Another passenger dragged off plane

[costamesa 88]

https://besteverawards.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/most-ridiculous-lawsuits-ever-ever/

Why not?

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Most US airlines allow small dogs to travel  for a fee in an approved carrier under the seat in front of the passenger. Even so, it is rare to see a dog on a commercial flight. The anti-pet attitude in this thread is unfortunate as the airlines are the last bastion of such behavior. What's next, crying baby bans?

I fly a number of times per year and the  "peanut allergy" announcement always makes me laugh to myself. It's not that I don't have a tiny amount of sympathy for the individual with the allergy. It's more that somehow to the airline the lack of the the peanut snack is a tremendous loss to the rest passengers.

Anyway, in the future it will be next to impossible to drag any passenger off of a flight as the distance between the seats will become so small as to preclude any movement at all.

[ErichB 3,643]

5 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

 What's next, crying baby bans?

Yes please!  Where do I sign up for that.

 

8 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

 The anti-pet attitude in this thread is unfortunate  

 

Tell that to the passengers in seats 26A, 24A and 25B when the dog has relieved himself due to stress under seat 25A

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Sorry, the rare instance where there was a dog onboard my flight, I didn't even realize it until deplaning and seeing the dog removed from the carrier at the gate. Obviously, your experience was different.

And as to babies and young children ... are they really the worst feature of air travel these days? How times have changed (and not for the better).

 

[ErichB 3,643]

8 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

And as to babies and young children ... are they really the worst feature of air travel these days? How times have changed (and not for the better).

 

It's all about perspective Jay.  I've done enough >10 hour long hauls with persistent crying babies in an immediate proximity.   I guarantee you, it's not a pleasant experience.  I was joking of course when referring to crying baby bans and I do have sympathy with the parents  - because that must be even worse to endure.  Despite my sometimes abrasive tone, I'm actually pretty chilled out, but a crying child REALLY is one of the worst things on a long haul. 

[HiFlyer 9,360]

You know.......

Its very easy to make fun of something.

But oh, how people's tune so often quickly changes should the time ever come when them and theirs need that service........ 

[Christopher Low 5,354]

Quote

Most ridiculous lawsuits ever. EVER

OMG, are US judges and juries really that dumb?? They actually awarded the claims to those idiots

 

[ErichB 3,643]

13 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

You know.......

Its very easy to make fun of something.

But oh, how people's tune so often quickly changes should the time ever come when them and theirs need that service........ 

HiFlyer

If you are referring to the animal issue, my view on this is that it is a completely self-indulgent and selfish approach from the owner’s perspective.  The poor animal is in a cage, under the seat. It cannot be seen, nor heard, but the poor thing is probably undergoing  much more trauma than it would be in the hold. Clanging inflight service trollies, crying babies, passengers kicking the seats and probably even the cage. How on earth is that benefitting the poor animal?  But it’s not about the pet, it’s about the individual.   Me first. 

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

25 minutes ago, ErichB said:

HiFlyer

If you are referring to the animal issue, my view on this is that it is a completely self-indulgent and selfish approach from the owner’s perspective.  The poor animal is in a cage, under the seat. It cannot be seen, nor heard, but the poor thing is probably undergoing  much more trauma than it would be in the hold. Clanging inflight service trollies, crying babies, passengers kicking the seats and probably even the cage. How on earth is that benefitting the poor animal?  But it’s not about the pet, it’s about the individual.   Me first. 

The emotional support dogs I have seen on flights, are not in cages, they are on the owner's lap or at their feet, and often travel Business Class.  They sometimes wear a cute "Service Dog" tailored cover, sometimes not.

[Alan_A 1,650]

According to reports, there were two dogs aboard, one of which was a service animal.

A service animal isn't the same thing as a support animal.  A service animal is certified and performs a function for a person with a disability.  It's not a pet.

About the "no need for animals in the cabin" thing - a friend who's legally blind (macular degeneration) flies with her guide dog.  On a recent flight, a cabin attendant gave her a bit of friendly advice: in the event of an emergency, let your dog off its leash so it'll have a chance to get out.  Translation: you won't be getting out because when the excrement hits the fan, chances are there won't be time for us to get to you while we're dealing with everybody else.

Her decision was to rely on the dog and not the crew.

As to the usual "suck it up" tough-guy talk about what people need and don't need - I'm glad to know I'm in the company of experts about disability and mental illness.  Of course, I have to recognize that flight simmers are strong, stoic, self-reliant people.  At least, that is, until their most-desired pretend airplane doesn't get released on time... 

 

[YukonPete 586]

11 hours ago, ErichB said:

I'm a dog lover but there are certain places I don't want to see dogs at all.   There is no reason at all for a dog (guide dog or not) to accompany any person into the cabin of an aircraft.   The airline staff and ground crew are more than sufficient to take care of any onboarding/offboarding needs of any passenger who requires it.

Why people think they have the right to treat every shared public space like their personal living rooms these days is beyond me.  What's even more amusing is the indignant response when they get pulled up on it.

 

 Bet your opinion would be different if you or a family member relied on a guide dog! Having a guide dog on a plane is nothing like treating shared public space as their own personal living room. Guide dogs are highly trained and behave better then 99% of people. You eat and drink on on plane right? It's not your own personal living room.

[Alan_A 1,650]

Something else to note here is that disabilities aren't always evident to the naked eye.  Another friend got roundly yelled at by a self-righteous enforcer-type person for parking in a disabled parking space, because clearly she wasn't an amputee or using a wheelchair or anything.  Her answer: no, I'm here for chemotherapy.

The person with a service animal might be at risk for seizure.  Would you be able to recognize that on sight?

It's true that there are people that take unfair advantage of support (vs. service) animal accommodations.  That's a shame, because there are people with a legitimate need for support animals, too.  Or do we disagree with that, and we're now telling the depressives to "just cheer up"?

[HiFlyer 9,360]

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

How on earth is that benefitting the poor animal?  But it’s not about the pet, it’s about the individual.   Me first. 

True service dogs are trained for exactly those sorts of situations. If they were that easily distracted/traumatized, what use would they be in a loud, crowded real world?

As for support dogs, they have their uses as well. There are people out there who simply are unable to function normally without that extra emotional support. People who might not be able to handle being out and about alone, and particularly in possibly stressful situations (like flying, for some) without an extra bit of comfort, wherever it comes from. 

Dogs are perfect hand holders, and their record for calming people with emotional issues is well documented.

[ErichB 3,643]

Valid points made - where genuine need exists.  

My position was taken in opposition to those who abuse the privileges of initiatives meant for legitimate purposes. The socialite from Sloane Square carrying her trophy dog wherever  she goes and insisting that they be inside the cabin on the basis of ‘emotional support’.  I can see that becoming a trend. 

Apologies for any distress caused. 

 

 

 

[YukonPete 586]

2 hours ago, ErichB said:

HiFlyer

If you are referring to the animal issue, my view on this is that it is a completely self-indulgent and selfish approach from the owner’s perspective.  The poor animal is in a cage, under the seat. It cannot be seen, nor heard, but the poor thing is probably undergoing  much more trauma than it would be in the hold. Clanging inflight service trollies, crying babies, passengers kicking the seats and probably even the cage. How on earth is that benefitting the poor animal?  But it’s not about the pet, it’s about the individual.   Me first. 

 I know who the self-indulgent and selfish person is and its not the person needing a service dog!   And they don't put the service/guide dog in a cage under the seat for your information. Obviously you don't have a clue at all!