And Man is suing Delta Airlines because he got mauled by a dog in flight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I brought my elderly, ill cat on a transatlantic flight using the “support pet” angle when i was moving back to the US. Nobody knew she was there, tucked under the seat in front of me.

I realize that size prevents it being an option for most dogs, but ones that can fit in a carrier should be in one and — at the very least — dogs should be muzzled and harnessed. I don’t care if “he wouldn’t hurt a fly.” I wouldn’t plunk my cat down next to a person and expect them to be happy. Why do people expect it with dogs?

Why didn't you just pay the fee to bring a small animal with you in the cabin? Your cat doesn't have to be a "support pet."

At the time, all animals traveling to/from the uk had to fly in the hold, but it was an American airline and honored the request. So I did pay a fee ($250?). It wasn’t about being cheap. When we moved there several years before, she was in good health and flew in the hold as required.

I was under the impression that people would be pissed about any animal in the cabin (other than a legit service dog) whether it was a “support pet” or not.

She didn’t leave the carrier on the flight, and my family had the whole row — people were spared my cat and my child.

I would say that the majority of people do not have a problem with small pets in carriers on flights... as long as the pet remains in their carrier and the owner has paid the appropriate fee and doesn't claim any "emotional support" ridiculousness.

We do have a few vocal, hyper-allergic people who are dismayed at pets on flights, but that is their issue to deal with.

What a selfish ass you are.

Really? That seems a bit harsh. I have always owned big dogs, so whenever I have flown with one (thankfully, rarely), they are in the cargo hold. But people are allowed to bring their small pets in the cabin. And yes, highly allergic people just have to deal with it. In life, we all have to deal with things. If you insisted that all flights become pet-free to accommodate you, would you consider yourself a selfish ass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I brought my elderly, ill cat on a transatlantic flight using the “support pet” angle when i was moving back to the US. Nobody knew she was there, tucked under the seat in front of me.

I realize that size prevents it being an option for most dogs, but ones that can fit in a carrier should be in one and — at the very least — dogs should be muzzled and harnessed. I don’t care if “he wouldn’t hurt a fly.” I wouldn’t plunk my cat down next to a person and expect them to be happy. Why do people expect it with dogs?

Why didn't you just pay the fee to bring a small animal with you in the cabin? Your cat doesn't have to be a "support pet."

At the time, all animals traveling to/from the uk had to fly in the hold, but it was an American airline and honored the request. So I did pay a fee ($250?). It wasn’t about being cheap. When we moved there several years before, she was in good health and flew in the hold as required.

I was under the impression that people would be pissed about any animal in the cabin (other than a legit service dog) whether it was a “support pet” or not.

She didn’t leave the carrier on the flight, and my family had the whole row — people were spared my cat and my child.

I would say that the majority of people do not have a problem with small pets in carriers on flights... as long as the pet remains in their carrier and the owner has paid the appropriate fee and doesn't claim any "emotional support" ridiculousness.

We do have a few vocal, hyper-allergic people who are dismayed at pets on flights, but that is their issue to deal with.

What a selfish ass you are.

Really? That seems a bit harsh. I have always owned big dogs, so whenever I have flown with one (thankfully, rarely), they are in the cargo hold. But people are allowed to bring their small pets in the cabin. And yes, highly allergic people just have to deal with it. In life, we all have to deal with things. If you insisted that all flights become pet-free to accommodate you, would you consider yourself a selfish ass?

New poster, not the person you're responding to, immediate PP: Obviously you aren't, and don't have any loved one who is, highly allergic to anything, or you wouldn't have your "deal with it" attitude.

We're not talking about a few sneezes here. Or about allergic people being able to move away from the allergen. We're talking about some people for whom breathing in a confined space with an animal is potentially dangerous--it can trigger asthma, close off breathing, cause horrible skin reactions and eye reactions in some people. And in a plane they cannot necessarily move far enough from the animal to be safe. The presence of the animal inside the cabin is totally avoidable: The animal (large or small) can go in the hold. The human passenger can't.

Don't carp about how "well, anyone THAT allergic just shouldn't fly, then!" That puts animals before humans. Animals can fly where it's appropriate for them--in the hold, not in a confined cabin space.

Do you also think airlines should bring back peanuts served on board, because people with peanut allergies should "just have to deal with it"? I'm betting you'd say yes. After all, only a few people might be allergic on a given flight, right? Or none at all! So why accommodate for allergies when the chance of one person going into anaphylactic shock or having an asthma attack is low? Right?

Yeah. Selfish.

[Anonymous]

I'm not advocating for or against pets in airplane cabins. But, regardless, pets are in there, so highly allergic people do have to "deal with it." And, personally, though I hope airlines do crack down on the ESA nonsense, I do not think they will ban paid-for, restrained pets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not advocating for or against pets in airplane cabins. But, regardless, pets are in there, so highly allergic people do have to "deal with it." And, personally, though I hope airlines do crack down on the ESA nonsense, I do not think they will ban paid-for, restrained pets.

https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2015-08-07/american-airlines-offering-first-class-cabins-for-pets This seems an acceptable compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Pets should not be in the cabin. Not good for people with allergies.

Why don’t airlines offer some pet-free flights for people with allergies? Even before all this emotional support animal stuff, I’d often been on flights with dogs. Curious why airlines haven’t consider med that.

Think about that a litlte more.

People with allergies to pets are a small fraction of the population. There's no market for what you describe. If this is so important to you, fly or charter a plane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree.

It's not good for the humans, and many pet owners need to stop pretending like it's good for the dog and that Fido really just loves to travel. Unless it is a trains, certified service animal for a legit and documented medical need, this 'emotional service dog' crap needs to end. On planes, and everywhere.

Yep, and even if Fido actually really loved it, who cares.

It's yet another example where being excessively liberal / "compassionate" to one segment of the population negatively affects the other(s).

Uh, wut? In my experience, it's the conservatives and libertarians who go on and on incessantly about the rights of the individual to do whatever the hell they want and screw the group. So, I'm not sure this is a "liberal" thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Pets should not be in the cabin. Not good for people with allergies.

Why don’t airlines offer some pet-free flights for people with allergies? Even before all this emotional support animal stuff, I’d often been on flights with dogs. Curious why airlines haven’t consider med that.

Think about that a litlte more.

People with allergies to pets are a small fraction of the population. There's no market for what you describe. If this is so important to you, fly or charter a plane.

DP. People with allergies to peanuts are a small fraction of the population. Yet airlines stopped serving peanuts on board, to accommodate that small fraction. Do you think those passengers also should take only charter flights?

Oh, yeah, maybe you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not advocating for or against pets in airplane cabins. But, regardless, pets are in there, so highly allergic people do have to "deal with it." And, personally, though I hope airlines do crack down on the ESA nonsense, I do not think they will ban paid-for, restrained pets.

Tell that to the airline after they pay out on the inevitable massive lawsuit that the man in the original post will win because the airline let someone have a large dog on his lap, clearly not sufficiently restrained.

I want to find out if that dog was a trained and appropriately registered, actual service animal or just an "emotional support animal" with an Internet "certificate" and zero training for confined spaces and stranger interaction. Im sure the answer is no, because a service dog would have been lying on the floor, not sitting on a lap, and would not have mauled anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I brought my elderly, ill cat on a transatlantic flight using the “support pet” angle when i was moving back to the US. Nobody knew she was there, tucked under the seat in front of me.

I realize that size prevents it being an option for most dogs, but ones that can fit in a carrier should be in one and — at the very least — dogs should be muzzled and harnessed. I don’t care if “he wouldn’t hurt a fly.” I wouldn’t plunk my cat down next to a person and expect them to be happy. Why do people expect it with dogs?

I hate cats on flights. Their allergens are more prevalent than dogs because their grooming sends dander into the air. Some of us have asthmatic reactions to cats. I have to travel with rescue inhalers (only time I need them) because of cats on planes.

What if you sat next to a person that had cat hair on their clothes? Would that be any better or worse or the same as a cat in a carrier?

It would be better. In cat allergies, the reaction is usually to the dander (skin cells) and not the hair. Cats release the cells every time they move or groom themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I brought my elderly, ill cat on a transatlantic flight using the “support pet” angle when i was moving back to the US. Nobody knew she was there, tucked under the seat in front of me.

I realize that size prevents it being an option for most dogs, but ones that can fit in a carrier should be in one and — at the very least — dogs should be muzzled and harnessed. I don’t care if “he wouldn’t hurt a fly.” I wouldn’t plunk my cat down next to a person and expect them to be happy. Why do people expect it with dogs?

Why didn't you just pay the fee to bring a small animal with you in the cabin? Your cat doesn't have to be a "support pet."

At the time, all animals traveling to/from the uk had to fly in the hold, but it was an American airline and honored the request. So I did pay a fee ($250?). It wasn’t about being cheap. When we moved there several years before, she was in good health and flew in the hold as required.

I was under the impression that people would be pissed about any animal in the cabin (other than a legit service dog) whether it was a “support pet” or not.

She didn’t leave the carrier on the flight, and my family had the whole row — people were spared my cat and my child.

I would say that the majority of people do not have a problem with small pets in carriers on flights... as long as the pet remains in their carrier and the owner has paid the appropriate fee and doesn't claim any "emotional support" ridiculousness.

We do have a few vocal, hyper-allergic people who are dismayed at pets on flights, but that is their issue to deal with.

What a selfish ass you are.

Really? That seems a bit harsh. I have always owned big dogs, so whenever I have flown with one (thankfully, rarely), they are in the cargo hold. But people are allowed to bring their small pets in the cabin. And yes, highly allergic people just have to deal with it. In life, we all have to deal with things. If you insisted that all flights become pet-free to accommodate you, would you consider yourself a selfish ass?

New poster, not the person you're responding to, immediate PP: Obviously you aren't, and don't have any loved one who is, highly allergic to anything, or you wouldn't have your "deal with it" attitude.

We're not talking about a few sneezes here. Or about allergic people being able to move away from the allergen. We're talking about some people for whom breathing in a confined space with an animal is potentially dangerous--it can trigger asthma, close off breathing, cause horrible skin reactions and eye reactions in some people. And in a plane they cannot necessarily move far enough from the animal to be safe. The presence of the animal inside the cabin is totally avoidable: The animal (large or small) can go in the hold. The human passenger can't.

Don't carp about how "well, anyone THAT allergic just shouldn't fly, then!" That puts animals before humans. Animals can fly where it's appropriate for them--in the hold, not in a confined cabin space.

Do you also think airlines should bring back peanuts served on board, because people with peanut allergies should "just have to deal with it"? I'm betting you'd say yes. After all, only a few people might be allergic on a given flight, right? Or none at all! So why accommodate for allergies when the chance of one person going into anaphylactic shock or having an asthma attack is low? Right?

Yeah. Selfish.

Highly allergic person here. Thank you posting this, pp. Sometimes I feel like asthma and allergies are really the last frontier as far as disabilities are concerned. Have any sort of support animal? Step right up, who cares if the animal bites, poops on someone, jumps on people, it's all good. Have a severe animal allergy? Tough luck, just stay home, why should everyone have to change their lives to accommodate youuuuu? I spend every single day of my life in a constant state of anxiety because of severe allergies that can trigger full body hives and my airway closing because people have decided taking their dog into every single public space imaginable is now a good idea. I have to call ahead everywhere I go to make sure it's not dog friendly, but even when places are not dog friendly, so many people have these bogus support animals now I am constantly having to leave public places. I have family in other states I haven't seen in years because I can't fly. It's all really tiring.

That was a long rant, but yeah, thanks for sticking up for us allergic people.

[Anonymous]

Highly allergic person here. Thank you posting this, pp. Sometimes I feel like asthma and allergies are really the last frontier as far as disabilities are concerned. Have any sort of support animal? Step right up, who cares if the animal bites, poops on someone, jumps on people, it's all good. Have a severe animal allergy? Tough luck, just stay home, why should everyone have to change their lives to accommodate youuuuu? I spend every single day of my life in a constant state of anxiety because of severe allergies that can trigger full body hives and my airway closing because people have decided taking their dog into every single public space imaginable is now a good idea. I have to call ahead everywhere I go to make sure it's not dog friendly, but even when places are not dog friendly, so many people have these bogus support animals now I am constantly having to leave public places. I have family in other states I haven't seen in years because I can't fly. It's all really tiring.

That was a long rant, but yeah, thanks for sticking up for us allergic people.

This makes me sad.....we have zero serious allergies in my family but having to live like that sucks and I'm sorry it's like that. Makes me even more angry that people do selfish things like lying about Emotional support animals. Maybe if ONLY real service dogs were allowed, a person like the PP would have a less anxious existence.

On a side note, I do believe that part of the problem is that people associate animal allergies with itchy eyes and sneezing and have no idea it can be as bad as hives and an airway closing.

[Anonymous]

Highly allergic person here. Thank you posting this, pp. Sometimes I feel like asthma and allergies are really the last frontier as far as disabilities are concerned. Have any sort of support animal? Step right up, who cares if the animal bites, poops on someone, jumps on people, it's all good. Have a severe animal allergy? Tough luck, just stay home, why should everyone have to change their lives to accommodate youuuuu? I spend every single day of my life in a constant state of anxiety because of severe allergies that can trigger full body hives and my airway closing because people have decided taking their dog into every single public space imaginable is now a good idea. I have to call ahead everywhere I go to make sure it's not dog friendly, but even when places are not dog friendly, so many people have these bogus support animals now I am constantly having to leave public places. I have family in other states I haven't seen in years because I can't fly. It's all really tiring.

That was a long rant, but yeah, thanks for sticking up for us allergic people.

This is an excellent point. I really wish they would ban ES animals from flights, restaurants and indoor public areas. I would still allow registered service animals for the blind or seizure dogs but these are few and far between.

What is happening now is that all these people are gaming the system to bring their pets with them. Boarding or hiring a pet sitter when you travel s expensive so this 90% about people scamming the system to save money, while the other 10% are crazy pet people who either shouldn't fly or need to learn to detach from the per.