Feds to ban emotional support animals
 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/02/us-tightens-definition-of-service-animals-allowed-on-planes-.html

Yeah buddy

Good. Too much abuse of that crap by snowflakes.

I presume my own emotional support animals will be exempt, a grey goose or wild turkey.

A 'boot time. I for one am tired of picking up doggie doo-doo in the middle of busy terminals after the owners using cellphones with HD cameras (therefore providing immunity from public shaming) because they can't fly without an animal...but also can't TAKE CARE OF IT in public areas.

(3x's in the last six months. At least.)

You know, there's a great deal of things going on in the world that would have garnered great laughter, derision, and scornful laughs that are now commonplace as recently as the 1990's (early). Thank god we live in a much, much more civilized time where "shame" is no longer a thing.

I, of course, pass no judgement. The Feds are staffed with amazing professionals who do not make mistakes. If they say this is the law, it's the law. They know best.

Amen.

Darn, means I cannot bring my emotional support porcupine? Assume I can still bring my seeing eye lion. FO always do a double take.

Read the rulemaking and law. Looks pretty solid. Good change.

SWA doesn’t allow pets in the cargo compartment. I wonder if there will be changes for us?

Same with Frontier. Im not against this rule change at all, but if we won't allow people to check their animals, we're basically forcing them to pretend it's an emotional support.

Just sneak it on the plane. In your stomach.

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.

It probably won't win, but I'd expect the miniature-horse service-animal community to put forth some lawsuits, probably finding an unscrupulous lawyer that doesn't understand 14 CFR. They are service-animals, but the DOTs reasoning seems pretty solid, they can't sit in a lap and be secured like a lap-child nor can they fit under the seats, therefore, they cannot be secured, which is a requirement for all cargo, which everything other than people in the cabin is.

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.

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.

The FAA doesn't tell certificate holders what they can't carry, except for the rules surrounding hazmat. If airline A wants to make money transporting snakes on a plane, more power to them.

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.

I agree with this except the borderline cruel part. It IS absolutely cruel.

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.

I had a Tasmanian devil and, good lord, I went through a lot of pet carriers.

I went through a lot of band aids when people have asked if they could pet my emotional support porcupine.

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.

Here comes the Chinese dude

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?

Because government...duh.

Counted eight dogs, (big ones, not lap yappers) on leashes the other day in SLC A term. One was a legit service member support dog, the rest just pets. One had ****ed on the floor and the good hubby was trying to clean it up.
Off Topic- New SLC terminal, not really impressed thus far.

This right here is why this crap needs to end. If you can't be without your pet, you're probably not stable enough to be in public without a helmet in the first place, and you're a vile human being for taking advantage of people that need genuine service animals.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I am now retired but I used to travel with my ESA, Emotional Support Animal, "Mongo." He had a way about him, just the way he looked settled people down. I did have to haul a lot of bananas, but no one ever gave me much trouble with him around. He did all my personal negotiation with stupid people.

RIP Harambe #DOFH

Things in the cabin that could not be secured were never approved. Part 382 (the old one) made allowance for this (that carriage could be refused in the sake of safety) and in those cases, the animal could be required to go in the cargo hold in a cargo carrier. Anything in the cabin that's not a person is cargo and must be secured by an approved means. The problem is the airlines refused to enforce this and I don't know of any cases where this was pursued, as no "covert" surveillance was ever undertaken. It was a bad system, with stuff getting past the gate agents and onto the aircraft that obviously had no place there, then they'd have to "remove" someone with a disability, which I guess would go over very bad, but if regulations were on their side they would have been fine...except for court costs and that's probably what they were really trying to avoid.

The rules were a mess though and much clearer now.

I'm still looking for that bridge or tunnel to Hawaii.

Why is it that you need to take your pet on vacation to Hawaii?

I don't. However, I did have to move my pet to and from there when Uncle Sugar told me to report to my new gig.

.......
 

Whelp. What am I supposed to do now with my therapy rattlesnake? Every time I do something good for him or try to take care of him--he tries to bite me!


Kinda like some airline managements that I've worked for in the past.

"Enough is enough! I have had it with the monkey fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane!"

.....
 

Bones McCoy voice----"DAMMIT JIM!!"

How many of these pets we see at the airport do you think are with their owners because they are moving?

not very many.

My bone to pick was with the idea that putting your pet in cargo was cruel. It might be disconcerting, but it was probably less cruel than dumping my pets with someone else for a couple years or forever.

My dogs made the trip fine on both ends .

I can understand why someone would not want to give up their pets but it most certainly is cruel. Rehoming them is not cruel, assuming the new home is a good one.

agree to disagree. Cheers.

A ride in the cargo pit is no fun for a pet, that's for sure. But it's probably less stressful than the re-homing process, unless the new owner is somebody they already know well (ie pack member).

Depends on the breed. Greyhounds freak out and have no body fat to deal with temps outside a certain range. I’ve moved a lot of Greyhounds as a Pilots and Paws Pilot. I also have 4. I’d be okay with some breeds in cargo but not a Grey. Rehoming an ex racer is not typically stressful as GHs are used to being moved from place to place. We just moved 2 of them in a Cessna 310 from TX to ABQ.

Based on just a few things I've seen in my career I would *NEVER* ship a pet on an airline.
That being said, the longest move I've ever made with pets was just recently moving our cats 25 miles by car, so Idk what I'd do if we had to move them cross country.

UPS Ground with a bag of food in the box.

*in all seriousness.....if you put your animals on the same level as people, then you drive....even if it’s cross country. It’s a minor inconvenience.