I'm guessing there's way more to this story - so any thoughts would be appreciated. Supposedly Alaska Airlines chose to allow an ESA Cat and its owner on board instead of an unaccompanied 15 year old, who then had to spend the night at the stopover point.

Many more details at the link - wasn't sure how much I could paste here.

https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/alas ... o-won.html

A flight attendant, who seems more sympathetic to the girl than the customer service agent in the mom's telling, then called the girl's mother. She explained that as much as she'd like to remove the cat from the plane, its owner had actually bought the cat a ticket.

Now, the flight attendant said, the cat owner was insisting that if anyone had to leave the plane, it should be the girl--not her cat. And that's exactly what happened: the airline told the 15-year-old she could either stay on the flight and risk an allergic reaction, or else get off and staying overnight in Anchorage.

"So, an hour ago," the girl's mother wrote, "my 15-year-old minor child was removed from Flight 153

An interesting scenario, but after countless of these stories lately, I'm fried. It's like serving on a jury in perpetuity. So for those reasons, I'm out.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

An interesting scenario, but after countless of these stories lately, I'm fried. It's like serving on a jury in perpetuity. So for those reasons, I'm out.

True, but I do vote for children over adults with an ESA.

These stories of airlines denying pax are getting old. It has been happening for decades. Were it not for social media, these every day occurrences would never make the news.

I'm not saying it didn't happen (I wasn't there), but AS' service animal policy explicitly prohibits ESAs from occupying a seat (it's at https://www.alaskaair.com/content/trave ... rt-animals).

Removing the cat doesn't remove the danger if the child is severely allergic unfortunately. If the cat was already boarded, hair and dander are already in the aircraft's air system and the child would still be in danger even if the pet was removed.

Agreed with above^^, but where Alaska went wrong was with the victim shaming.

Weird that we can make air travel extremely safe, but can’t figure out these sorts of issues from happening. Perhaps add a question to booking regarding allergies, and if the cat is booked first (hopefully not simultaneously...), then the cat wins, booking would require accommodation or the person allergic would have to fly at their own risk. Otherwise if it’s the allergic person who books first, they win and the cat can’t board (sadly!). But yeah the concern is when bookings happen almost simultaneously...

What happened to the day when you just boarded your flight, got from point a to point b? No one got sick. Now you can’t even have peanuts on the flight.

I am a cat person. I love cats. There, I said it. Here's is the issue as I see it, and taking the Facebook post as accurate...

If its in the flier's profile that they are allergic, then it is Alaska's job to check that profile when she's flying to see if there are any kitties on board. Otherwise, what's the point of having said data? Why compile a passenger profile at all?

lavalampluva wrote:

What happened to the day when you just boarded your flight, got from point a to point b? No one got sick. Now you can’t even have peanuts on the flight.

what happened to the day when the only animals in the cabin where served to you on a tray?
This girl had a declared allergy (to the carrier) and a freakin' epi pen.
The cats ticket was purchased (per the article) shortly before the flight (presumably after the girl).

To me, this is one of the few times where the circumstances seem reasonably clear.

I miss the good ol' days where people could live for a couple of hours without clutching a "support" animal - or those people just didn't fly.

who's to say that the seat the child was to occupy wasn't previously occupied by someone with a cat? Or the seat next to it... Airplanes are not deep cleaned between each flight. If someone is that sensitive to allergens then an public airplane seat is probably not a great idea.

The whole emotional support animal thing is a completely load of BS cooked up by people to allow them to bring their pets where they aren't supposed to bring them. This is getting ridiculous and needs to stop. If you can't leave home without your pet them perhaps you shouldn't leave home at all. The world is a scary place and your cat isn't going to save you. Sorry if this comes across as cold but I am tired of the system being abused by people. Leave your damn pet at home.

I don't understand why can't they just switch seats?
They can just move one of them towards the front of the cabin and one towards the aft! It looks like a 737 flight, and even if it is a combi flight, there should be enough distance between them.

I felt bad for the girl because flights to these remote Alaska cities are not frequent as between major cities.

Carfield

ASFlyer wrote:

who's to say that the seat the child was to occupy wasn't previously occupied by someone with a cat? Or the seat next to it... Airplanes are not deep cleaned between each flight. If someone is that sensitive to allergens then an public airplane seat is probably not a great idea.

why do people make these kinds of arguments? There's a massive difference between passive exposure to traces of allergens, and direct proximity in an enclosed space to living organism to which you are quickly affected by. Is this really hard to picture?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

An interesting scenario, but after countless of these stories lately, I'm fried. It's like serving on a jury in perpetuity. So for those reasons, I'm out.

The work of the Internet Sleuths social justice warriors must go on though.

Judging cases with partial info from Eye witnesses that Proper examination has shown can be and is wrong with bias many many many times. ( Look at the Charlotte NC Police shooting investigation, 4 white cops one black cop and people were saying the white cops shot and they saw from there porch. FBI investigation show time after time many see what they think/want to happen.)

I can only imagine how tiring it must be.

Indy wrote:

This is getting ridiculous and needs to stop. If you can't leave home without your pet them perhaps you shouldn't leave home at all. The world is a scary place and your cat isn't going to save you. Sorry if this comes across as cold but I am tired of the system being abused by people. Leave your damn pet at home.

Can't help but agree with this. There's sensitivity and then there's pandering.

FlyHappy wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

What happened to the day when you just boarded your flight, got from point a to point b? No one got sick. Now you can’t even have peanuts on the flight.

what happened to the day when the only animals in the cabin where served to you on a tray?
This girl had a declared allergy (to the carrier) and a freakin' epi pen.
The cats ticket was purchased (per the article) shortly before the flight (presumably after the girl).

To me, this is one of the few times where the circumstances seem reasonably clear.

I miss the good ol' days where people could live for a couple of hours without clutching a "support" animal - or those people just didn't fly.

I wasn't able to access the article, but was the cat's "ticket...purchased shortly before the flight" merely the In-Cabin Animal Fee, perhaps only $200 or so, which is normally assessed upon check-in?

It's hard to believe that the cat's owner actually bought a new ticket on the day of departure, which would have cost quite a lot -- and besides Alaska wouldn't allow an animal to be in a seat --

Very hard to fathom this situation, and I wonder how the young girl was actually accommodated overnight. Poor thing!

Really, this "emotional support animal" nonsense must stop!

As an aside -- on Saturday afternoon, I was strolling around IAH Terminal B, when I saw a lady with a gray Schnauzer walking it loose -- no "Service Animal" vest or anything -- which is against City regulations. Near the elevator entrance to the United Club is a pillar, where the dog raised its leg and relieved itself! The woman appeared to have no sense of shame, as if the act were a matter of course, and when the dog was done, she simply walked on.

A nicely dressed UA customer nearby was shocked and asked me if this sort of thing is allowed, and I said NO, it's against the rules -- but of course who would dare these days to confront the "ESA" or other in-cabin pet folks who flout the rules and common decency. (Certainly not my job function, but I did bring the incident to the attention of a UA manager.)

I've also seen piles of dog poo on carpets around the airport -- disgusting.

lavalampluva wrote:

What happened to the day when you just boarded your flight, got from point a to point b? No one got sick. Now you can’t even have peanuts on the flight.

People still got sick back in the day, grandpa.

Makes me miss the good old days when people had a modicum of common sense and the crazy cat lady down the street wasn't allowed to bring her "emotional support animal" on a public conveyance.

I think the fact that the animal was and ESA is irrelevant. AS allows people to bring cats and dogs onboard the aircraft if they are in a pet carrier. It would be unfair for AS to deny boarding to someone who brought a pet onboard and followed all the procedures. While I feel sorry for the girl, I think AS made the right decision.

Carfield wrote:

I don't understand why can't they just switch seats?
They can just move one of them towards the front of the cabin and one towards the aft! It looks like a 737 flight, and even if it is a combi flight, there should be enough distance between them.

I felt bad for the girl because flights to these remote Alaska cities are not frequent as between major cities.

Carfield

Upon further reading, it looks like they offered, but judging by the mom's Facebook post, she was being a royal pain to deal with. Also, I was technically wrong in the title it looks like - they didn't pay for the kid to be a UM - she was just a minor traveling alone.

From her Facebook (I censored it - mom of the year didn't)

Now, the CSA agent calls and says, “we are going to take care of her,” so I ask, “how? I’m in Kotzebue and she’s in Anchorage. You’re taking her off the flight, how is that taking care of her??!” The response is, “we will put the cat at the back of the plan (inside) and put her as far up as we can, and hopefully the air circulating doesn’t circulate dander, but the passenger can’t fly without her cat, so...” I cut her off, “so, instead you’re going to force a 15 year old to HOPE she doesn’t have an allergic reaction on an hour and fifteen minute flight, so the lady can fly with her cat?” Her response was, “well, if she’s not comfortable flying she can get off the plane.”

WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F**K IS GOING ON?!

By this time, I’m beyond mad. I’m extremely calm (like so calm you guys!) that I say, “my daughter is not comfortable flying in a closed cabin with a cat that she’s severely allergic to, and if you REFUSE to make a human life more important than an animal life then I am going to support her in her choice on not getting on the flight with the cat.” Not even joking you she said, “ok so it’s your choice to take her off the flight.” What. The. F**k. Still, I stay calm and respond, “I’m saying that I support my child’s choice to live. And what is your name by the way?”

https://www.facebook.com/finnskimo/post ... 4292765042

Schweigend wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

What happened to the day when you just boarded your flight, got from point a to point b? No one got sick. Now you can’t even have peanuts on the flight.

what happened to the day when the only animals in the cabin where served to you on a tray?
This girl had a declared allergy (to the carrier) and a freakin' epi pen.
The cats ticket was purchased (per the article) shortly before the flight (presumably after the girl).

To me, this is one of the few times where the circumstances seem reasonably clear.

I miss the good ol' days where people could live for a couple of hours without clutching a "support" animal - or those people just didn't fly.

I wasn't able to access the article, but was the cat's "ticket...purchased shortly before the flight" merely the In-Cabin Animal Fee, perhaps only $200 or so, which is normally assessed upon check-in?

It's hard to believe that the cat's owner actually bought a new ticket on the day of departure, which would have cost quite a lot -- and besides Alaska wouldn't allow an animal to be in a seat --

Very hard to fathom this situation, and I wonder how the young girl was actually accommodated overnight. Poor thing!

Really, this "emotional support animal" nonsense must stop!

As an aside -- on Saturday afternoon, I was strolling around IAH Terminal B, when I saw a lady with a gray Schnauzer walking it loose -- no "Service Animal" vest or anything -- which is against City regulations. Near the elevator entrance to the United Club is a pillar, where the dog raised its leg and relieved itself! The woman appeared to have no sense of shame, as if the act were a matter of course, and when the dog was done, she simply walked on.

A nicely dressed UA customer nearby was shocked and asked me if this sort of thing is allowed, and I said NO, it's against the rules -- but of course who would dare these days to confront the "ESA" or other in-cabin pet folks who flout the rules and common decency. (Certainly not my job function, but I did bring the incident to the attention of a UA manager.)

I've also seen piles of dog poo on carpets around the airport -- disgusting.

Pets require a fee to fly whether they go under a seat or in a pet carrier in the cargo hold. They don't get a seat.

Schweigend wrote:

As an aside -- on Saturday afternoon, I was strolling around IAH Terminal B, when I saw a lady with a gray Schnauzer walking it loose -- no "Service Animal" vest or anything -- which is against City regulations. Near the elevator entrance to the United Club is a pillar, where the dog raised its leg and relieved itself! The woman appeared to have no sense of shame, as if the act were a matter of course, and when the dog was done, she simply walked on.

Oh absolutely I have seen this multiple times lately. A couple of months back I saw a dog without any sort support dog markings take a dump on the carpet in front of the currency exchange on concourse G at MSP. The person sortof cleaned it up, but the carpet was left with a big brown stain, and the owner was laughing and said it was the second dump the dog had taken in the concourse. It smelled like a toxic mix of coffee and shit on the concourse - and the owner seemed to think it was just great.

Meanwhile, I was in the Delta Skyclub on C concourse at MSP last week, and there was a huge basset hound in the club. I had to wait for the hound to move out of the way to get to the wine and snacks. No markings of any sort of support animal. Just a great big basset hound relaxing in the club. I grew up with a very sweet, very wild beagle. But we would never, ever have tried to take her to the Skyclub. I cannot bring coworkers in the club because they are not members. But the hound gets the full royal treatment. Something has got to give with this dog situation in airports.

An emotional support cat? Is this for real?!

If the cat had already boarded then the safer option is to not allow the allergic girl to board.

When are ESA’s gonna be banned? They’re not really a thing in Europe, why is it a thing in America? Are you Americans so inherently emotionally unstable that you can’t cross the road without taking the Floof with you?

mast2407 wrote:

Are you Americans so inherently emotionally unstable that you can’t cross the road without taking the Floof with you?

Entitlement and exceptionalism. Americans believe they can do what they want whenever they want without question. It isn’t anything new, it is just more visible.

Another FAKE emotional support animal!

I don’t doubt that these people have emotional problems and are unstable in public situations, but that damn cat doesn’t do jack except bring out the two year old in them. Give the woman a pacifier laced with a sedative and leave the cat at home!


Note: This excludes people who actually require trained service animals.

I feel like there is more to this story. The cat had a ticket and it doesn't seem like the owner did anything wrong.

Surely if they moved one to the back row and one to the front of the plane she would be fine. Alaska allows cats in the cabin if she was so allergic that the presenece of a cat 15 rows away is a threat than Alaska made the right call because this is an extreme case and the cat was already on the plane.

Seems like it's not really as dramatic as this story. Media in 2018 everything has to be an outrage and extreme! Can you imagine if united was occused of this it would be a national story facts need not apply

Indy wrote:

The whole emotional support animal thing is a completely load of BS cooked up by people to allow them to bring their pets where they aren't supposed to bring them. This is getting ridiculous and needs to stop. If you can't leave home without your pet them perhaps you shouldn't leave home at all. The world is a scary place and your cat isn't going to save you. Sorry if this comes across as cold but I am tired of the system being abused by people. Leave your damn pet at home.

Ignoring the cat issue, what if the flight had been overbooked, and one of these passengers could not have been accommodated? Would you leave a 15-year-old caught in a connecting city - or an adult - behind? A minor should never be subjected to a forced overnight stay in a strange airport, whenever avoiding that is possible. Did nobody at the airline use any common sense here?

And... just wondering... where are all our "Alaska-can-do-no-wrong" posters? Why are they so strangely silent today?

mast2407 wrote:

An emotional support cat? Is this for real?!

I was in Izmir, Turkey, recently, and I saw a sign that said, "REAL FAKE WATCHES". I laughed at that honesty... and I bought one.

I would suspect that this cat was probably a "REAL FAKE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMAL".

mast2407 wrote:

When are ESA’s gonna be banned? They’re not really a thing in Europe, why is it a thing in America? Are you Americans so inherently emotionally unstable that you can’t cross the road without taking the Floof with you?

I don't think this is necessarily just a US-specific problem. The Civil Code over here (Czech Rep.) even has a specific provision that speaks of tenant's entitlement to keep pets in your own freaking property. There are, of course, legal ways how to effectively discourage potential tenants with pets, but it does indicate the prevailing mindset (insanity?) of the society. Just as with the ongoing epidemy of trashy tattoos, it seems that people have lost any sense of reasonability and adequacy.

The thing is is the cat was defined as an emotional support animal, which is covered under ADA. If the passenger with the cat was denied boarding could probably easily file a lawsuit under these terms if boarding was denied.

jbooser wrote:

The thing is is the cat was defined as an emotional support animal, which is covered under ADA. If the passenger with the cat was denied boarding could probably easily file a lawsuit under these terms if boarding was denied.

"Emotional support animals" are not covered by the ADA; it only addresses trained service animals. ESA's are covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, and that legislation will probably be addressed - as it should be - to further refine and restrict the conditions required for certification.

I would love to see the addition of criminal penalties to "doctors" who issue these ESA certifications to people whose only "emotional need" is to avoid paying pet fees for little fluffy.

With a cat on board I think it was the right decision to fly the girl later. There is a difference between a lot of freshly shed hairs, and a cat is shedding hairs, and hairs that have settled and are not circulated through the air. It was also the girls decision not to fly with the cat on board, even when separated by several seats.

But, as it was mentioned when the girl was booked, that the girl was allergic to cats, what is the use of such information, when the airline does not take mark on this information and places a cat owner and cat on the next seat?

It is the information and computer age, what is the use of all the information collected, if those problems are than not fixed before the flight. If at booking the question is asked if you are allergic, one should expect the system to that information serious.

jbooser wrote:

The thing is is the cat was defined as an emotional support animal, which is covered under ADA. If the passenger with the cat was denied boarding could probably easily file a lawsuit under these terms if boarding was denied.

The person in the wrong is the girl and mother who didn’t tell the airline ahead of time that she couldn’t travel on a plane with pets before arriving at the airport. The only person who called it an Emotional Support Cwt was the mother, in her Facebook tirade, which got reported on by a newspaper.

questions wrote:

Another FAKE emotional support animal!

I don’t doubt that these people have emotional problems and are unstable in public situations, but that damn cat doesn’t do jack except bring out the two year old in them. Give the woman a pacifier laced with a sedative and leave the cat at home!


Note: This excludes people who actually require trained service animals.

It likely wasn’t an emotional support cat. Someone paid the fee to bring a pet on board. Alaska does accept people carrying their pet cat as long as it is under 20 pounds.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The person in the wrong is the girl and mother who didn’t tell the airline ahead of time that she couldn’t travel on a plane with pets before arriving at the airport. The only person who called it an Emotional Support Cwt was the mother, in her Facebook tirade, which got reported on by a newspaper.

As far as the article goes, the mother informed the airline about the allergy when the flight was booked.

edit, not the article, but the facebook post the article refers to her mother declaring the allergy when booking

lavalampluva wrote:

What happened to the day when you just boarded your flight, got from point a to point b? No one got sick. Now you can’t even have peanuts on the flight.

Oh how dare the airlines watch out for passengers with illnesses that could potentially cause death. How dare they stop me from snacking!

Carfield wrote:

I don't understand why can't they just switch seats?
They can just move one of them towards the front of the cabin and one towards the aft! It looks like a 737 flight, and even if it is a combi flight, there should be enough distance between them.

I felt bad for the girl because flights to these remote Alaska cities are not frequent as between major cities.

Carfield

The fur could get into the air circulation.

Hey guys,
I feel quite strongly about this.
A 15 year old girl alone overnight in a strange city versus a cat?!?!
This has totally changed my perception of Alaska Airlines.
Bunumuring

Newbiepilot wrote:

The person in the wrong is the girl and mother who didn’t tell the airline ahead of time that she couldn’t travel on a plane with pets before arriving at the airport.

Actually, her allergy restrictions were reported to AS. Generally people who are so allergic that they carry around EpiPens are quite aware of the need to report their allergy needs.

TW870 wrote:

MSP.

To make things worse MSP and many other airports (including my home airport which only has one terminal with 15 gates) have bathrooms for animals now. Peaked my head in at the one at my airport - has turf in it to simulate grass and everything. Nice sealed containers to hide smell from their nasty business and a hose to spray off the turf where they do their other business.

Can anyone speak to the air circulation system (industry terminology escapes me at the moment). Is the main cabin and cargo hold tied together? In that air is sourced from both, exchanged and redistributed back to both? At this point you see where I'm going with this - wouldn't a cat in the cargo hold be just as much of a danger to this girl? She likely would not have known a cat was in the cargo hold.

Newbiepilot wrote:

It likely wasn’t an emotional support cat. Someone paid the fee to bring a pet on board. Alaska does accept people carrying their pet cat as long as it is under 20 pounds.

If true, then it makes Alaska's decision even more outrageous. A freaking cat gets a priority over an UM passenger. Beyond absurd.

LAXBUR wrote:

mast2407 wrote:

Are you Americans so inherently emotionally unstable that you can’t cross the road without taking the Floof with you?

Entitlement and exceptionalism. Americans believe they can do what they want whenever they want without question. It isn’t anything new, it is just more visible.

I'm an American and sadly, this is the case. If you tell someone 'No, don't do that' or 'Pull up your pants and dress like a decent human being', you are labeled as intolerant and racist. There is no more common decency among people, but it's not just an American thing. I've been around the world and people dress like slobs, act snobbish, look and smell as though they just rolled out of bed after a night of partying, etc. It's ridiculous.

There is something to be said about going back to the good ole' days. A vast majority of people acted decently in the past. Now, with social media, everyone seems to have internet courage -- complain, protest everything, etc. Just be a clean, decent human being and take responsibility for your actions -- no matter who you are (I don't care if you're red, yellow, brown, green, white, black or anywhere in between).

Seems pretty obvious to me that AS made the right decision.

People have been taking cats on board aircraft cabins since forever; it's not some wussy bleeding-heart liberal thing.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

It likely wasn’t an emotional support cat. Someone paid the fee to bring a pet on board. Alaska does accept people carrying their pet cat as long as it is under 20 pounds.

If true, then it makes Alaska's decision even more outrageous. A freaking cat gets a priority over an UM passenger. Beyond absurd.

I suppose possibly the cat's ticket cost more? Airlines want $$$ it doesn't matter where it comes from.

questions wrote:

Another FAKE emotional support animal!

I don’t doubt that these people have emotional problems and are unstable in public situations, but that damn cat doesn’t do jack except bring out the two year old in them. Give the woman a pacifier laced with a sedative and leave the cat at home!


Note: This excludes people who actually require trained service animals.

alfa164 wrote:

ESA's are covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, and that legislation will probably be addressed - as it should be - to further refine and restrict the conditions required for certification.

That's the thing: passengers traveling with ESAs are protected under the ACAA. Fifteen year old UMs are not.

Ignorance of U.S. law does not lead to intelligent discussion on this topic.

After that recent thread on a celebrity raising an issue over peanut allergy, I was wondering how long it was going to be before this very scenario blew up in the news. Wasn't that long apparently to my surprise...

This can be easily solved. Put the pets back in the cargo hold where they belong.
(And no, animals have not been a routine site onboard "forever". I've been flying since there was a smoking section onboard and seat assignments were given with stickers.) There is not a single pet that NEEDS to be in the passenger compartment of the aircraft. Period.

In Washington State they are now enforcing laws against bring animals into grocery stores. There would be several often times in grocery carts, butts on the plastic or metal. No emotional support animals allowed, trained service dogs (animals?) only. About time.

lavalampluva wrote:

What happened to the day when you just boarded your flight, got from point a to point b? No one got sick. Now you can’t even have peanuts on the flight.

Hey, I remember backpacking across the US with knives in hand luggage, we got from a to b and nobody got stabbed.

When we have an issue with passengers who can't or won't sit next to a ESAN/SVAN at AA the first course of action is to move one of the passengers, if this is not possible or acceptable then someone has to come off.
The original policy we had was to remove the passenger who was unable or unwilling to be on the plane with the service animal. The service animals had priority because they were traveling with someone who was handicapped or had a medical issue.
The new policy at AA now has us to remove the passenger who purchase their ticket last... So if we can not accommodate both passengers on the flight we check the date and time of purchase and the last ticket passenger has to come off and be rescheduled.
What we really need are tighter restrictions on all these bogus service animals.
Last month I had a lady step in a pile of service animal poop in the terminal. She slipped an fell, injured her knee and was covered in poo because of course she landed in it when she fell.

Aptivaboy wrote:

I am a cat person. I love cats. There, I said it. Here's is the issue as I see it, and taking the Facebook post as accurate...

If its in the flier's profile that they are allergic, then it is Alaska's job to check that profile when she's flying to see if there are any kitties on board. Otherwise, what's the point of having said data? Why compile a passenger profile at all?

Just cut this ESA nonsense. Pets aren’t people.