Comfort Peacock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker had a hilarious article about trying to bring all sorts of wacky emotional support animals on planes, trains, and automobiles. Happy reading!
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/pets-allowed

Lol that article was funny. Trying to get on the Hampton gitney with a comfort animal. Amazing that so many years have passed and they haven’t tightened up those regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Humans with severe allergies should ALWAYS come first.
When a human passenger dies of anaphylactic shock after a dog or cat (most commonly, but perhaps another animal) is allowed to enter the cabin, that's when the airlines will REALLY sit up and notice.

And I have a sweet dog whom I would love to bring with me in the cabin. But I will never do so. Humans come first.

This. I love animals but unfortunately my body doesn't and it responds very negatively. I am better with dogs than with cats. Sometimes just being near someone who has a cat at home and held it or petted it can set off my body's reactions. I am very worried about an upcoming flight that I have to take. Unfortunately you may be reading about me soon in the papers ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she did it to make a point or get a picture.

+1 the airline released a statement that they'd told the passenger three times before she arrived at the airport that the bird wouldn't be allowed.

It’s a good point to make. People are completely abusing the policy. I met someone at a party who said she got aN emotional support letter online because she didn’t want to pay the fees to transport her dog.

Agreed. Thankfully, I think we'll see the other airlines follow Delta's lead and start to crack down. It seems like they were all just waiting for someone else to be the first to say No More.

It was United, not Delta.

Not the PP, but Delta had already announced a crackdown on sham emotional suppport animals before the United peacock incident.

I think crackdown overstates the additional Delta regulation. I believe it is just an additional letter certifying that the animal will behave, and the animal’s vaccine record, and all docs have to be uploaded 48 hrs before the flight. I think anyone who has an ESA — truly needed or for the fun of it — could meet the requirements,

Except that the Delta rules also apply to service animals.

There are plenty of people who travel with less than 48 hours notice for legitimate reasons, whether it is business or to visit a dying family member or whatever.

Denying someone who uses a guide dog or a medical alert dog or other service dog the same ability to travel on short notice isn’t in keeping with ADA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A woman in the mall (I don't live in DC) had her pit bull on a leash with a fake service dog vest. The dog was out of control and it was pretty obvious the vest was fake. found it for $20 on Amazon. Infuriating it must be for people who need legit service animals.

Pitbull owners are the worst breed of stupid.

[Anonymous]

What the airlines need to do is get together and offer special licensing to the small handful of organizations that legitimately train service dogs. Those owners who purchase these (expensive and well trained) service dogs receive a card showing their dog is an approved licensed service animal from a legitimate (non fake internet) organization to present to airplanes, similar to a drivers license. There does not need to be any mention of the disability (against the law) just a picture of the dog, the breed, the owners name, and the stamp/scan line of the legit pre approved organization.

The airline organization that overseas the list can keep a database with this information (owner, dog picture, breed, certifying organiaztion) that is accessible by the airline, just like the database used by med alert bracelets, for those owners who might have misplaced or forgotten their license.

Doing this, only allowing legit service dogs trained by legit, pre approved service organizations, will stop this nonsense cold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the airlines need to do is get together and offer special licensing to the small handful of organizations that legitimately train service dogs. Those owners who purchase these (expensive and well trained) service dogs receive a card showing their dog is an approved licensed service animal from a legitimate (non fake internet) organization to present to airplanes, similar to a drivers license. There does not need to be any mention of the disability (against the law) just a picture of the dog, the breed, the owners name, and the stamp/scan line of the legit pre approved organization.

The airline organization that overseas the list can keep a database with this information (owner, dog picture, breed, certifying organiaztion) that is accessible by the airline, just like the database used by med alert bracelets, for those owners who might have misplaced or forgotten their license.

Doing this, only allowing legit service dogs trained by legit, pre approved service organizations, will stop this nonsense cold.

Many perfectly legitimate service dogs are owner trained. The organizations get volunteer labor from trainers and puppy raisers and then charge tens of thousands of dollars for the dogs, to disabled people who are already living on a shoestring. It’s a ridiculous racket. The legislation specifically states that licensing or certification cannot be required. The airlines can ask for health testing and a letter stating that you have a disability and use a service dog. That’s it.

In many cases, the “training organizations” are the ones pushing this to increase business. Charging 20-40k for a dog you get for free and then have trained for free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she did it to make a point or get a picture.

+1 the airline released a statement that they'd told the passenger three times before she arrived at the airport that the bird wouldn't be allowed.

It’s a good point to make. People are completely abusing the policy. I met someone at a party who said she got aN emotional support letter online because she didn’t want to pay the fees to transport her dog.

Agreed. Thankfully, I think we'll see the other airlines follow Delta's lead and start to crack down. It seems like they were all just waiting for someone else to be the first to say No More.

It was United, not Delta.

Not the PP, but Delta had already announced a crackdown on sham emotional suppport animals before the United peacock incident.

I think crackdown overstates the additional Delta regulation. I believe it is just an additional letter certifying that the animal will behave, and the animal’s vaccine record, and all docs have to be uploaded 48 hrs before the flight. I think anyone who has an ESA — truly needed or for the fun of it — could meet the requirements,

Except that the Delta rules also apply to service animals.

There are plenty of people who travel with less than 48 hours notice for legitimate reasons, whether it is business or to visit a dying family member or whatever.

Denying someone who uses a guide dog or a medical alert dog or other service dog the same ability to travel on short notice isn’t in keeping with ADA.

The airlines aren't bound by the ADA. They are bound by a separate regulatory act which gives them more power to refuse to allow these animals on board.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to have my wife classified as an emotional support spouse so she can fly free. Yes, she will have to sit on my lap.

[Anonymous]

I bring my emotional support flatulence. I use it to cope with general anxiety, or the person behind me who kicks my seat, the kids crawling all over the aisle, the person next to me eating a tuna sandwich from home, the drunk, the rude flight attendant, the fatty who spills over into my seat, and so many other anxieties when I fly.

I also bring my emotional support peanuts, which I gleefully consume hoping to trigger allergies somewhere in the cabin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bring my emotional support flatulence. I use it to cope with general anxiety, or the person behind me who kicks my seat, the kids crawling all over the aisle, the person next to me eating a tuna sandwich from home, the drunk, the rude flight attendant, the fatty who spills over into my seat, and so many other anxieties when I fly.

I also bring my emotional support peanuts, which I gleefully consume hoping to trigger allergies somewhere in the cabin.

I guess that means that whoever you're traveling with will be bringing his or her emotional support asshole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she did it to make a point or get a picture.

+1 the airline released a statement that they'd told the passenger three times before she arrived at the airport that the bird wouldn't be allowed.

It’s a good point to make. People are completely abusing the policy. I met someone at a party who said she got aN emotional support letter online because she didn’t want to pay the fees to transport her dog.

Agreed. Thankfully, I think we'll see the other airlines follow Delta's lead and start to crack down. It seems like they were all just waiting for someone else to be the first to say No More.

It was United, not Delta.

Not the PP, but Delta had already announced a crackdown on sham emotional suppport animals before the United peacock incident.

I think crackdown overstates the additional Delta regulation. I believe it is just an additional letter certifying that the animal will behave, and the animal’s vaccine record, and all docs have to be uploaded 48 hrs before the flight. I think anyone who has an ESA — truly needed or for the fun of it — could meet the requirements,

Except that the Delta rules also apply to service animals.

There are plenty of people who travel with less than 48 hours notice for legitimate reasons, whether it is business or to visit a dying family member or whatever.

Denying someone who uses a guide dog or a medical alert dog or other service dog the same ability to travel on short notice isn’t in keeping with ADA.

The airlines aren't bound by the ADA. They are bound by a separate regulatory act which gives them more power to refuse to allow these animals on board.

But it doesn't give them blanket power to discriminate, and generally, except for a few things that carry specific risks on airplanes, such as oxygen concentrators, they aren't allowed to require 48 hour notice for passengers with disabilities, when they don't for others.

I think they're going to get in trouble for 2 things on this new rule.

1) The 48 hour rule (asking people to bring documentation when they are checking in, or to upload documentation when they purchase their ticket might be fine)

2) Making a distinction between service dogs who provide support to those with medical/sensory/physical disabilities, and psychiatric service dogs who are combined with emotional support animals. The distinction should be service animals (animals specifically trained for a specific purpose to ameliorate the impact of a disability that can be medical, sensory, physical or psychiatric) vs. emotional support animals (animals without specific training, who people bring for emotional support).

[Anonymous]

NYT has weighed in. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/opinion/flying-pets-scam-peacock.html

"The whole bizarre situation is a reminder of why trust matters so much to a well-functioning society. The best solution, of course, would be based not on some Transportation Department regulation but on simple trust. People who really needed service animals could then bring on them planes without having to carry documents.

Maybe a trust-based system will return at some point. But it won’t return automatically. When trust breaks down and small bits of dishonesty become normal, people need to make a conscious effort to restore basic decency."