3 hours ago, ErichB said:

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. 

Funny how you have sympathy with parents ( Who chose to have a baby ) but think someone with a disability is self-indulgent and selfish. Wow.

24 minutes ago, YukonPete said:

Funny how you have sympathy with parents ( Who chose to have a baby ) but think someone with a disability is self-indulgent and selfish. Wow.

It is not that people are unsympathetic to those with disabilities who require a legitimate service animal.  It is that many are sceptical that the person they see is truly disabled.  It only costs less than $100 to purchase a service animal registration online here, with little to no proof of need,  therefore, the service animal industry is rife with abuse.  Abuse by normal people taking advantage of lax rules to exempt their pets from travel fees and allow them to be taken places otherwise banned. As a flightcrewmember, I will see them show up at least once or twice each day in my usual 2-4 leg days.  So it is not as rare as some here think they are.  If the rules were tightened and the abuse eliminated, then people will not be as sceptical about service animals.

25 minutes ago, YukonPete said:

Funny how you have sympathy with parents ( Who chose to have a baby ) but think someone with a disability is self-indulgent and selfish. Wow.

Alright Pete, your point has been made.

I wasn’t however referring to people with genuine need.    If you had read my last post you would have understood my point.   I’m not sure what it’s like in the Yukon. I’m sure people are more genuine in those parts. But in  a place like London, people tend to squeeze huge advantage from initiatives not designed for them at all.  It’s called taking the p iss . - and that’s my issue. Self-indulgent,  me-centric, ‘ I’m doing it, because I know I can get away with it and screw everyone else. ‘   

Thats my beef with dogs in the cabin . Kevin gets where I’m coming from

 

30 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

It is not that people are unsympathetic to those with disabilities who require a legitimate service animal.  It is that many are sceptical that the person they see is truly disabled.

Of course there's abuse - and it makes life harder for people with legitimate needs.

31 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

As a flightcrewmember, I will see them show up at least once or twice each day in my usual 2-4 leg days.  So it is not as rare as some here think they are.  

Not questioning that you're seeing what you're seeing - but will suggest again that it's not always possible to judge which cases are legitimate by sight alone.  Some of the "abuse" cases you're seeing might actually be legit.  And some of the legitimate-seeming ones might be fraudulent.
 

33 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

If the rules were tightened and the abuse eliminated, then people will not be as sceptical about service animals.

Can't argue with that.

I haven't made any judgements on whether anything is legitimate or not.  Merely noting that animals show up more often than another poster here stated.

57 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

It is not that people are unsympathetic to those with disabilities who require a legitimate service animal.  It is that many are sceptical that the person they see is truly disabled.  It only costs less than $100 to purchase a service animal registration online here, with little to no proof of need,  therefore, the service animal industry is rife with abuse.  Abuse by normal people taking advantage of lax rules to exempt their pets from travel fees and allow them to be taken places otherwise banned. As a flightcrewmember, I will see them show up at least once or twice each day in my usual 2-4 leg days.  So it is not as rare as some here think they are.  If the rules were tightened and the abuse eliminated, then people will not be as sceptical about service animals.

just because you can't see the disability doesn't mean there isn't one. I think the majority of people aren't skeptical when it comes to service dogs! I've never thought to myself "yeah right whats this persons problem. " 

1 hour ago, ErichB said:

Alright Pete, your point has been made.

I wasn’t however referring to people with genuine need.    If you had read my last post you would have understood my point.   I’m not sure what it’s like in the Yukon. I’m sure people are more genuine in those parts. But in  a place like London, people tend to squeeze huge advantage from initiatives not designed for them at all.  It’s called taking the p iss . - and that’s my issue. Self-indulgent,  me-centric, ‘ I’m doing it, because I know I can get away with it and screw everyone else. ‘   

Thats my beef with dogs in the cabin . Kevin gets where I’m coming from

 

So because i live in the Yukon? whats that got to do with anything. Believe it it not I been to London.  Ive crossed the pacific probably 20 times and been to Airports all over the US, Canada, Asia and Australia. Seen service dogs on planes a number of times and it didn't get me all bothered 

I bet you have never seen a service animal bite somebody on a plane too.  But it's happened aboard our planes.  I hate to tell you this, but people do take advantage of services and priveledges that they do not deserve.  If you had went to the website I previouslt linked to, you would see how easy it is to turn your pet into a service animal.  Though I don't judge when they board my plane, I have heard passengers brag about getting their pets designated as a service animal and how much money they have saved.  That happened 3 years ago at our hotel by White Plains airport in NY.  I'm sorry, it happens. And these people create a huge disservice to those with a legitimate need.

6 minutes ago, YukonPete said:

So because i live in the Yukon? whats that got to do with anything. 

Look, you’re obviously very upset and emotional that someone has taken a different view to yourself about dogs on a plane.  So obviously because YOU’RE okay with it, you’re also OFFENDED  that I’m not.  There’s nothing I can do about that my friend.  I see that happen every day. What is clear is that you have chosen ignore my qualifying statements. 

So let’s just agree that YOU’RE okay with dogs in the plane cabin  (with all the associated risk that carries) and I am not.  

 

 

It has gotten out of hand - I know a girl in Colorado who registered her pet as a service animal just so it could go every where with her....are there no guidelines required for getting a dog declared as a service dog?   Does an "emotional support" dog qualify as a "support dog"?   I personally don't want to go to restaurants, stores, wineries, etc. and have to sit next to someone's smelly pet.

Furthermore, we all know about those small "yappy" dogs that bark constantly and act as if they want to bite your ankles.

I've got a neighbor down the street who has one of those dogs that barks all day when they are away at work, or shopping, or where-ever.  They have no idea the racket being put up because the dog isn't barking when they are home, so they have no idea what is going on....so we all have to suffer.

If you're going to get a dog for a pet or companion, please research its personality.  People who have bull-dogs always tend to stick up for them, but every month I'm reading a news story about someone getting killed by them (usually small kids).   I've found Golden Retrievers to be the most pleasant breed by far - very easy going personalities.

I'll posit that it's only a matter of time when we'll hear a news story where some "emotional service dog" attacks someone on an airplane.   And then, perhaps, we'll see the laws change.

Mark

 

I suggest that people should read the Flightaware squawk box comments on this topic.

12 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I suggest that people should read the Flightaware squawk box comments on this topic.

From what I can see,  the majority view 'service dogs' as hogwash in the context of air travel.

I used to have an emotional support pachyderm, but I had to get rid; it was always a bit of an elephant in the room. 

while the entire thread has been full of people exercising their well honed opnions on whether dogs should be allowed in the cabin, and the likelihood that anyone needs a service dog on a plane,  has anyone given much thought as to whether the person who was removed was being genuine in her assumption that the world should revolve around her / truthfulness of her claim to allergy?

She may have thought that the world should revolve around her, but surely she would have had her anti-deadly allergy meds on her person at all times (epi-pen etc.)? Why think of strapping yourself into a tin box with no meds & no chance of expert medical help for some time, if you have such a life threatening condition? The most logical thing would be to come fully prepared in that respect even if it meant having to catch an alternative flight once you'd got your stuff together.

I think the Captain was right in asking her to leave, mitigating the risk of having her drop dead in flight. She had no supporting documentation or meds so the Captain or airline could not be absolutely certain she was genuine. Similarly they couldn't be absolutely certain she was lying either, so best option at the time IMHO was to have her off the flight.

 

Incidentally, isn't the cry of a human baby a genetic and instinct-driven sound to absolutely get another human's attention? That's how the human race survived before baby monitors and au pairs isn't it? We're hard-wired that way, the cry gets on everyone's nerves. Yes, it's annoying for a reason, especially when the child learns to use it to their advantage!