Prinair wrote:

ESAN service is simply a scam. Airlines should eliminate this service completely. They should only be allowed to fly following standard pet policies. If a person is in such a fragile state of mind that they cannot handle being reasonably separated from their precious fur ball then they should not fly at all.

The Air Carrier Access Act established a procedure for modifying pet policies on aircraft to permit a person with a disability to travel with a prescribed emotional support animal, so long as they have appropriate documentation and the animal is not a danger to others and does not interfere with others (through unwanted attention, barking, inappropriate toileting, etc.).[36][37] "Unusual" animals, including all snakes and other reptiles, can legally be refused.[5]

The airlines are in a very uncomfortable situation here. If they ban the support animals' support, they will be sued and they will lose. If they do not forbid them, they will sooner or later be sued as well, and they will lose as well.

stl07 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Envoy is not a mainline Flight Attendant

As frequently stated on this site, regional FAs are not humans and therefore deserve no sympathy and none of the rights given to mainline FAs. The bite must hurt less since regional FAs are less than human

moa999 wrote:

The airlines are in a very uncomfortable situation here. If they ban the support animals' support, they will be sued and they will lose. If they do not forbid them, they will sooner or later be sued as well, and they will lose as well.

Simple solution. Require every flying animal to have a $100k third party damage policy.

I'm sure the insurance companies will price the difference between one trained by the Guide Dogs and one with a certificate from Waggy fairly effectively.

Boof02671 wrote:

Envoy is not a mainline Flight Attendant

Cactus732 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Karlsands wrote:

Why does this matter ? They were flying under the brand for the flight. And envoy actually is Owned by American fully if I recall

It is not mainline AA, they don’t work for AA, Envoy has its own employees, own operating certificate, and work under a different contract.

Envoy, PSA and Piedmont are all owned by American, yes they operate under separate certificates and contracts but AA own the planes, all employees have a AA IDs, and more importantly in this case all on-board service policies come from AA.......but you're really missing the point of emphasis for this thread. It really doesn't matter if the flight was operated by mainline, a wholly owned subsidiary, or a contract regional, the point is that untrained animals, masquerading as emotional support animals, are continuing to cause problems in passenger cabins.

AABusDrvr wrote:

This whole "emotional support animal" thing is utter nonsense. They shouldn't be allowed in the cabin at all.

AABusDrvr wrote:

Crew members at the WO's do not have "AA" ID's.

alasizon wrote:

AABusDrvr wrote:

This whole "emotional support animal" thing is utter nonsense. They shouldn't be allowed in the cabin at all.

Unfortunately the ACAA allows it. ADA doesn't specify but because the ACAA does, airports and airlines are stuck with them.

AABusDrvr wrote:

Crew members at the WO's do not have "AA" ID's.

They are issued an AA ID number just like Mainline and the IDs do not look any different other than the fact that the emblem in the right hand corner says PSA, Envoy or Piedmont instead of the watermarked Eagle on mainline badges. They are required to wear the same AA lanyard that every Mainline employee wears. To the flying public they are AA employees. Internally, the differences are understood but that doesn't mean that they are treated any differently than a Mainline employee.

indcwby wrote:

I was on a Delta flight years ago, seated next to someone who had an 'emotional support' Pomeranian. As soon as I sat down, that thing lunged at me with teeth snarling. The lady was being defensive and saying it was my fault for it's attitude. I got up and spoke to a FA about being reseated, when she came back to talk to the lady, the mutt did the same thing to the FA. Lady tried the same bit on the FA. She wasn't having it. She spoke with flight crew and she was removed from the flight. DL gave me points for having to deal with it.

This Emotional Support pet fiasco needs to stop.

INFINITI329 wrote:

indcwby wrote:

I was on a Delta flight years ago, seated next to someone who had an 'emotional support' Pomeranian. As soon as I sat down, that thing lunged at me with teeth snarling. The lady was being defensive and saying it was my fault for it's attitude. I got up and spoke to a FA about being reseated, when she came back to talk to the lady, the mutt did the same thing to the FA. Lady tried the same bit on the FA. She wasn't having it. She spoke with flight crew and she was removed from the flight. DL gave me points for having to deal with it.

This Emotional Support pet fiasco needs to stop.

Kudos to the F/A for squashing it without hesitation

It's time for Congress to step in, this is an ongoing problem. It is a free for all with these animals.

Miamiairport wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

indcwby wrote:

I was on a Delta flight years ago, seated next to someone who had an 'emotional support' Pomeranian. As soon as I sat down, that thing lunged at me with teeth snarling. The lady was being defensive and saying it was my fault for it's attitude. I got up and spoke to a FA about being reseated, when she came back to talk to the lady, the mutt did the same thing to the FA. Lady tried the same bit on the FA. She wasn't having it. She spoke with flight crew and she was removed from the flight. DL gave me points for having to deal with it.

This Emotional Support pet fiasco needs to stop.

Kudos to the F/A for squashing it without hesitation

It's time for Congress to step in, this is an ongoing problem. It is a free for all with these animals.

Exactly if they are an emotional support animal they are not there for physical assistance or guidance. The animal should be required to be put in a cage and small enough to fit under the seat in front of them.

ltbewr wrote:

Having been bitten by a pet dog when I was about 12 years old in the late 1960's, it can be a very traumatic experience. Per the laws then in New Jersey, as the dog had bitten several times before, it had to be killed by state law. We don't know the exact circumstances why this dog bit the FA, perhaps they were trying to enforce rules in flight, but no matter what, the owner is responsible for how it behaves and can be sued. If someone brought their ESA with them to a workplace, a store and the animal but it bit a co-worker or a shopper, for sure they could be sued. In my case, there was no lawsuit filed, times were different then and my father knew the guy so you didn't sue then as much.

JetBuddy wrote:

I understand the need for emotional support animals. They might be the difference between that person being able to take a flight, or not.

On the other hand, how many people are scared of dogs, or allergic to furry animals in general? For each emotional support animal allowed, dozens of others are likely inconvenienced.

Another point, these animals are usually not trained like service dogs. A pet with a letter saying it's an "emotional support animal" is likely as frightened by the airplane and all the people as the owner is. No wonder they might bite.

ER757 wrote:

You last point is especially relevant. A dog that is well behaved and calm around its home can be a different beast entirely in an environment that is foreign to it. Before any animal is christened with the ESA title, they should be required to go through extensive training to de-sensitize it to distractions of all sorts and it must be evaluated and registered with a reputable organization and they need to be re-evaluated at regular intervals (say every two years similar to the way therapy dogs are at hospitals etc). Buying a vest on the interwebz is total B.S. and we end up with situations like this time and time again

880dc8707 wrote:

I think the FREE FLIGHT is the big problem. I have to pay to help my granny get through the system. Make an ESA pay full fare for a seat, same a a helping family member

§382.31 May carriers impose special charges on passengers with a disability for providing services and accommodations required by this rule?

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this part you must not, as a carrier, impose charges for providing facilities, equipment, or services that this rule requires to be provided to passengers with a disability. You may charge for services that this part does not require.

(b) You may charge a passenger for the use of more than one seat if the passenger's size or condition (e.g., use of a stretcher) causes him or her to occupy the space of more than one seat. This is not considered a special charge under this section.

(e) If a passenger seeks to travel with an animal that is used as an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, you are not required to accept the animal for transportation in the cabin unless the passenger provides you current documentation (i.e., no older than one year from the date of the passenger's scheduled initial flight) on the letterhead of a licensed mental health professional (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, including a medical doctor specifically treating the passenger's mental or emotional disability) stating the following:

(1) The passenger has a mental or emotional disability recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Fourth Edition (DSM IV);

(2) The passenger needs the emotional support or psychiatric service animal as an accommodation for air travel and/or for activity at the passenger's destination;

(3) The individual providing the assessment is a licensed mental health professional, and the passenger is under his or her professional care; and

(4) The date and type of the mental health professional's license and the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued.

(f) You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the cabin. With respect to all other animals, including unusual or exotic animals that are presented as service animals (e.g., miniature horses, pigs, monkeys), as a carrier you must determine whether any factors preclude their traveling in the cabin as service animals (e.g., whether the animal is too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin, whether the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, whether it would cause a significant disruption of cabin service, whether it would be prohibited from entering a foreign country that is the flight's destination). If no such factors preclude the animal from traveling in the cabin, you must permit it to do so. However, as a foreign carrier, you are not required to carry service animals other than dogs.

(g) Whenever you decide not to accept an animal as a service animal, you must explain the reason for your decision to the passenger and document it in writing. A copy of the explanation must be provided to the passenger either at the airport, or within 10 calendar days of the incident.

triple3driver wrote:

And this my friends, is another failure of the US emotional support animal system, when will we learn? Does anyone know when this whole fad even became a thing?

Boof02671 wrote:

Envoy is not a mainline Flight Attendant

nine4nine wrote:

If they aren’t a certified service pet then they belong in the cargo hold. But the best place for them and their entitled owners entirely...IS AT HOME!

Vio wrote:

Everyone seems to want "special treatment" nowadays. These "untrained" animals need to be removed from the aircraft cabin and transported properly in the cargo hold. It's your choice if you want an animal in your house. It's another thing to impose it on people to be around them, especially those allergic to them.

asdf wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I honestly don't understand emotional support animals. Is it really necessary? And why is this a thing only in America?

In the western world it is a tradition for many people to keep a pet.
A dog is the animal with which man had the closest relationship until the stone age.

In families with children, the dog is often a true family member.
In partnerships where the children are already leading their own lives out of the house, the dog is the child substitute, and for many people living alone in the last quarter of life, the dog or pet is the partner replacement for the already deceased partner.

So it's a very close relationship that people in other parts of the world often do not understand, and religion has an influence here as well.

I fully understand that somebody does not want his pet to be transported in the cargo hold, because in this way countless animals have died. It is enough if after taking off the heating in the cargo hold is not turned on, or someone somewhere in the logistics chain has not reported that animals are in the hold of the flight and therefore the hold must be heated. From other mistakes of the involved personnel in the freight chain - not only intellectual high-flyers and animal protection experts work on the ramps - not to talk.

To harm people is forbidden. It is understandable that it is unreasonable for a family to transport their toddler in the hold. The same applies to people who have a close relationship with a pet. Often they really have a kind of mental dependency on the animal.

A mental dependency on an animal is seen as a human right in the West as well as a dependency on an animal because of, for example, a visual impairment.

In the US, a creative legal system makes it possible to become incredibly rich anytime you complain to a very wealthy company. Airlines are incredibly rich. Therefore, they avoid the risk of being caught by a passenger on USD $$. $$$. $$$,- to be sued for not being allowed to take his pet with them. Human rights issues also play a role here, mental cruelty, etc.

The airlines are in a very uncomfortable situation here. If they ban the support animals' support, they will be sued and they will lose. If they do not forbid them, they will sooner or later be sued as well, and they will lose as well.

The whole is therefore above all a US topic because in other continents such as Europe, for example, the taking of a dog in an aircraft cabin alone would be impossible for religious reasons. Dogs are considered unclean in religion with the highest increase and prevalence.

Quote from a well-known German actor:
You can also live without a dog, but it's not worth it.
(Heinz Rühmann, actor 1902-1994)

In addition:
I would be happy to pay a full paid seat on air travel for our dog to transport it in a dog travel box to save him the risk of a journey in the cargo hold. I would not expose any other family member to this risk negligently.
Unfortunately this is not possible due to the size (30kg / 70lbs).
Therefore, we have waived for now almost ten years on travel destinations which can only be sensibly reached by plane.

twicearound wrote:

asdf wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I honestly don't understand emotional support animals. Is it really necessary? And why is this a thing only in America?

In the western world it is a tradition for many people to keep a pet.
A dog is the animal with which man had the closest relationship until the stone age.

In families with children, the dog is often a true family member.
In partnerships where the children are already leading their own lives out of the house, the dog is the child substitute, and for many people living alone in the last quarter of life, the dog or pet is the partner replacement for the already deceased partner.

So it's a very close relationship that people in other parts of the world often do not understand, and religion has an influence here as well.

I fully understand that somebody does not want his pet to be transported in the cargo hold, because in this way countless animals have died. It is enough if after taking off the heating in the cargo hold is not turned on, or someone somewhere in the logistics chain has not reported that animals are in the hold of the flight and therefore the hold must be heated. From other mistakes of the involved personnel in the freight chain - not only intellectual high-flyers and animal protection experts work on the ramps - not to talk.

To harm people is forbidden. It is understandable that it is unreasonable for a family to transport their toddler in the hold. The same applies to people who have a close relationship with a pet. Often they really have a kind of mental dependency on the animal.

A mental dependency on an animal is seen as a human right in the West as well as a dependency on an animal because of, for example, a visual impairment.

In the US, a creative legal system makes it possible to become incredibly rich anytime you complain to a very wealthy company. Airlines are incredibly rich. Therefore, they avoid the risk of being caught by a passenger on USD $$. $$$. $$$,- to be sued for not being allowed to take his pet with them. Human rights issues also play a role here, mental cruelty, etc.

The airlines are in a very uncomfortable situation here. If they ban the support animals' support, they will be sued and they will lose. If they do not forbid them, they will sooner or later be sued as well, and they will lose as well.

The whole is therefore above all a US topic because in other continents such as Europe, for example, the taking of a dog in an aircraft cabin alone would be impossible for religious reasons. Dogs are considered unclean in religion with the highest increase and prevalence.

Quote from a well-known German actor:
You can also live without a dog, but it's not worth it.
(Heinz Rühmann, actor 1902-1994)

In addition:
I would be happy to pay a full paid seat on air travel for our dog to transport it in a dog travel box to save him the risk of a journey in the cargo hold. I would not expose any other family member to this risk negligently.
Unfortunately this is not possible due to the size (30kg / 70lbs).
Therefore, we have waived for now almost ten years on travel destinations which can only be sensibly reached by plane.

You talk about human rights, but what about the human rights of all the flight attendants that have to deal with this? Shouldn't they be entitled to a safe work environment? As if the worry of being attacked by a human passenger wasn't enough now they should worry about being attacked by an animal too? Flight attendant's have to take self defense training to deal with passengers, should they now be trained to eliminate a threat from an animal?

flySFO wrote:

....I can fly roundtrip on southwest for $100 but then I have to spend an additional $200 to bring my dog? The dog is going under the seat like a backpack, we don’t charge extra for a backpack under the seat do we?
If airlines removed or significantly reduced the fees for in-cabin pets, 95% of these fake ESA dogs would magically become under-seat in-cabin pets.

stl07 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Envoy is not a mainline Flight Attendant

As frequently stated on this site, regional FAs are not humans and therefore deserve no sympathy and none of the rights given to mainline FAs. The bite must hurt less since regional FAs are less than human

Super80Fan wrote:

Well, to be fair, most regional FA's tend to whine more about doing their job over their mainline counterparts even though they voluntarily signed up to be a FA.

LG777 wrote:

On top of that if the dog would have be in most of the European countries an beaten to blood he would be euthanasied as he tasted human blood.

triple3driver wrote:

And this my friends, is another failure of the US emotional support animal system, when will we learn? Does anyone know when this whole fad even became a thing?

nine4nine wrote:

If they aren’t a certified service pet then they belong in the cargo hold. But the best place for them and their entitled owners entirely...IS AT HOME!

SonaSounds wrote:

An American Airlines flight attendant was bitten by an emotional support dog on a flight from Dallas to North Carolina Monday, prompting union calls to further tighten rules on in-flight animals.

The incident occurred on American flight 3506 from Dallas-Fort Worth to Greensboro, North Carolina, an American Eagleflight operated by Envoy Air, a subsidiary of American. The plane was an Embraer 175, a regional jet.

The unnamed male flight attendant required five stitches on his left hand when he returned to Dallas, American spokesman Ross Feinstein said. The type of dog was not disclosed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/a ... 808632001/

With the rules for emotional support animal being stretched more and more do you think this incident will finally start reining-in this issue?