In news that will undoubtedly welcomed by a vast majority of fliers, agents, and cabin crew, the DOT is revisiting its requirement that "emotional support animals" be boarded under the same conditions as service animals; henceforth, only trained service animals will fit in that category.

This crack-down has been requested by airlines, passengers, and even those who have a legitimate need for an actual service animal, and the DOT has finally responded.


https://www.businessinsider.com/dot-is- ... es-2020-12

Here is the official publication of the rule on this.https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... 20Rule.pdf
It pretty much limits to certified trained dogs as service animals. All other animals in cabin transportation would no longer be able to use the 'emotional support' loophole and have to pay the appropiate fees. Of course, I wonder how long before a lawsuit on this on ADA grounds.

ltbewr wrote:

Here is the official publication of the rule on this.https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... 20Rule.pdf
It pretty much limits to certified trained dogs as service animals. All other animals in cabin transportation would no longer be able to use the 'emotional support' loophole and have to pay the appropiate fees. Of course, I wonder how long before a lawsuit on this on ADA grounds.

ACAA is the appropriate regulation for airlines, not ADA as far as I'm aware.

I just wish someone would license whoever is giving out the service animal labels / training.

The carrier can then lookup and printout a picture of the trained animal.

At check in you just provide the license number of the animal. Keep the carriers out of the whole game, and keep the crazy badly behaved animals off the plane.

I've seen "service animals" barking nonstop, pooping, clearly not under verbal control etc etc. For anyone who knows what an actual service animal can do (amazing things) it is totally insulting that these animals are considered service animals. If a certification / training facility is not training up animals to a reasonable standard or signing off on bogus ones, the carriers or FAA can block acceptance of that certification.

This rule is LONG overdue.

The animals made the zoo like experience of flying more realistic. It’s a shame they are doing away with this entertainment.

The DOT covered Every angle on this new ruling and worked with every ADA official group to set forth new regulations.
Good riddance to the Scammers and abused ESA BS system.

Flyguy

wnflyguy wrote:

The DOT covered Every angle on this new ruling and worked with every ADA official group to set forth new regulations.
Good riddance to the Scammers and abused ESA BS system.

Flyguy

A hundred different vendors on Amazon who hawk "SUPPORT ANIMAL" labeled vests, harnesses, and other pet paraphernalia just saw their incomes go up in smoke. Good riddance indeed.

I've seen several instances where a trained service animal was attacked by these "emotional support" ones that are really just pets masquerading as support animals to circumvent pet fees, and the attack undoes untold numbers of hours of training costing tens of thousands of dollars, as the poor service animal - who has been trained to not fear attack from other animals - suddenly is incapable of doing their job after that.

All so someone could avoid paying $100 and keep their Chihuahua on their lap.

I guess Chuckles, my emotional support cobra, will be going in the cargo hold from now on. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Cubsrule wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

I guess Chuckles, my emotional support cobra, will be going in the cargo hold from now on. What could possibly go wrong with that?

I was on an AA flight a couple of years ago that was delayed by some tomfoolery involving an emotional support parrot who ultimately flew. If that delay had caused folks to misconnect, I don’t expect the parrot would have left the aircraft alive.

Reminds me of Jerry Reed's "The Bird"

EA CO AS wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

The DOT covered Every angle on this new ruling and worked with every ADA official group to set forth new regulations.
Good riddance to the Scammers and abused ESA BS system.

Flyguy

A hundred different vendors on Amazon who hawk "SUPPORT ANIMAL" labeled vests, harnesses, and other pet paraphernalia just saw their incomes go up in smoke. Good riddance indeed.

I've seen several instances where a trained service animal was attacked by these "emotional support" ones that are really just pets masquerading as support animals to circumvent pet fees, and the attack undoes untold numbers of hours of training costing tens of thousands of dollars, as the poor service animal - who has been trained to not fear attack from other animals - suddenly is incapable of doing their job after that.

All so someone could avoid paying $100 and keep their Chihuahua on their lap.

I saw a boxer "emotional support animal" piddle on the nice clean carpet on the jetway as we exited. When we asked the young lady whose animal this was if she was going to clean it up, she gave us the finger and stalked off. Which really wasn't much of a surprise. If you're willing to lie to bring your pet, you're fine with your pet soiling a public facility and walking off leaving American Eagle to deal with a jetway soaked in doggie pee.

MrPeanut wrote:

The animals made the zoo like experience of flying more realistic. It’s a shame they are doing away with this entertainment.

Exactly this. It’s sort of like the huge giraffe that used to be standing there in Concourse E at MIA. Somehow given all that was going on around you it just seemed right for a zoo animal to be there.

Cubsrule wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

I guess Chuckles, my emotional support cobra, will be going in the cargo hold from now on. What could possibly go wrong with that?

I was on an AA flight a couple of years ago that was delayed by some tomfoolery involving an emotional support parrot who ultimately flew. If that delay had caused folks to misconnect, I don’t expect the parrot would have left the aircraft alive.

“Emotional support, emotional support, CAW CAW, emotional support”

EA CO AS wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

The DOT covered Every angle on this new ruling and worked with every ADA official group to set forth new regulations.
Good riddance to the Scammers and abused ESA BS system.

Flyguy

A hundred different vendors on Amazon who hawk "SUPPORT ANIMAL" labeled vests, harnesses, and other pet paraphernalia just saw their incomes go up in smoke.

Why? They'll just change the wording to "SERVICE ANIMAL" and the passengers will sign whatever silly attestation form the DOT comes up with.

This is long overdue!

I was mauled by a dog when I was six years old, and I've been terrified of dogs ever since.

It's very gratifying that the US Government has finally showed empathy towards people like me who have been hurt by dogs, instead of continuing to allow dog owners to deliberately torment other travelers.

What is so terrifying about flying in the US, the rest of the world seems to be able to check their pets in.

zeke wrote:

What is so terrifying about flying in the US, the rest of the world seems to be able to check their pets in.

People in the US are far more selfish than people in other parts of the world are.

In most parts of the world, people leave their pets at home, out of respect for their fellow travelers.

In the US, dog owners have total contempt for their fellow travelers; they know their dogs will make the lives of other travelers miserable, but US dog owners only care about themselves.

Of course, US dog owners are just as contemptuous of others when they are at home; few dog owners bother to pick up their dogs' fecal matter, even if their dogs defecate on the sidewalk or someone else's lawn.

zeke wrote:

What is so terrifying about flying in the US, the rest of the world seems to be able to check their pets in.

There's the matter of avoiding a fee: UA (for one) is $125 each way domestically. There are pet size restrictions and the demand that pets be kept in kennels under the seat, with a lot more latitude given comfort animals. Plus, for a sizeable sociopathic cohort, there's the joy of scamming: they're getting away with something.

Finally, good news on the animal front. I understand trained disability animals. BTW - air carriers are exempt from ADA, they are covered under separate laws and regulations.

AWACSooner wrote:

I guess Chuckles, my emotional support cobra, will be going in the cargo hold from now on. What could possibly go wrong with that?

...something, something, too many snakes on this plane.

The airlines did this to themselves.... they want $250 RT or $375 for a 3 leg itinerary for my 9 pound dog to go under the seat in front of me. 50% of the time the seatmate had no idea there was even a dog there. If the fee was commensurate with the space and cost (i.e $25 each way), people wouldn't have abused the system.

Fantastic news to hear. Long overdue and a good corrective measure.

I'll admit that I'll miss the trainwreck stories of crazy animals on planes though, LOL

We should collect pictures of the most exotic animals that played this role?

AWACSooner wrote:

I guess Chuckles, my emotional support cobra, will be going in the cargo hold from now on. What could possibly go wrong with that?

I have an Emotional Support Mongoose, maybe they can share a cage!

Its good to stop the fake people and make them pay their fair animal transportation fees. It also helps the people who really need these animals as these fake people add alot of stress and pain for them. Service animals can hopefully be better accommodated now too

twincommander wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

I guess Chuckles, my emotional support cobra, will be going in the cargo hold from now on. What could possibly go wrong with that?

I was on an AA flight a couple of years ago that was delayed by some tomfoolery involving an emotional support parrot who ultimately flew. If that delay had caused folks to misconnect, I don’t expect the parrot would have left the aircraft alive.

Reminds me of Jerry Reed's "The Bird"

Really? A parrot joke and that's the one you come up with? Not Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch?

txjim wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

I guess Chuckles, my emotional support cobra, will be going in the cargo hold from now on. What could possibly go wrong with that?

I have an Emotional Support Mongoose, maybe they can share a cage!

Add a Gopro in the cage, will be fun to watch.

RL757PVD wrote:

The airlines did this to themselves.... they want $250 RT or $375 for a 3 leg itinerary for my 9 pound dog to go under the seat in front of me. 50% of the time the seatmate had no idea there was even a dog there. If the fee was commensurate with the space and cost (i.e $25 each way), people wouldn't have abused the system.

I would guess the fees came from a few things. Number one, of course, was a revenue stream. A second reason was probably the amount of times pets had to be cleaned up after so, which created the third thing, which was high costs to discourage animals coming. But, I suspect as well, if animals died in transit, the liability went up consequently so did customer cost.

davescj wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

The airlines did this to themselves.... they want $250 RT or $375 for a 3 leg itinerary for my 9 pound dog to go under the seat in front of me. 50% of the time the seatmate had no idea there was even a dog there. If the fee was commensurate with the space and cost (i.e $25 each way), people wouldn't have abused the system.

I would guess the fees came from a few things. Number one, of course, was a revenue stream. A second reason was probably the amount of times pets had to be cleaned up after so, which created the third thing, which was high costs to discourage animals coming. But, I suspect as well, if animals died in transit, the liability went up consequently so did customer cost.

As far as a revenue stream goes, I would hazard a guess it will have a negative impact. Most of these people aren't going to pay and in fact may travel less or use other modes, not a significant amount but not the cash cow that a bunch of MBA's chained to a desk would think.

I will fully admit that while the paperwork is legit, I don't need an ESAN, but I dont have anyone to watch my dog while in temporarily relocated to MIA for work. I've flown enough to make Exec Platinum at AA this year but if they restrict or don't lower the fees, I'll be executive plastic on AA by 2022. I wont stop flying but may relocate my client assignments to allow for less travel.

$25 each way, Id have already paid it every time.

davescj wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

The airlines did this to themselves.... they want $250 RT or $375 for a 3 leg itinerary for my 9 pound dog to go under the seat in front of me. 50% of the time the seatmate had no idea there was even a dog there. If the fee was commensurate with the space and cost (i.e $25 each way), people wouldn't have abused the system.

I would guess the fees came from a few things. Number one, of course, was a revenue stream. A second reason was probably the amount of times pets had to be cleaned up after so, which created the third thing, which was high costs to discourage animals coming. But, I suspect as well, if animals died in transit, the liability went up consequently so did customer cost.

Every time I had a service animal, pet or ESA on a flight, there were a number of complaints as well. You would think that the majority of the US population has a debilitating allergy to every animal on the face of the earth.

Well I know I sound like the old man screaming "get off my lawn" but there was a time in which other than physically disabled people (primarily the blind) pets didn't travel with people. People either drove, but them in the cargo hold or found a way of transporting their pooch. And I know 30 years ago people faced similar situations of the need to travel for work but have a pooch or a kitty to take care but found a way to do so without dragging Fido or Tabby along with them on every flight.

Now I know some pets are well behaved albeit do I really want to maneuver over a Great Dane to get to the lav?

I think my about parents. My father that fought in WW2 and saw what none of us ever should see. My mother grew up the daughter of 2 poor immigrants, including my grandfather that died of lung cancer because he worked in a coal mine and as a non English speaking immigrant was given the worst jobs. From what I was told by my mother his illness and death (well before the cancer therapies of today) was gruesome and several years long. And the viewing process and funeral sounded just as horrifying. She was a teenager at the time. Yet both went on to to be well paid professionals and they didn't need a dog or a cat (or a bird, lizard, snake, mouse, etc.) to "emotionally" support them. Like I say if you want to know how dumb society has become just go to an airport and look around.

cjg225 wrote:

twincommander wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I was on an AA flight a couple of years ago that was delayed by some tomfoolery involving an emotional support parrot who ultimately flew. If that delay had caused folks to misconnect, I don’t expect the parrot would have left the aircraft alive.

Reminds me of Jerry Reed's "The Bird"

Really? A parrot joke and that's the one you come up with? Not Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch?

It wasn't dead! ...Yet.

WA707atMSP wrote:

I was mauled by a dog when I was six years old, and I've been terrified of dogs ever since.

I can empathize. My niece was attacked by a police K-9 when she was 7 (at their church of all places). Come to find out, she was the third child attacked by this supposedly well trained dog that wasn't on a leash (which ironically is against the county's own rules).

Thankfully my niece's family has their own dog (a Pit of all things) and I think that's been good therapy for her but she'll need plastic surgery when she's older to fix the big scars on her thigh. For a long time she was afraid to go anywhere there might be "police dogs".

It is a good to remember that no matter how well trained a dog is, it's still a dog with a mind of its own. In the case of ESA animals, there is no training, so it's not surprising there are so many incidents.

What upsets me about the current ESA policies is that the airlines are virtually powerless to stop people from abusing the policies. And inevitably when these dogs attack people on their planes, the airlines are the ones that get sued. I'm sure lawyers love it, but it's hardly fair.

RDUDDJI wrote:

WA707atMSP wrote:

I was mauled by a dog when I was six years old, and I've been terrified of dogs ever since.

I can empathize. My niece was attacked by a police K-9 when she was 7 (at their church of all places). Come to find out, she was the third child attacked by this supposedly well trained dog that wasn't on a leash (which ironically is against the county's own rules).

Thankfully my niece's family has their own dog (a Pit of all things) and I think that's been good therapy for her but she'll need plastic surgery when she's older to fix the big scars on her thigh. For a long time she was afraid to go anywhere there might be "police dogs".

It is a good to remember that no matter how well trained a dog is, it's still a dog with a mind of its own. In the case of ESA animals, there is no training, so it's not surprising there are so many incidents.

What upsets me about the current ESA policies is that the airlines are virtually powerless to stop people from abusing the policies. And inevitably when these dogs attack people on their planes, the airlines are the ones that get sued. I'm sure lawyers love it, but it's hardly fair.

And I know I should shut up on this topic. But people that think they need to travel with their dog or cat forget how traumatic it is for their dog or cat when that animal is suddenly introduced into a very unfamiliar environment. People forget how much more sensitive hearing is to a cat or dog. Imagine what an airplane environment does to the animal's sense of security. No wonder when I often look at these pets they have that look of sheer terror in their eyes. And no surprise that a well trained dog or cat suddenly goes on the attack or simply "unloads" all over the seat or carpet.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

txjim wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

I guess Chuckles, my emotional support cobra, will be going in the cargo hold from now on. What could possibly go wrong with that?

I have an Emotional Support Mongoose, maybe they can share a cage!

Add a Gopro in the cage, will be fun to watch.

PPV on the seatback IFE...could raise a TON of money for the airlines in the betting pools!

Miamiairport wrote:

And I know I should shut up on this topic. But people that think they need to travel with their dog or cat forget how traumatic it is for their dog or cat when that animal is suddenly introduced into a very unfamiliar environment. People forget how much more sensitive hearing is to a cat or dog. Imagine what an airplane environment does to the animal's sense of security. No wonder when I often look at these pets they have that look of sheer terror in their eyes. And no surprise that a well trained dog or cat suddenly goes on the attack or simply "unloads" all over the seat or carpet.

Sometimes you have to. And it's far less traumatic to be in the cabin than in the hold. My mother's cat flew in the hold and was a terrified chicken for a long period after that experience.

I'm not disagreeing that this ESA was being grossly abused, but there are many valid reasons for a pet to travel.

Miamiairport wrote:

Now I know some pets are well behaved albeit do I really want to maneuver over a Great Dane to get to the lav?

I don't want to maneuver around a kid running in the aisles or listen to a self-important businessperson announcing their importance on the phone either. But we do.

I don't understand why people need an emotional support animal. When I travel for liesure, I always travel with my dog. Delta just made $250 off my under the seat sleeping dog. (You won't even know she is there).

I do this as I like my dog and refuse to scam a fake emotional support pet.

Note: no terror for my dog. She dislikes the bag, but is ok as she loves the destinations. I know her hearing us great as only myself and one daughter can also hear among all our neighbors the distant owl she'll get into an argument with... (who-who... bark bark... who-who...)

When told "no dog", I happily change my travel plans.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I don't understand why people need an emotional support animal. When I travel for liesure, I always travel with my dog. Delta just made $250 off my under the seat sleeping dog. (You won't even know she is there).

I do this as I like my dog and refuse to scam a fake emotional support pet.

Note: no terror for my dog. She dislikes the bag, but is ok as she loves the destinations. I know her hearing us great as only myself and one daughter can also hear among all our neighbors the distant owl she'll get into an argument with... (who-who... bark bark... who-who...)

When told "no dog", I happily change my travel plans.

Lightsaber

well said

KFLLCFII wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

The DOT covered Every angle on this new ruling and worked with every ADA official group to set forth new regulations.
Good riddance to the Scammers and abused ESA BS system.

Flyguy

A hundred different vendors on Amazon who hawk "SUPPORT ANIMAL" labeled vests, harnesses, and other pet paraphernalia just saw their incomes go up in smoke.

Why? They'll just change the wording to "SERVICE ANIMAL" and the passengers will sign whatever silly attestation form the DOT comes up with.

Because the forms, just like the ones these BS scam artists sell online, have to state it's a service animal. And there's a very clear definition of what a service animal is. An "emotional support" animal didn't require that; you'd just get the online BS scam artist to "evaluate you" over the phone and they'd write something vague saying you suffered from PTSD or whatever and required an emotional support animal.

Can't do that with a service animal, which now, by DOT definition, is a DOG that performs a SERVICE for you. Just existing isn't a service, and that's what emotional support animals did.

RL757PVD wrote:

The airlines did this to themselves.... they want $250 RT or $375 for a 3 leg itinerary for my 9 pound dog to go under the seat in front of me. 50% of the time the seatmate had no idea there was even a dog there. If the fee was commensurate with the space and cost (i.e $25 each way), people wouldn't have abused the system.

I think the idea was to dissuade people from flying with pets, not so much the revenue stream. Pets in cabin cause other issues with soiling, constant barking or whining. I once sat near a lady and her yorkie that yapped for three straight hours, while she thought that was so cute. Then there's reaccommodation required for those with pet allergies, or pet phobias (from those that had previous bad experiences) there was always an issue it seemed. Then some customers try and cram a 40 pound dog into a small carryon and think its ok. Then the arguments start. The poor dog looks like a cartoon character, unable to move, fur and legs sticking out everywhere at un-natural angles. But hey, that's ok for some owners.
The cabin pets are more trouble than it's worth; ship them as cargo or not at all. Preferably, not at all; some pets perish due to the sheer terror, poor things , they don't understand what's happening to them, all their sensitive ears hear are roaring sounds of APU's, engines, belt-loaders, cargo loaders, etc right next to them as they sit in their kennels. Then there's the roar of takeoff, and on and on. I would NEVER ship my pet like that, I love them too much to do that to them. I'll drive them; even if cross-country.

EA CO AS wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

A hundred different vendors on Amazon who hawk "SUPPORT ANIMAL" labeled vests, harnesses, and other pet paraphernalia just saw their incomes go up in smoke.

Why? They'll just change the wording to "SERVICE ANIMAL" and the passengers will sign whatever silly attestation form the DOT comes up with.

Because the forms, just like the ones these BS scam artists sell online, have to state it's a service animal. And there's a very clear definition of what a service animal is. An "emotional support" animal didn't require that; you'd just get the online BS scam artist to "evaluate you" over the phone and they'd write something vague saying you suffered from PTSD or whatever and required an emotional support animal.

Can't do that with a service animal, which now, by DOT definition, is a DOG that performs a SERVICE for you. Just existing isn't a service, and that's what emotional support animals did.

That's not going to stop anyone from slapping a "SERVICE ANIMAL" device on their dog and signing the form.

KFLLCFII wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

Why? They'll just change the wording to "SERVICE ANIMAL" and the passengers will sign whatever silly attestation form the DOT comes up with.

Because the forms, just like the ones these BS scam artists sell online, have to state it's a service animal. And there's a very clear definition of what a service animal is. An "emotional support" animal didn't require that; you'd just get the online BS scam artist to "evaluate you" over the phone and they'd write something vague saying you suffered from PTSD or whatever and required an emotional support animal.

Can't do that with a service animal, which now, by DOT definition, is a DOG that performs a SERVICE for you. Just existing isn't a service, and that's what emotional support animals did.

That's not going to stop anyone from slapping a "SERVICE ANIMAL" device on their dog and signing the form.

I think you're missing the point; they're not signing the form. Their DOCTOR is. Physicians, even the sketchy online ones, are generally okay with saying someone would benefit from having an emotional support animal, but now they'd have to be saying the person needs a SERVICE animal, one that actually performs a service for them.

Doctors are much less likely to sign a form affirming that a person needs a service animal when they really don't.

EA CO AS, I hope you are right. But, I know of people getting letters from people purporting to be doctors online. I hope that stops.

slvrblt wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

The airlines did this to themselves.... they want $250 RT or $375 for a 3 leg itinerary for my 9 pound dog to go under the seat in front of me. 50% of the time the seatmate had no idea there was even a dog there. If the fee was commensurate with the space and cost (i.e $25 each way), people wouldn't have abused the system.

I think the idea was to dissuade people from flying with pets, not so much the revenue stream. Pets in cabin cause other issues with soiling, constant barking or whining. I once sat near a lady and her yorkie that yapped for three straight hours, while she thought that was so cute. Then there's reaccommodation required for those with pet allergies, or pet phobias (from those that had previous bad experiences) there was always an issue it seemed. Then some customers try and cram a 40 pound dog into a small carryon and think its ok. Then the arguments start. The poor dog looks like a cartoon character, unable to move, fur and legs sticking out everywhere at un-natural angles. But hey, that's ok for some owners.
The cabin pets are more trouble than it's worth; ship them as cargo or not at all. Preferably, not at all; some pets perish due to the sheer terror, poor things , they don't understand what's happening to them, all their sensitive ears hear are roaring sounds of APU's, engines, belt-loaders, cargo loaders, etc right next to them as they sit in their kennels. Then there's the roar of takeoff, and on and on. I would NEVER ship my pet like that, I love them too much to do that to them. I'll drive them; even if cross-country.

I've taken 100 flights with my dog and have never had an issue or seen an issue, My last trip we had a German shepherd in the row behind us on one leg, anfd on the return my seatmate actually had a cat. Im allergic and had no issues (if the flters are good for covid, then they are probably fine for animal allergies too).

Quite frankly the dogs are less of an issue than people based on my experience.

EA CO AS wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Because the forms, just like the ones these BS scam artists sell online, have to state it's a service animal. And there's a very clear definition of what a service animal is. An "emotional support" animal didn't require that; you'd just get the online BS scam artist to "evaluate you" over the phone and they'd write something vague saying you suffered from PTSD or whatever and required an emotional support animal.

Can't do that with a service animal, which now, by DOT definition, is a DOG that performs a SERVICE for you. Just existing isn't a service, and that's what emotional support animals did.

That's not going to stop anyone from slapping a "SERVICE ANIMAL" device on their dog and signing the form.

I think you're missing the point; they're not signing the form. Their DOCTOR is. Physicians, even the sketchy online ones, are generally okay with saying someone would benefit from having an emotional support animal, but now they'd have to be saying the person needs a SERVICE animal, one that actually performs a service for them.

Doctors are much less likely to sign a form affirming that a person needs a service animal when they really don't.

Word gets out. People know what doctor to see if they want an oxy script and they'll know who will sign off on their pet.

slvrblt wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

The airlines did this to themselves.... they want $250 RT or $375 for a 3 leg itinerary for my 9 pound dog to go under the seat in front of me. 50% of the time the seatmate had no idea there was even a dog there. If the fee was commensurate with the space and cost (i.e $25 each way), people wouldn't have abused the system.

I think the idea was to dissuade people from flying with pets, not so much the revenue stream. Pets in cabin cause other issues with soiling, constant barking or whining. I once sat near a lady and her yorkie that yapped for three straight hours, while she thought that was so cute. Then there's reaccommodation required for those with pet allergies, or pet phobias (from those that had previous bad experiences) there was always an issue it seemed. Then some customers try and cram a 40 pound dog into a small carryon and think its ok. Then the arguments start. The poor dog looks like a cartoon character, unable to move, fur and legs sticking out everywhere at un-natural angles. But hey, that's ok for some owners.
The cabin pets are more trouble than it's worth; ship them as cargo or not at all. Preferably, not at all; some pets perish due to the sheer terror, poor things , they don't understand what's happening to them, all their sensitive ears hear are roaring sounds of APU's, engines, belt-loaders, cargo loaders, etc right next to them as they sit in their kennels. Then there's the roar of takeoff, and on and on. I would NEVER ship my pet like that, I love them too much to do that to them. I'll drive them; even if cross-country.

Yes, those are the two main points:

(1) this is not a revenue grab, this is an attempt to stop the unfettered access to the cabin by uncontrolled animals who have no business being there. Large dogs, clearly unhappy, occupying a passenger seat.
(2) It's not good for the animals either. There are clearly animals in distress - perhaps not all animals, but there are animals in distress and where that's true it's animal cruelty.

To unpack some things here. First, for those that have said "but my dog is well behaved and never a problem for anyone" I get it. In fact I'd prefer a plane full of well behaved pooches and kittys any day over some of the people that get on planes today.

However, commercial airlines are in the business of transporting human beings from Point A to Point B. And unfortunately that means miserable screaming kids with clueless parents, DYKWIA types screaming in a cell phone at some poor underlining and morons screaming into FaceTime that they are on an airplane (like they're flying to the moon). Also unfortunately, in particularly in today's environment, some pet owners are not very responsible and accordingly their pets aren't that well trained. And with that comes non stop barking, growling, nipping at others and yes soiling the a/c carpeting or seats.

Now flight crew can be called upon to halt the disruption of shall we say difficult passengers as described above. To a certain limit naturally. But if Fido is barking his head off and growling like crazy not much flight crew can do. And while Mr. Important might be annoying he likely isn't going to defecate on the floor in front of you.

It was really awkward selling the turkey wrap to the person with an emotional support turkey.

How do cabin crew and/or gate agents address the safety and comfort concerns onboard a full flight when a ‘Service Animal‘ of large/high-body mass is traveling? For example, a ‘Service Animal‘ in the form
of a tall Greyhound or a Labrador requires the under seat space of two assigned seats in Economy Class, but the passenger only purchased one seat. When the animal requires the under seat space of two passengers, then what happens when the flight is full? Is the passenger (and service animal) offloaded? Are there policies in place similar to passenger baggage allowances regarding the maximum dimensions allowed within the passenger cabin for service animals?

In any case, I welcome the latest improvements concerning ‘service animals onboard.’ I wish for all passengers and crew, flying onboard the domestic services within the United States, to enjoy an improved cabin environment. =)