Airline Pilot Central Forums - Fine. Let the FEDS cover the liability

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)

- - Fine. Let the FEDS cover the liability (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/123407-fine-let-feds-cover-liability.html)

Fine. Let the FEDS cover the liability

If they mandate it, they ought to pay for it:

https://www.ajc.com/business/dot-dis...7xeAUEiBWQy5O/

They aren't mandating it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

From the first part of article: "The DOT in its document released Thursday says conforming with the guidance “is voluntary only” and that its guidance “is not legally binding in its own right and will not be relied on by the Department as a separate basis for affirmative enforcement or other administrative penalty.”

It’s a poorly written article, IMO, on what they are truly trying to report;

One sentence says the DOT “views a limitation based exclusively on breed of the service animal to not be allowed under its service animal regulation.”

And the very next sentence “Airlines are permitted to find that any specific animal, regardless of breed, poses a direct threat,” according to the agency.”

So basically it’s not allowed, but the airline has the right to deem Pit Bulls a threat and the entire compliance is voluntary anyways

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omniscient (Post 2867462)

I read “specific animal” to mean just that, a single, particular animal the airline deems unsuitable for carriage. For instance, a dog that is growling, barking, showing aggression at the airport. Perhaps a squirrel that is throwing nuts at people.

I don’t read that to mean an entire breed or species. However, since airlines have already banned certain species, such as “comfort peacocks”, it seems airlines could push a breed ban successfully.

This whole thing has become preposterous. Pits aren’t service animals. If DAL wants to exclude them from the program, so be it. Property owners and insurance companies have been permitted not to allow certain breeds, so why not airlines?

And now we would like to welcome aboard all service miniature horses. All miniature service horses you are now cleared to board.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/29332/us-dept-of-transportation-rules-airlines-must-allow-miniature-horses-as-service-animals

So I want to take my 60 pound dog from Oregon to South Carolina. Do I buy a huge crate, pay a huge fee and drop him off/pick him up at cargo, leaving him to the tender mercies of the bag-smashers, with connections in SLC and ATL? Or instead do I find an online quack who, for a third of the price of following the actual rules, will certify in writing on letterhead that Phideau MUST NEVER leave my side for the entire trip, in both the terminal and the cabin?

Kind of a no brainer, don'cha think?

https://esa-letter.com/prices/
https://www.delta.com/us/en/pet-trav...pping-your-pet

Sounds like I am cleared to continue bringing my emotional support porcupine onto the plane. No PAX seem to want to pet him, though. But, I get strange looks from the FO when I bring my seeing eye lion on, as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hetman (Post 2868407)

Or you could drive with him or you could board him or leave with a caretaker in Oregon or you could hire a caretaker to drive him to SC while you fly or don’t have F ing pet if you have to take them everywhere you go.

All dogs on a plane need to be muzzled. Some emo pet owners too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransWorld (Post 2868469)

You need to read the laws, exotic/unusual animals do not have to be accommodated.

Animals do not have to be accommodated in the cabin if they provide a safety hazard. That would mean something that can't be stowed under the seats without blocking access for the rest of the passengers, something that can't fit in the overhead bin. Something that could be come a projectile and injure other passengers in an emergency, etc. In general, a good rule of thumb is probably lap-child size and smaller, these can be held or placed underneath the seat. This is mainly a training and enforcement issue with gate agents and FAs.

Quote:

(e) If a passenger seeks to travel with an animal that is used as an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, you are not required to accept the animal for transportation in the cabin unless the passenger provides you current documentation (i.e., no older than one year from the date of the passenger's scheduled initial flight) on the letterhead of a licensed mental health professional (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, including a medical doctor specifically treating the passenger's mental or emotional disability) stating the following:

(1) The passenger has a mental or emotional disability recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM IV);

(2) The passenger needs the emotional support or psychiatric service animal as an accommodation for air travel and/or for activity at the passenger's destination;

(3) The individual providing the assessment is a licensed mental health professional, and the passenger is under his or her professional care; and

(4) The date and type of the mental health professional's license and the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued.

(f) You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the cabin. With respect to all other animals, including unusual or exotic animals that are presented as service animals (e.g., miniature horses, pigs, monkeys), as a carrier you must determine whether any factors preclude their traveling in the cabin as service animals (e.g., whether the animal is too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin, whether the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, whether it would cause a significant disruption of cabin service, whether it would be prohibited from entering a foreign country that is the flight's destination). If no such factors preclude the animal from traveling in the cabin, you must permit it to do so. However, as a foreign carrier, you are not required to carry service animals other than dogs.

(g) Whenever you decide not to accept an animal as a service animal, you must explain the reason for your decision to the passenger and document it in writing. A copy of the explanation must be provided to the passenger either at the airport, or within 10 calendar days of the incident.

(h) You must promptly take all steps necessary to comply with foreign regulations (e.g., animal health regulations) needed to permit the legal transportation of a passenger's service animal from the U.S. into a foreign airport.

(i) Guidance concerning the carriage of service animals generally is found in the preamble of this rule. Guidance on the steps necessary to legally transport service animals on flights from the U.S. into the United Kingdom is found in 72 FR 8268-8277, (February 26, 2007).

The same applies for service animals: If they pose a threat in the cabin, they do not have to be accommodated in the cabin, I believe the main difference from ESA is that in that case, they HAVE to still be transported (in the cargo hold) at no cost.

This is why the airlines are on the hook, not the feds. The airlines keep transporting these animals and presenting a hazard to the other passengers. Another regulation is that all cargo must be secured. If it's not a human being, it's cargo. When something bad happens, it's because the airline allowed the animal on, the regulations are written to allow them to prohibit the transportation in the cabin if it does not meet safety standards.