The DOT changed the rules to the ACAA starting January 11th, to allow airlines to reject emotional support animals. However, some airlines are still allowing ESA’s past the cutoff date in defiance of the new rules.
Do you think these airlines will get all the ESA travel money from the other major airlines? Or do you think the Biden administration’s new DOT secretary (Pete Buttigieg) will undue Trump’s DOT secretary’s (Mitch McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chow) ban on emotional support animals?
[Moderating]
“What do you think will happen” is a better fit for our IMHO category than for General Questions, which is for questions with a factual answer. I’ll move this over there for you.
Considering how many “emotional support animals” have been showing up as ill-trained pets and nothing more, I don’t think Pete will undo the rules. There is a big backlash against these critters. It also hurts the well run programs where the animals are actually rigorously trained.
This does nothing in terms of the number of “ill-trained pets” that will show up on your flight. If you pay a fee, you can still bring whatever animal on board. This just weeds out lower income individuals with mental health issues.
This was an obvious cash grab for the airlines. They paid the lobbyists and the lobbyists got them what they wanted. Tens of millions $ in pet fees.
I disagree, very few animal use to be on flights. Then with the “emotional support animals” suddenly yappy little dogs were onboard making an already tough experience that much worse.
I would choose not to fly on the airlines that are still allowing them if the price is about equal. That’s my choice. I am very happy with the regulation change. Guide Dogs and the other fully trained animals are wonderful. “emotional support animals” are not.
Sounds like “defiance” is the wrong word.
(bolding in original)
The Air Carrier Access Act has allowed emotional support animals on flights since 1986. The recent uptick in animals on flights is due to 2 things.
1 in 5 Americans suffer from a mental illness. We don’t want to be like the older generations that used alcohol or anger to cope with their mental health problems.
Oops, my bad. You are absolutely correct.
Which ones so I would be sure not to ever use them. It’s a disgrace that they ever allowed them.
Also I have found (in other ventures, not air travel) that the ones allowing them will find themselves fighting a losing battle, as more dog irresponsible owners (lets face it it’s irresponsible dog owners who are the issue), will gravitate to those airlines making the experience worse for all other passengers for the only beneficiary, the dog owner.
Then there will be dozens of people with mental illness on every flight. It seems like a good idea if we protect them, along with everyone else in the cramped conditions of an aircraft, from the stress induced by the selfish entitled people who want to pass off their yapping highly strung Chihuahua as a service animal, right?
The third sentence contradicts the first sentence.
My personal opinion is that there is a related #3: “I have a pet peacock/turkey/kangaroo/monkey/penguin/whatever, and I’ve discovered that the ESA exemption is a way for me to be able to take my pet with me on the plane.”
To be clear: I love animals, I have two pet cats, and I agree that animals can be a help for people who have emotional issues or mental illness. That said, I strongly believe that there are people who are abusing that ESA exemption, and stretching the definition of an ESA.
(I made up none of the above examples: https://www.thetravel.com/strange-photos-emotional-support-animals/ )
This is a rare occurrence that the media loves to highlight because it gets clicks and attention. I have been on a lot of flights and have never seen any of those animals that you have listed. Have you?
The point is not that I’ve been on a flight with a penguin (which I have not). The point is that the entitled assholes who are doing that stuff (and, yes, getting press for it) have poisoned the well in public discussion (and regulation) relating to emotional support animals.
Let’s say a kangaroo has happened once, and was newsworthy. What do you think the ratio of pet dogs is to pet kangaroos? It’s a large number. And by your own reasoning, all the times when some entitled person abused the rules to take an untrained pet dog on the plane did not make the newspapers.
Exactly. @Portlandia, you seem to think that you are on the side of disabled people with a real need for service animals, and everyone who seeks basic minimum standards of training and documentation is the enemy. To the contrary, it’s essential to have some basic standards to prevent abuse of the system to avoid public opinion turning against all animals on flights.
I’m all in favor of emotional support animals if they help people. But we need to have basic standards of training and licensing, have them recognized as genuine service animals just like guide dogs, and stop assholes abusing the system to take their untrained pets in the passenger cabin. Self-diagnosing as mentally ill and self-prescribing your pet as an indispensible for travel doesn’t cut it.
Why don’t we outlaw alcohol? How many people die from drunk drivers? Some people are entitled assholes that drink and drive and kill people so no one should be able to drink right?
The number of emotional support animals on flights that were well behaved and were not a problem outweigh the few that are not well behaved or shouldn’t be on flights. The answer shouldn’t be to ban them all.
There are entitled assholes everywhere. Just because there are a few of them, you shouldn’t have to punish the majority of responsible emotional support animal owners.
I don’t think anyone here is saying that. As @Riemann said in the post just above yours:
There is a basic standard. If you have a mental disability and a doctor says you could benefit from one, you get one. If your animal is not behaving before or after boarding the flight, you lose your privilege. It is estimated that the airlines will make $50 MILLION dollars from this new rule change. Now there is no basic standard as long as you have the money to pay $175 each way for your animal.