Are you asking if there’s a specific law that says “An airline can remove a passenger allergic to animals if there are animals aboard the flight”? No, nothing that specific.
However, there are numerous regulations regarding flight safety that can be invoked for many scenarios.
The most extreme regulation is probably the following:
*14 CFR 91.3a: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
14 CFR 91.3b: In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.*
Now, that explicitly covers emergencies that are presently occurring, however, a good lawyer could probably stretch that to immediately removing a passenger at risk of a life-threatening reaction from the vicinity of what could trigger that reaction. That regulation right there pretty much gives a pilot the option to break any and all rules as required to deal with an emergency. In the past that has been extended to allowing the breaking of laws (trespassing, landing anywhere other than an airport, etc.) during flight emergencies if doing so is done to safe lives and protect safety.
There are a bunch of other rules pertaining to safety as well, although I’m not familiar with those that explicitly refer to airline operations.
Point to the law or regulation that says they cannot. There is nothing preventing them from denying service to a potential passenger they cannot safely serve. An airline would be unbelievably foolish to allow to fly a potential passenger that claims that the conditions of their flight will be life threatening.
Airlines won’t even let you fly too pregnant without a written sign off from a doctor.
And why not just deboard the pet owners? Well why them? They paid too, and leaving aside the debate over the validity of emotional support animals, at least one of the pet owners was simply taking advantage of the available-to-anyone opportunity to bring a pet carrier on board for additional fee. And as pointed out, even if for some reason the pet owners volunteered to get off, the airline would still probably deboard the allergy complainer since as far as they know, she’s still potentialy subject to a fatal allergy attack because the dogs were on the plane moments earlier and there’s been no deep cleaning.
Last but not least, someone with life threatening dog allergies should not get on any plane, ever. The cleaning standards on aircraft don’t even rise to the level of effort I put into cleaning my dorm room in college. No way did they sanitize anything after the last dog passenger on the previous flight. It’s all contaminated.
There are several relevant federal regulations relating to whether an air carrier may deny a traveler transportation based upon a medical condition.
14 CFR 121.533 provides a huge safety loophole
In short, CFR §382.19 permits the refusal to transport a passenger on board safety grounds pursuant to the responsibility of the pilot in command to care for the safety of passengers, crew, and the aircraft.
And an airline can require a passenger to provide medical certification of fitness to fly if the passenger’s medical condition is such that it may impose an inability to complete the flight “without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight.”
Acceptance of Passengers
a. Refusal to Transport
General. Carrier may, in its sole discretion, refuse to transport, or may remove from an aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances
listed below.
(8) Comfort and Safety. Carrier may refuse to transport, or remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger in any of the circumstances listed below as may be necessary for the comfort or safety of such Passenger or other Passengers and crew members:
(vii) Any person who cannot be transported safely for any reason.
I had dog allergies for a lot of my life - the dog we got about 20 years ago was going to be returned if I couldn’t take it. I seem to have grown out of them. Cats were worse. But none of it was in any way life threatening.
I don’t know about her, but if I had a life threatening allergy to dogs I’d ask the airline if there were any dogs on my flight. Plus, she certainly saw dogs in the boarding area, assuming she arrived reasonably on time. Since people line up nicely on Southwest, dogs would have been fairly obvious. There were some on my last flight.
BTW the Guide Dogs for the Blind has a mockup of an airline cabin, just a few rows, in its dorm. You’d be surprised at how big a dog can fit under a seat. My daughter took her guide dog puppy, over a year, on flights all the time. He fit very nicely.
Yes, it does; Pork Rind essentially reiterated what several people have already told you.
But, once more, with feeling (note the bold/underlined/italicized bits, please):
Do you not get it? The plane is already contaminated with dog dander. It was probably already contaminated with dog dander before the two people on that flight with dogs even boarded, from people with dogs on previous flights.
For any person with sufficiently sensitive allergies, routine airline cleaning does not remove sufficient pet dander to allow someone claiming to have life-threatening allergies to continue boarding and take that flight.
Removing the two dog owners already on that flight does nothing to alleviate the danger to Little-Miss-Lethal-Allergy; the only safe alternative is to remove L-M-L-A for her own safety.
Why are people with truly life threatening allergies getting on any filthy airplane? I mean, they are nasty dirty, truly. At best the average airplane gets a little vacuum while on the ground, and the litter and trash picked up. And these planes are in constant motion around the globe, with very little, if any, down time.
It seems like it would be a disaster for anyone with truly life threatening allergies to me. Like, even if there’s no dog on this flight, there could have been a dog on your seat when this plane flew in. And it hasn’t been cleaned, in any way.
Is there a name for the apparent law or principle that people who seem to be the least legitimately affected by something, tend to be the most vocal in presenting themselves as victims needing to be accommodated? :rolleyes: If not, allow me to offer the Dinsdale presumption!
Yeah, an overstatement, likely reflecting anecdote over fact. But most of the most impaired folk I know are the most independent and the least seeking of assistance/accommodation…
To protect the health, safety, and life of the passenger who is at high risk of a medical emergency, and
To protest the other passengers, because deviating from the planned flight for a medical emergency does carry a small additional risk, and
Diverting for medical emergencies is inconvenient, can anger passengers, and is always more expensive than a normal, uneventful flight.
If you’re going by financial importance the order is 3, 1, and 2.
Removing the people with the dogs does not remove dog hair and dander already on the airplane. In order to do that you’d have to remove everyone and have a cleaning crew work over the cabin thoroughly, then re-board the airplane.
Removing just the allergic passenger avoids the problem of life-threatening emergency and inconveniences far fewer people.
I don’t believe there’s a specific law forbidding you from murdering me with a spear. But if there’s something that forbids murder in general, that’s enough, right?
One of my classmates had a lot of plant allergies, enough that he couldn’t come on the field trip to the botanic garden and his friends all knew what to do if he had a bad allergy attack while out and about.
He eventually became allergic to cats; they found out when his father (whose veterinary practice the son had joined after finishing school) had to call an ambulance for him.
He’s now an air controller. Much safer. There are no known allergies to computer screens.
