http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Woman-Dragged-Off-Southwest-Airlines-Flight-After-Complaint-of-Pet-Allergy-448206643.html

It makes sense that she should be removed, not sure what other option there would have been. I guess she didn't see it that way.

The airline has since apologized.

She should not be removed. Taking a pet on a plane should be a privilege, not a right. If anyone is disrupted by a pet, it should be the pet owner that should be removed, not the person suffering as a result of the pet being on the plane. Alternatively, pets should be carried in the baggage hold, like the old days, or perhaps a row or two of seats in the back of the plane could be specifically designated as "pet carrying seats". Then those affected by pets can book seats far away from these seats.

Anyone with "life threatening " allergies need to seriously think about being on public transport. Sounds like some possible mental impairment also on the part of the "Professor"

I'm surprised there's not a box to check regarding pet or other allergies when I reserve a flight (or is there)? If someone before me booked with a service or otherwise-animal, then I am notified and prohibited from booking (or accept the risk). First come, first served in this case? I wonder if this approach would work in some way.

This is not a pet, it is a service animal. Service animals don't ride in the hold and don't get removed because someone has an allergy. Service animals, that are legit, have as much right to be aboard as anyone else. Just because someone has a disability doesn't automatically mean they become second class citizens and get kicked around due to other peoples needs. Someone with a service animal has a need as well.

According to the information on the website it was not because of a "pet" but a service animal.
If you have a life threatening allergy you should inform the airline in advance and not take your chances there would be no animals on board and then make a scene when there are some.
I guess if she really had a life threatening allergy to dogs once she saw a dog was on board she would immediately leave the aircraft on her own.

dmg626 wrote:

Anyone with "life threatening " allergies need to seriously think about being on public transport. Sounds like some possible mental impairment also on the part of the "Professor"

And exactly how would she have known there was an animal on board? The story stated she was traveling from Baltimore to LA. Are you saying she should drive or take the train. The cop should be reprimanded. He used excessive for and handled her pretty roughly. That was totally uncalled for.

The media report says there were 2 animals aboard including a pet.

The airline said there was an emotional support animal and one pet on the flight from Baltimore to Los Angeles International Airport.

Jetsouth wrote:

She should not be removed. Taking a pet on a plane should be a privilege, not a right. .

No more of a privilege than a human being on a plane.
So if I have a nut allergy, all restaurants should stop serving nuts just so I can go to a restaurant? It makes no sense. The responsibility lies o the person with the allergy to take the necessary precautions when out in public.

This whole "service animal" thing is completely out of control. More and more people are abusing this. Service animals were for people with serious physical restrictions like blindness. Now today they are given out like candy. I feel sad when I am alone so I should have a service animal. It has become a racket and people are using it to circumvent pet restrictions/laws. So now a legit passenger has to suffer because of a "service animal".

Indy wrote:

This whole "service animal" thing is completely out of control. More and more people are abusing this. Service animals were for people with serious physical restrictions like blindness. Now today they are given out like candy. I feel sad when I am alone so I should have a service animal. It has become a racket and people are using it to circumvent pet restrictions/laws. So now a legit passenger has to suffer because of a "service animal".

Full of empathy, you are. Much of what you say is likely true in general regarding bogus certifications - but you don't know this case well enough to make a judgement.

If she had a "life threatening" allergy, you'd think she'd be off the plane like a shot! Removing the pet from the plane doesn't remove the threat to her life. The aircraft is already contaminated with the animals hair and dander.

CantbeGrounded wrote:

Indy wrote:

This whole "service animal" thing is completely out of control. More and more people are abusing this. Service animals were for people with serious physical restrictions like blindness. Now today they are given out like candy. I feel sad when I am alone so I should have a service animal. It has become a racket and people are using it to circumvent pet restrictions/laws. So now a legit passenger has to suffer because of a "service animal".

Full of empathy, you are. Much of what you say is likely true in general regarding bogus certifications - but you don't know this case well enough to make a judgement.

Use of the phrase "emotional support animal" rather than "service animal" is at least somewhat suggestive, no?

Jetsouth wrote:

She should not be removed. Taking a pet on a plane should be a privilege, not a right. If anyone is disrupted by a pet, it should be the pet owner that should be removed, not the person suffering as a result of the pet being on the plane. Alternatively, pets should be carried in the baggage hold, like the old days, or perhaps a row or two of seats in the back of the plane could be specifically designated as "pet carrying seats". Then those affected by pets can book seats far away from these seats.

No. You have this backward. If a person has an allergy such as this it is encumbent upon them to assure their own safety, not for the rest of the world to stop drop and alter their path. Be that an animal allergy, peanut allergy, claustophobia etc, its all the same. You sound like someone that just doesnt like animals. Ninety nine times out of a hundred if there is an issue involving an animal and person aboard an aircraft its the person that started it.

Cubsrule wrote:

Use of the phrase "emotional support animal" rather than "service animal" is at least somewhat suggestive, no?

Thank you - the two are not the same yet are referred to as such all the time.

She sounds like a special snowflake that needs to charter a private jet instead of expecting the public to cater to her.

According to the statement put by Southwest, there was one service animal and one emotional support animal onboard the flight. After United's event with Dr. Dao airlines should understand calling law enforcement should be done in extreme situations.I don't believe a pet allergy was an extreme situation. It probably could have been handled civilly depending on who dropped the ball.

Anyone else wonder how she would have reacted if she had to sit next to a person with pet dander (dog hair) etc on them?

They cannot remove the service animal by law, that would be a much bigger issue, fine and lawsuit. I do agree the service animal thing is out of control but that has no point in this story. Not to mentioning removing the animals does not remove the "Deadly Allergens" so it would not matter. Once she told them she might die in flight they had no choice but to remove her. And lastly once they ask you to get off why the hell not? And once it gets to the point that cops are called why be belligerent with them too?

Jetsouth wrote:

She should not be removed. Taking a pet on a plane should be a privilege, not a right. If anyone is disrupted by a pet, it should be the pet owner that should be removed, not the person suffering as a result of the pet being on the plane. Alternatively, pets should be carried in the baggage hold, like the old days, or perhaps a row or two of seats in the back of the plane could be specifically designated as "pet carrying seats". Then those affected by pets can book seats far away from these seats.

Idiotic statement of the year. Service animals are legally allowed on planes, in hospitals, restaurants and pretty much anywhere.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Anyone with "life threatening " allergies need to seriously think about being on public transport. Sounds like some possible mental impairment also on the part of the "Professor"

And exactly how would she have known there was an animal on board? The story stated she was traveling from Baltimore to LA. Are you saying she should drive or take the train. The cop should be reprimanded. He used excessive for and handled her pretty roughly. That was totally uncalled for.

If she truly had life threatening allergies, then her every movement in life has to assume there may be an animal in the vicinity, especially in an enclosed tube, that may end her life prematurely. A true extreme condition requires extreme measures, driving would be one if your health and well being was so important and at risk

So here's my question. When a human has a peanut allergy all peanuts are removed from catering and announcements are made in the gate areas that anyone who has peanuts to please not bring them on board. So in this case a human trumps an allergy.

However, now we're seeing a passenger with a pet allergy, and this flight had both a service animal and a pet, but yet the human was removed forcibly, not the pet.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why can peanuts be enforced to not be served when an allergy is present, but pets can't (not service animals, pets)?

CantbeGrounded wrote:

Indy wrote:

This whole "service animal" thing is completely out of control. More and more people are abusing this. Service animals were for people with serious physical restrictions like blindness. Now today they are given out like candy. I feel sad when I am alone so I should have a service animal. It has become a racket and people are using it to circumvent pet restrictions/laws. So now a legit passenger has to suffer because of a "service animal".

Full of empathy, you are. Much of what you say is likely true in general regarding bogus certifications - but you don't know this case well enough to make a judgement.

No I am not full of empathy. Read "The airline said there was an emotional support animal and one pet on the flight from Baltimore to Los Angeles International Airport."

There you go. I know THREE people with "service" animals and I know one blind person. Funny thing is the only one without the "service" animal is the blind person. One had a stroke and the animal is completely justified. The other two are complete BS and an abuse of the system.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

So here's my question. When a human has a peanut allergy all peanuts are removed from catering and announcements are made in the gate areas that anyone who has peanuts to please not bring them on board. So in this case a human trumps an allergy.

However, now we're seeing a passenger with a pet allergy, and this flight had both a service animal and a pet, but yet the human was removed forcibly, not the pet.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why can peanuts be enforced to not be served when an allergy is present, but pets can't (not service animals, pets)?

Two different things. People can easily forgo peanuts or peanut-based products on a flight segment if it allows a passenger on board to travel safely. Nobody denied boarding, easy peasy. To remove a pet means the passenger traveling with the pet can't travel either, so the solution is far more difficult. Besides, if you're upset about not being able to have your peanut snack because someone on board is allergic, then you're probably a jerk.

This emotional support animal BS is getting out of hand. Do I agree with allowing service animals on public transportation, Absolutely its the Law. But here in the US, anyone can just go to there Dr and get a script saying they need Fluffy as an emotional support animal. Actual Service Dogs are trained and certified, Where as 95% of emotional support animals aren't. I do agree non-service animals should be carried in Baggage, Safer all around. The story is still developing, lets see what the 2 animals aboard the flight were, if the one was actually a service animal. As for the woman she appeared to be off, drugs or alcohol we'll see.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

So here's my question. When a human has a peanut allergy all peanuts are removed from catering and announcements are made in the gate areas that anyone who has peanuts to please not bring them on board. So in this case a human trumps an allergy.

However, now we're seeing a passenger with a pet allergy, and this flight had both a service animal and a pet, but yet the human was removed forcibly, not the pet.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why can peanuts be enforced to not be served when an allergy is present, but pets can't (not service animals, pets)?

In general if a passenger presents a certificate or some type of proof from a doctor of an allergy, the airlines will do their best to address it. This passenger who got removed had no such documentation of her allergy. For all the airline knows, she could be making it up. With service animals the airline can't just deny boarding to someone because another person complains. If someone has a legitimate allergy, they need to coordinate it ahead of time with the proper documentation. The people who have peanut allergies present proof of it to the airline and are accommodated. If a passenger complains after they are on board demanding disinfecting and deep cleaning due to a peanut allergy, they are most likely going to be removed from the flight and accommodated on a later flight.

dmg626 wrote:

Anyone with "life threatening " allergies need to seriously think about being on public transport. Sounds like some possible mental impairment also on the part of the "Professor"

Exactly! If the allergy is so serious the person shouldn't be on public transport, it's not viable to sterilize the whole plane or all other passengers clothes for the sake of one passenger. I know I sound rather insensitive but even if there's no pet on board someone could have cuddled their cat before leaving home and sit by the allergic person or a guide dog could have traveled there on a previous flight, who would be liable if something happened? I developed serious hay fever lately and I have to resort to surgical masks to leave home on certain days, it's embarrassing but it's my allergy, my mask is my responsability and I'd never enter a plane demanding that no one could bring flowers on board.

Southwest did not remove anyone. The cops chose this method not Southwest

I still don't understand this allergy thing. If I go to a restaurant, which is an enclosed space just like an airplane (some bigger than planes, some smaller) and I have a shellfish allergy the restaurant doesn't stop serving shellfish. They just don't serve me shellfish or prepare my food with it. So why does an airline stop serving peanuts instead of just not serving peanuts to the passengers who are allergic??

This gets so tedious. Why don't people comply with the instructions provided by the airlines or authorities? This was a situation where someone was going to be unhappy - the person with the service animal, the person that booked and paid for a pet in the cabin, or the person with the allergy. According to what I read WN's ToC say they have the right to deny boarding to someone who declares a life threatening allergy they can't accommodate. The women with the allergy should have gotten off the plane as instructed. It's not up to her to prioritize herself against other passengers that would be affected and demand they be removed.

The UA situation was different than this one. UA did something stupid by singling out a single passenger when they needed to free up seats for their own crew. This case is an obstinate person demanding the airline bend to her whims/needs and then throwing a fit when they didn't.

There is a distinct difference between a "service animal" and an "emotional support" animal and a household pet.
A blind person has a "service animal." Kristen Chenoweth the Boardway actress travels with a small "emotional support" dog in her lap due to anxiety of flying. She is in possession of a medical statement and can travel with this dog, in her lap or seat, free of charge. Same for the service dog.
Thirdly, I travel with just a pet. I have a 9 pound Maltese mix that is carried on board in a backpack kennel, placed on the floor under the seat in front of me, and for the "privilege" of traveling with him I pay a fee that ranges from $95-125 depending on airline. He is not an emotional support animal but my beloved pet. I didn't pursue the "scam" of the emotional support animal certification to save the pet fee. My doctor would have laughed at me when a F/A suggested I simply tell him I'm terrified of flying and my dog will keep me calm. Hard to do when he knows I spent 32+ years in the airline business.
In one case I bought an $89 first class ticket on DL but paid the $125 cabin pet fee.
I don't consider it a privilege to travel with my dog because I pay for the service to do so. He is well-behaved, is current with all his shots and poses absolutely no risk or harm to anyone else when we travel. By right, I would not be removed from the flight if someone amongst the 100+ other passengers have a dog/animal/hair dander etc type allergy. You rarely will even know I have an animal on board unless you sit next to me because I'll usually comment to my seatmate why I occasionally reach down and talk or touch my "carry on bag." Most people want to see him, pet or play with him and comment he was more well-behaved than most children. He is not removed from the kennel once we board as he was trained to be comfortable in the kennel and changing that routine would confuse him. He is no more a menace than his stuffed duck toy he travels with, so why should we have our trip interrupted due to circumstances I have no control over?
In a recent personal relocation move, I found this service very convenient to travel to my new city, with my dog, for the 1200 mile
journey I didn't need to make in a car with him.......the car was shipped with our household goods & I met the truck and car 2 days later in our new city.
I would have obviously made other arrangements if the whole "pet on a plane" service option was not offered, but by Federal law a person with a service animal cannot be denied access to services provided to the general public. Totally different rules than my case of simply traveling with my pet because airlines, Amtrak and public places do offer pet and animal access. I'm sorry this lady has such a medical issue but she could have been exposed to his fur dander or whatever would cause the allergy reaction by using the same shuttle bus I took with him from the long-term parking lot and not even be traveling on our plane at all. The person managing the allergy has to know exposure risks in everyday life.
Be less quick to judge until you have a better understanding of what you're really trying to talk about.

Indy wrote:

This whole "service animal" thing is completely out of control. More and more people are abusing this. Service animals were for people with serious physical restrictions like blindness. Now today they are given out like candy. I feel sad when I am alone so I should have a service animal. It has become a racket and people are using it to circumvent pet restrictions/laws. So now a legit passenger has to suffer because of a "service animal".

Totally agree. Saw a lady with a pooch and a plastic glove to pick up it's poop on a flight. Although this was not on southwest, should people be walking barefoot on aircraft that have or have had service animals on them?

Cubsrule wrote:

CantbeGrounded wrote:

Indy wrote:

This whole "service animal" thing is completely out of control. More and more people are abusing this. Service animals were for people with serious physical restrictions like blindness. Now today they are given out like candy. I feel sad when I am alone so I should have a service animal. It has become a racket and people are using it to circumvent pet restrictions/laws. So now a legit passenger has to suffer because of a "service animal".

Full of empathy, you are. Much of what you say is likely true in general regarding bogus certifications - but you don't know this case well enough to make a judgement.

Use of the phrase "emotional support animal" rather than "service animal" is at least somewhat suggestive, no?

Nothing is known regarding the passenger's personal situation or how he/she is assisted by an animal.

VCEflyboy wrote:

Jetsouth wrote:

She should not be removed. Taking a pet on a plane should be a privilege, not a right. If anyone is disrupted by a pet, it should be the pet owner that should be removed, not the person suffering as a result of the pet being on the plane. Alternatively, pets should be carried in the baggage hold, like the old days, or perhaps a row or two of seats in the back of the plane could be specifically designated as "pet carrying seats". Then those affected by pets can book seats far away from these seats.

Idiotic statement of the year. Service animals are legally allowed on planes, in hospitals, restaurants and pretty much anywhere.

True service animals are legally mandated to be allowed on planes and other places. However, there has been a trend of people declaring their pets as 'emotional support animals' or some other such nonsense to get them into the same category as a true, trained service animal. Note that the law does set a standard for what kind of tasks a service animal must accomplish, but it doesn't specify any kind of training or certification, leaving the system open to abuse.

Here's a long essay calling for pet owners to stop abusing the system by sneaking their pets into the 'service animal' category when they are not: https://www.outsideonline.com/2236871/s ... rvice-dogs

A brief excerpt:

What’s a Service Animal?

The Americans with Disabilities Act limits the definition of a service animal to one that is trained to perform “work or tasks” in the aid of a disabled person. So, while a dog that is trained to calm a person suffering an anxiety attack due to post-traumatic stress disorder is considered a service dog, a dog whose mere presence calms a person is not. The act states, “dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.”

That same law makes no requirements or provisions for any registration, licensing, or documentation of service animals. It also prohibits businesses or individuals from asking a disabled person for proof that their dog is a service animal. In fact, the ADA permits only two questions to be asked of people with service animals: Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? What task is the dog trained to perform? That’s it. No inquiry can be made about the nature of the disability and no proof can be requested, nor are there any licenses or documents to prove a dog is a service animal.

Emotional support animals (let’s just use that as a catchall for any dog that provides comfort but does not perform a specific task) are specifically excluded by the ADA, and access for them is not provided by that law. Businesses and similar entities are left to define their own policies. Amtrak, for instance, does not consider ESAs to be service animals and does not permit them to ride in passenger areas on its trains.

The author goes on to argue that pet owners that abuse the system by declaring their pets (falsely) as emotional support animals to get around prohibitions are doing a disservice to the kinds of people that actually do need their service animals present; forcing businesses and other entities into making decisions like this (and inviting the problems that Southwest is dealing with now).

And conversely, the author argues that the airlines in particular should be much better about providing safe, guaranteed ways for owners to travel with their pets, preventing the whole charade about fake service animals in the first place. And that will also mean dealing with allergies.

Indy wrote:

CantbeGrounded wrote:

Indy wrote:

This whole "service animal" thing is completely out of control. More and more people are abusing this. Service animals were for people with serious physical restrictions like blindness. Now today they are given out like candy. I feel sad when I am alone so I should have a service animal. It has become a racket and people are using it to circumvent pet restrictions/laws. So now a legit passenger has to suffer because of a "service animal".

Full of empathy, you are. Much of what you say is likely true in general regarding bogus certifications - but you don't know this case well enough to make a judgement.

No I am not full of empathy. Read "The airline said there was an emotional support animal and one pet on the flight from Baltimore to Los Angeles International Airport."

There you go. I know THREE people with "service" animals and I know one blind person. Funny thing is the only one without the "service" animal is the blind person. One had a stroke and the animal is completely justified. The other two are complete BS and an abuse of the system.

Was sarcasm. Again - while your anecdote is relevant to you it goes nowhere in explaining this issue.

Ill go back to my original post - the carrier has an opportunity to advise customers with allergies whether or not an animal is booked on this flight when the allergic customer books their res. Nothing illegal about requiring customers to state the presence of the animal when booking. This might be an effective mitigation strategy, though not 100% effective.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

I still don't understand this allergy thing. If I go to a restaurant, which is an enclosed space just like an airplane (some bigger than planes, some smaller) and I have a shellfish allergy the restaurant doesn't stop serving shellfish. They just don't serve me shellfish or prepare my food with it. So why does an airline stop serving peanuts instead of just not serving peanuts to the passengers who are allergic??

I agree that some education would be helpful to you in light of your example.

Stuff like this is going to be complicated. Yes, there is some abuse going on -- everyone has probably spoken to someone who abuses that system, especially with how easy it is to do. However, it appears as if one camp thinks that because there is some abuse, the whole thing is a sham and open to mockery. From my experience with people, plenty of the folks who think belittle making accommodations for disabilities or think that a little abuse in a system is reason to tear it down (even though it is helping lots of people with legitimate problems) are also U-S-A, U-S-A pro military. A large number of these emotional support animals are for people who have post-traumatic stress from military service. I think the biggest harm that falsely certifying an emotional support animal does it to make people like the ones who have posted on this forum belittle the idea. But you have free will and can choose not to take that bait.

I also have to say, regarding the post above mine: I don't understand why people who post something on the Internet without having the necessary information to draw that conclusion think that other people owe them the research. It's not as if it's hard to Google peanut allergies for the couple of minutes that those posts took (not directed at any one person, since you could really sum up the entire Internet's worth of message boards with that statement).

CantbeGrounded wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

CantbeGrounded wrote:

Full of empathy, you are. Much of what you say is likely true in general regarding bogus certifications - but you don't know this case well enough to make a judgement.

Use of the phrase "emotional support animal" rather than "service animal" is at least somewhat suggestive, no?

Nothing is known regarding the passenger's personal situation or how he/she is assisted by an animal.

So words don't matter? "Service animal" and "emotional support animal" are both terms of arts. I assume the author meant what he or she wrote.

Flaps wrote:

No. You have this backward. If a person has an allergy such as this it is encumbent upon them to assure their own safety, not for the rest of the world to stop drop and alter their path. Be that an animal allergy, peanut allergy, claustophobia etc, its all the same.

Flaps, you couldn't be more correct! My son has a peanut allergy (ingestion only, not airbourne) and we fly WN all the time. It's on his RR profile, and we always make sure to call reservations to make sure it's on after it's ticketed. WN considers it a handicap, and they allow us to board first mainly so that the crew can put away the peanuts. When we get to our seats we have Clorox wipes and wipe down his seat, the back of the seat in front of him, the arm rests, tray table, sidewalls and window. We do the same when we fly on other carriers and we've never had an issue. Unbeknown to us until earlier this year, if WN sees a reservation with a peanut allergy, they will do their best to make sure that the airplane's entire line of flying that day is peanut free before that particular person flies.

When we flew Delta earlier this year in the rear Y cabin on a 767-400, the On Board Leader asked us if they could serve almonds and cashews to the folks up in Delta One, which we said yes to, as he's not allergic to tree nuts, and we were the only peanut allergy on the plane.

Jetsouth wrote:

She should not be removed. Taking a pet on a plane should be a privilege, not a right. If anyone is disrupted by a pet, it should be the pet owner that should be removed, not the person suffering as a result of the pet being on the plane. Alternatively, pets should be carried in the baggage hold, like the old days, or perhaps a row or two of seats in the back of the plane could be specifically designated as "pet carrying seats". Then those affected by pets can book seats far away from these seats.

It was Southwest. No assigned seats.
She has the allergies, she is responsible for her medical safety while traveling, whether it be by foot, car, bus, train, plane or boat. The airline did the proper thing by asking her to leave when she could not provide proof of her allergy or show that she had the appropriate life-saving treatments readily available. She made the scene by refusing.

blockski wrote:

Here's a long essay calling for pet owners to stop abusing the system by sneaking their pets into the 'service animal' category when they are not: https://www.outsideonline.com/2236871/s ... rvice-dogs

A minor point with respect to airlines vis a vis the content you highlighted is the fact that airlines are covered under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), not the ADA, and as such the requirements are somewhat different. Airlines are required to accommodate emotional support animals as long as the appropriate supporting documentation is provided by the passenger.

Jetsouth wrote:

She should not be removed. Taking a pet on a plane should be a privilege, not a right. If anyone is disrupted by a pet, it should be the pet owner that should be removed, not the person suffering as a result of the pet being on the plane. Alternatively, pets should be carried in the baggage hold, like the old days, or perhaps a row or two of seats in the back of the plane could be specifically designated as "pet carrying seats". Then those affected by pets can book seats far away from these seats.

In the end her rights as a person with a disability (a life-threatening allergy) don't necessarily trump the rights of another person with a different disability (a mental disorder which necessitates an emotional support animal when traveling). And, in fact, the person with the emotional support animal has presumably provided documentation from a medical professional which apparently the woman removed from the aircraft did not provide regarding her allergy.

If you're an individual with a life-threatening allergy to per hair or dander, it is absolutely critical to inform any transportation provider before traveling given that the vehicle (bus, plane, train, etc.) may contain deadly allergens left behind by previous passengers and their animals. I can't imagine why a person at appreciable risk of dying from a pet allergy would struggle to stay on a flight if it were clear the pets weren't going to be removed!

Clipper136 wrote:

If she had a "life threatening" allergy, you'd think she'd be off the plane like a shot! Removing the pet from the plane doesn't remove the threat to her life. The aircraft is already contaminated with the animals hair and dander.

If she had "life threatening" allergy, you would think her health would have already deteriorated significantly.

As for someone who mentioned the nut allergy, airlines actually accommodate that. WN is one, jetBlue is another (first hand experience with jetBlue).

Cubsrule wrote:

CantbeGrounded wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Use of the phrase "emotional support animal" rather than "service animal" is at least somewhat suggestive, no?

Nothing is known regarding the passenger's personal situation or how he/she is assisted by an animal.

So words don't matter? "Service animal" and "emotional support animal" are both terms of arts. I assume the author meant what he or she wrote.

Yeah, someone on another board educated me when I used "service animal" and "emotional support animal" incorrectly. They're not the same thing, apparently. The difference, as I understand it, is:

Service animal = an animal that has undergone rigorous, specialized training to assist someone with a disability. Seeing eye dogs are the most well known in this category, but it could also be a dog trained to fetch objects for someone with mobility problems or something like that.

Emotional support animal = an animal that helps someone with a psychological disorder like depression, anxiety, etc., simply by virtue of being an animal. No special training is required beyond what a regular pet would receive. That's not to say that emotional support animals aren't also important for people who have a legitimate need for them, just that they're not the same as service animals.

Funny how this stupid website freaks out and whines like no tomorrow if we don't get peanuts because someone has a nut allergy, or gets removed due to that reason, but has a fantastic "screw the service animal" attitude.

Even though the person removed from the flight is almost assuredly talking bollocks.

Jetsouth wrote:

She should not be removed. Taking a pet on a plane should be a privilege, not a right. If anyone is disrupted by a pet, it should be the pet owner that should be removed, not the person suffering as a result of the pet being on the plane. Alternatively, pets should be carried in the baggage hold, like the old days, or perhaps a row or two of seats in the back of the plane could be specifically designated as "pet carrying seats". Then those affected by pets can book seats far away from these seats.

There was a service on the plane, not a pet. That puts her lower on the list due to ADA & the airline version of it. It's ilegal to deny someone with a service animal.

konkret wrote:

According to the information on the website it was not because of a "pet" but a service animal.
If you have a life threatening allergy you should inform the airline in advance and not take your chances there would be no animals on board and then make a scene when there are some.
I guess if she really had a life threatening allergy to dogs once she saw a dog was on board she would immediately leave the aircraft on her own.

Yes seems her life treatening allergy is not so life threating. If you have that type of allergy you would react as soon as you were on board.

Indy wrote:

This whole "service animal" thing is completely out of control. More and more people are abusing this. Service animals were for people with serious physical restrictions like blindness. Now today they are given out like candy. I feel sad when I am alone so I should have a service animal. It has become a racket and people are using it to circumvent pet restrictions/laws. So now a legit passenger has to suffer because of a "service animal".

Being sad when you are alone is an emotional support animal, not a service dog. Today legally they do not qualify. People get notes from doctors to try and abuse the law. It clearly states "Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA." on page 1 of the ADA.gov PDF.

Here is the link, please read it and learn. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.pdf

Clipper136 wrote:

If she had a "life threatening" allergy, you'd think she'd be off the plane like a shot! Removing the pet from the plane doesn't remove the threat to her life. The aircraft is already contaminated with the animals hair and dander.

Very good point that people miss. I'm guessing you have an allergy, family or fiend with one or work for an allergist.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Anyone with "life threatening " allergies need to seriously think about being on public transport. Sounds like some possible mental impairment also on the part of the "Professor"

And exactly how would she have known there was an animal on board? The story stated she was traveling from Baltimore to LA. Are you saying she should drive or take the train. The cop should be reprimanded. He used excessive for and handled her pretty roughly. That was totally uncalled for.

Because if it was a life threatening allergy she would have had a severe reaction when she boarded. Other wise she just gets a stuffy head.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

So here's my question. When a human has a peanut allergy all peanuts are removed from catering and announcements are made in the gate areas that anyone who has peanuts to please not bring them on board. So in this case a human trumps an allergy.

However, now we're seeing a passenger with a pet allergy, and this flight had both a service animal and a pet, but yet the human was removed forcibly, not the pet.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why can peanuts be enforced to not be served when an allergy is present, but pets can't (not service animals, pets)?

To give you an answer as there was 1 service animal on board and 1 emotional support animal. So if they removed the EM danimal & not the servic dog. SHe would still be exposed. They cannot remove the service animal. Mind you at this point if I had a service amimal and she was this bitchy I would have said give me a free flight and I'll take the next flight. But unlike me if the person was in a wheelchair it would be to hard to do.