Good for you on your search Sir.
As I mentioned, there aren’t any part 121 carriers (passenger commercial carriers/American/ United…etc.)
That will allow a dog of that weight, in the cabin, outside of a crate, on their aircraft, in the passenger cabin.
Many do allow animals of various weights in the cargo hold.
Good luck
I wasn’t able to further edit my above due to time limits…
muldoonthief, you are correct. I should have put more thought into my response.
No disparagement to all those on this thread who’ve basically said…“yeah, …NO”
I don’t think it’s been mentioned, but I find the combination of the OP’s name and the thread question to be amusingly strange.
That website doesn’t look very promising.
I’ll start worrying if Enola Gay reveals that he calls his dog his “Little Boy.” 
*versus
Does anyone think there could be a business model for airlines to charge people for the privilege of flying in the cabin with big dogs? The Queen Mary 2 carries pets for transatlantic crossings. They charge handsomely for the service and the kennels are generally fully booked before the rest of the ship.
One airline could remove a row of seats, design a flexible crate system to accommodate different size pets and charge roughly twice a seat cost for each large kennel. Smaller kennels on top might go for about the cost of a normal seat. You might be able to replace a row of seats with maybe ten kennels, big and small. I’d imagine it might be popular on the vacation routes, like New York to Florida. Maybe the system could be designed so airline mechanics could quickly swap between a row of seats or a row of kennels. Then airlines could adjust kennel availability based on demand while still being able to maximize seats when those are needed. Dogs would stay in the crates but passengers could at least go check on them during the flight.
Vice is a common replacement for versus for US service members (and occasionally their family members- I subconsciously picked it up from my better half).
Interesting idea. If the demand is there, presumably the key would be to structure it so that they would not lose the business of regular passengers traveling without pets. The setup you describe addresses some concerns, but there could still be issues with noise from barking, and allergies in a restricted environment. I don’t know how significant that would be, compared to the current policies that generally allow small animals that fit under the seat.
There are rather extensive rules about cargo carried within the passenger cabin. It can be done, but the cargo retention systems are big and heavy and extensive. As is the big barrier that’s required to separate the cargo area from the passenger area.
Back in the 1960s the 707 and 727 were available with what Boeing called the “quick change” option where the airplane had the big main deck side cargo door and also had a complete passenger interior.
The seats were on pallets and could be removed in sections through the side cargo door leaving a bare floor for cargo. It took a couple hours to remove all the seats. That left the overhead oxygen, air vents, & reading lights (“PSU”) in place. And the lavs and galleys. So the airplane could haul cargo, but not the full-height “igloos” designed for dedicated cargo aircraft that assume all the PSU stuff is removed. They also lost a few feet of cabin length at each end for the unnecessary galleys and lavs.
After just a few cycles in and out those seats and their pallets got to be pretty raggedy looking. As well the interior parts that stayed on board got beat up pretty good from all the other stuff coming and going in there. Who has moved in or out of an apartment without gouging a wall? Now try doing that 2x every day.
In all, it was not one of the industry’s better ideas and was quietly dropped after just a handful of years.
Here’s a page about it. For some reason, I could swear I’ve heard this pronounced in this usage as “VEE-chay,” but that article says “VEE-say.” Does anyone pronounce it like I’ve heard it? (ETA: Nevermind. I figured it out. I was thinking of how it’s pronounced in the legal phrase “pro hac vice.”)
It’s still available as an aftermarket modification, I think. There is (or at least recently was) a British airline that does it with either 737s or 757s.
The military is exactly where I got it. It’s the standard usage meaning “instead of”. “Versus” is not the preferred term.
Ref the liked article (thank you) “vice” is actually better Latin than using “versus” in the same spot. “Vice” means “instead of”. “Versus” means “against”. At least in Latin. Gosh knows what defilements English has committed against these words over the centuries. The esteemed Tired and Cranky notwithstanding I’ll keep using “vice”.
100% of the military uses I encountered pronounced it like “nice”, not like “VYE-see.” Although that does explain a joke pronunciation I heard as a kid, perhaps on a Bugs Bunny cartoon that I always wondered about: “VYE-see VER-see”
Just spent 10 minutes Googling and YouTubing for that Bugs. Why? I can hear it in my head too.
Could’ve been some other character, but I think I maybe barely hear the faint echoes of Bugs’ voice. Bugs was always more erudite than the other WB characters. He’s about the only one who ever did wordplay. He’s certainly the only one who did it frequently.
WB in turn was vastly more highbrow-between-the-lines than the stuff from Hanna Barbera. So the memory is probably not from them.
All these discussions abour gaming the system to allow “comfort” pets in the cabin remind of the recent crackdown Disney had to do with the families “hiring” disabled people to go across the park faster.
Count me wit the people who definitely don’t want to sit next to an untrained*, uncrated dog on an airplane. Heck, not even on the same plane.
There are a number of operators of ‘combi’ or ‘quick change’ 737’s. The former means, in Boeing terminology, means big cargo door and other cargo adaptations but several hours to remove the passenger interior. ‘QC’ is pallet mounted seats as mentioned before theoretically cutting it to an hour, so a/c of that type in theory could be airliners by day and cargo planes at night.
The USN is another operator, its C-40A’s are basically 737-700C’s. But I agree it’s not a big hit as a concept. Like some other multi-task concepts in transport* the real extra cost of the features to switch back and forth (like in maintenance, repairing/refurbishing stuff that gets beat up) all the time often makes it less attractive that it seems as first glance. And I’ve seen nothing saying it’s offered for example on the new MAX generation 737’s. Like you said it’s also offered as aftermarket on various older a/c.
*like the oil/bulk/ore carrier, ships than can serve as tankers or dry bulk carriers. They had a loyal following among some particular owners at one time (70’s-80’s mostly), but the idea of a ship actually carrying bulk on one voyage and oil on another back to back (like say grain from US to Egypt, oil back from Libya, I studied the economics of this in a long ago career) didn’t prove practical. It was more practical to shift the ships at longer intervals from the dry or liquid bulk trades if freight rates in one market were much more robust than the other, as it might be true for Combi type a/c. Still the idea has also mainly faded (seals for the absolute gas tightness required on a tanker get beat up when applied to hatches that have to open, stuff like that).
At least the US Federal authorities are on the stick: The US Department of Transportation Advisory Committee on Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS) met for the first time in May 2016, and set up the 19-member Service Animals Working Group, led by reps from American Airlines, Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind and America’s VetDogs [sic], which identified these questions, which six months later decided to drop the whole rannygazoo and unanimously decided it wasn’t worth talking about or getting anywhere–would all government committees be so wise–and voted the subject out of existence.
Sorta smells like they arrived at impasse.
The larger issue is that the service animal working group can only propose to the ACCESS committee which can in turn only propose to FAA / DOT / DOJ about what enabling legislation they’d like to see followed by what regulations would flow from that legislation if passed.
In other words, the whole exercise is one of eyewash and temperature-taking.