public space" is not a reasonable accommodation.

"But!" you say, "I (or another person with asthma, allergies, or fears) has to remove HIM or HERSELF from that same public space! And it is not really an option for that person!" That may be true in practice, but that person is not being removed from that space. That person is removing himself or herself due to an inability to manage a medical condition (or fear or aversion) in a given circumstance. He or she may feel that he or she has no choice, but that is different from being removed. Or, he or she may announce, "If I am on this plane with this dog I will have a life-threatening allergic reaction" and be removed at the discretion of the crew for medical reasons, the same way they can remove someone if that person expresses symptoms indicating she may have a heart attack in flight.

Incidentally, I am fortunate to be the partner of a hypoallergenic service animal.

To the individual who described the service pug, this is alarming. No airline should be allowing you to hold an ESA in your lap while you fly. I am glad your companion allows you to travel.
Early in the thread Christina H provided us with a good description of how service animals are designated outside the United States; the standards are much more rigorous, but also fair.

I would venture a guess that most animals on aircraft are not service animals, but emotional support animals at best -- and pets masquerading as emotional support animals at worst. They are often untrained, they are not hypoallergenic. Yet the way the rules have been written, they do get priority over someone with allergies. While you may disagree, that person with allergies does have rights.

When equal rights are in conflict, the best solution is some selection method that gives proper respect for all parties. In this situation, the better solution is the first to check in gets precedence. The other passenger is effectively the first on the next flight, guaranteeing their transport.
 
Apr 9, 2019
41
44
18
64
In the old days, smokers were relegated to a (back) section of the plane. Maybe that would help if emotional support animal and their "guardians" were put in a special section. In theory, the air system, and people's own medicinal defenses , should make it possible for all of us to get along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jsmithw
Feb 24, 2018
66
227
33
31
Early in the thread Christina H provided us with a good description of how service animals are designated outside the United States; the standards are much more rigorous, but also fair.

I would venture a guess that most animals on aircraft are not service animals, but emotional support animals at best -- and pets masquerading as emotional support animals at worst. They are often untrained, they are not hypoallergenic. Yet the way the rules have been written, they do get priority over someone with allergies. While you may disagree, that person with allergies does have rights.

When equal rights are in conflict, the best solution is some selection method that gives proper respect for all parties. In this situation, the better solution is the first to check in gets precedence. The other passenger is effectively the first on the next flight, guaranteeing their transport.
No one is being given higher priority than another, California. You can twist this to imply that I think that people with allergies have no rights until you are blue in the face, but that will not make it so.

There is a group of people that the law, in regards to air travel, has decided deserve reasonable accommodation for their medical condition. The provision of the law provides that the reasonable accommodation for one such group is to allow emotional support animals in the cabin of the aircraft. I personally disagree with this, but I am not a lawmaker.

A second group, those with allergies who rise to the level of a disability, is also entitled to reasonable accommodation under the law. But removing other persons from public spaces, or altering the terms of their reasonable accommodation, is not a form of reasonable accommodation. I guess this is the part that marks me as someone who believes that those with allergies have no rights, so I am sorry to bear this news to you. It is not a form of reasonable accommodation under the law to remove other persons, with their reasonable accommodation, from public spaces. Even if the person with the allergy checked in first.

I think the real crux of the issue here is that people don't think that those with ESAs should be granted a reasonable accommodation to have those ESAs under the law. But since they are, until they no longer are, someone else cannot be granted the accommodation of "have that person's accommodation taken out of my space."

I will say it again: Those with allergies do have rights. To reasonable accommodation. But it is not within the realm of reasonable accommodation to have someone else, or that person's accommodation, removed.
 

mmb

Verified Member
Jan 20, 2015
1,288
1,453
113
NAPLES FL or Denver CO
I think the real crux of the issue here is that people don't think that those with ESAs should be granted a reasonable accommodation to have those ESAs under the law. But since they are, until they no longer are, someone else cannot be granted the accommodation of "have that person's accommodation taken out of my space."

I will say it again: Those with allergies do have rights. To reasonable accommodation. But it is not within the realm of reasonable accommodation to have someone else, or that person's accommodation, removed.
@slb2rf - I think you have it exactly right.
If an allergy prone person could come up with a ‘reasonable accommodation’ - which, of course, would need to be self-provided, then the airlines would need to allow that person and his/her accommodation aboard.
I’m thinking something along the lines of a ‘bubble’ which would provide clean air intake.
 
Mar 17, 2015
696
1,046
93
I think everyone needs to think of reasonable being "your rights end where other's begin." I, as an allergy sufferer and asthmatic, wholeheartedly wish we could ban perfumes, colognes, ANY strong odor. But that is for my accomodation. It is not reasonable. I use peppermint oil under my nose when I am in public spaces to help alleviate all the other scents. Now, if someone on the plane were smoking, I would have a valid complaint since it is against the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jsmithw

weihlac

Verified Member
Jun 30, 2017
2,937
3,818
113
Maui Hawaii
One very important point made in these articles that has a major bearing on the choice of a service animal is that a horse lives ~3X longer than a service dog and requires the same amount of training. This cuts training costs greatly and lets the owner have a much longer relationship with a single animal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmb and Patina
Status
Not open for further replies.