Feds to ban emotional support animals
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 319/320/321...whatever it takes.
Posts: 492
Guys, read the whole rule. It doesn’t say anything about disallowing pets in the cabin. All it says is you can’t call an animal an “emotional support animal” (ie:free) any more unless it specifically has been trained as a service animal, and even that is limited to non-violent dogs. The airline’s pet carriage policies are not changed. You can still pay to have pets in the cabin.
#13
Guys, read the whole rule. It doesn’t say anything about disallowing pets in the cabin. All it says is you can’t call an animal an “emotional support animal” (ie:free) any more unless it specifically has been trained as a service animal, and even that is limited to non-violent dogs. The airline’s pet carriage policies are not changed. You can still pay to have pets in the cabin.
It lets the airlines set reasonable rules for pets in the cabin, without the ESA loophole that you could drive a supertanker through.
Most airlines allow only small pets that fit (and stay) in a carry-on size pet carrier. I don't really care if they bring a tasmanian devil as long as it's in a container.
#14
Guys, read the whole rule. It doesn’t say anything about disallowing pets in the cabin. All it says is you can’t call an animal an “emotional support animal” (ie:free) any more unless it specifically has been trained as a service animal, and even that is limited to non-violent dogs. The airline’s pet carriage policies are not changed. You can still pay to have pets in the cabin.
The new DOT rule aligns Part 382 with 121 and 135 cargo carrying regulations. Previously, although airlines didn't have to carry cargo that could not be secured, they didn't equip check in and gate agents or flight attendants to deal with all the animals people tried to bring onto the plane. All to often they would bend over (the airlines) for fear of being sued or because they let an animal and person get on board that should never have gotten that far. Then you have to remove someone from a flight that never should have gotten there, because their animal can't be secured. Now with 382 aligning with FAA cargo carrying requirements, the airlines have the backing to enforce the cargo-carrying rules on the passengers.
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,465
So?
Sorry to be so direct but, So? The airline doesn’t want to accept the liability of transporting your dog in the cargo bin and pets don’t belong in the airline cabin.
People don’t pretend it’s an emotional support animal because of the lack of “cargo” option, they did it to not pay to bring the animal as a carry on pet and because putting an animal in the cargo compartment is borderline cruel.
There are airlines who will transport a pet in cargo, people can use them. I doubt Frontier wants to spend the money to have someone driving around the ramp collecting dogs in crates on the ramp, once DGS puts them down on the ramp, in the sun, under the loud APU.
Sorry to be so direct but, So? The airline doesn’t want to accept the liability of transporting your dog in the cargo bin and pets don’t belong in the airline cabin.
People don’t pretend it’s an emotional support animal because of the lack of “cargo” option, they did it to not pay to bring the animal as a carry on pet and because putting an animal in the cargo compartment is borderline cruel.
There are airlines who will transport a pet in cargo, people can use them. I doubt Frontier wants to spend the money to have someone driving around the ramp collecting dogs in crates on the ramp, once DGS puts them down on the ramp, in the sun, under the loud APU.
People, don’t put your pets in cargo.
Additionally, taking pets to airport terminal is extremely rude. It’s one thing if it’s really necessary because you need an SERVICE animal. Service animals are not pets. We aren’t talking about that. But emotional support? Common. Not only are there people that don’t like animals (and even fear them) but there are people with real allergen issues. You’re requiring those people to tolerate your pet. And the pet itself? Where is it going to relieve itself? Even not considering that, you don’t think it’s stressed?
People, don’t put your pets on airplanes.
Drive if you really must take your pets with you.
Yes. The rest of us are judging you.
PS: We’ve had pets all our lives. We love animals. Almost all of the ones we’ve had have been rescue and they make up an important part of our family. They do not travel with us by air.
OK. Off soap box.
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: retired
Posts: 992
Yes, and this is GREAT.
It lets the airlines set reasonable rules for pets in the cabin, without the ESA loophole that you could drive a supertanker through.
Most airlines allow only small pets that fit (and stay) in a carry-on size pet carrier. I don't really care if they bring a tasmanian devil as long as it's in a container.
It lets the airlines set reasonable rules for pets in the cabin, without the ESA loophole that you could drive a supertanker through.
Most airlines allow only small pets that fit (and stay) in a carry-on size pet carrier. I don't really care if they bring a tasmanian devil as long as it's in a container.
#17
#18
No doubt. The feds decided we needed to rubber-band our logbooks to the plane so they wouldn't somehow become a projectile, but an unsecured horse in the cabin is (well, was) totally fine.
#20
In fairness, the part of the fed that allowed horses was not the FAA. ADA should never have been allowed to intrude on the FAA's turf. If OSHA jurisdiction ends at the jetway, why do random, ill-conceived ADA edicts apply?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post