2 hours ago, ErichB said:

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

You are mixing up services dogs with emotional support dogs. A service dog is defined as:

Quote

A service dog is a type of assistance dog specifically trained to help people who have disabilities, such as visual impairment, hearing impairments, mental illnesses (such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)), seizure disorder, mobility impairment, and diabetes.

From Wikipedia.

It is illegal under Federal law for anyone to require documentation of a team. Many disabled individuals choose to provide a vest for their Service Dog and/or carry identification, however it is not required that they do. You may encounter a disabled individual who chooses to keep their disability private.

There is also a training requirement for Service Dogs. If a dog is not under the handler's control (obedience trained) or is not housebroken, a covered entity may remove the dog. Also, disruptive or aggressive dogs may be removed since businesses do not have to fundamentally alter their operations.

If a handler can answer the access questions correctly and the dog is well trained, you must assume it is a legitimate Service Dog.

Yet every day, people with legitimate animals find themselves inconvenienced, harassed and humiliated by people with attitudes of the type displayed here. Maybe more people subject to such discrimination should sue. 

Also: Many veterans suffering from PTSD and other mental difficulties have service animals. Where is the automatic snapping to attention and "Thank you for your service" that modern times nearly mandates for those with such a background? Or does needing a dog erase the requirement for understanding and respect? And is PTSD only understandable if the need is from a military cause?

Think, people!

 

The woman lost the plot - she should have walked on her own when she said she was going to. Why then did she stall and not move.

I heard one passenger say, "Geez ,lady, get off the plane". Maybe if she'd done that earlier, at the request of the Captain.... .  It's not rocket science, professor lady!

2 hours ago, ShawnG said:

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?

I honestly doubt that her dramas were legitimate. She may have had an allergy, but was probably more neurotic than allergic,  which caused all that drama.  People are honestly so full of BS.  

Many years ago we were coming home from Texas and had our dog with us.  We paid an attendant extra to make sure the dog got on the airplane.  The dog didn't get on and waited is his carrier in a hot area for most of the day until the next flight.

There is no way if I had a service dog would I not keep it with me.

 

Tom

17 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

It is illegal under Federal law for anyone to require documentation of a team. Many disabled individuals choose to provide a vest for their Service Dog and/or carry identification, however it is not required that they do. You may encounter a disabled individual who chooses to keep their disability private.

There is also a training requirement for Service Dogs. If a dog is not under the handler's control (obedience trained) or is not housebroken, a covered entity may remove the dog. Also, disruptive or aggressive dogs may be removed since businesses do not have to fundamentally alter their operations.

If a handler can answer the access questions correctly and the dog is well trained, you must assume it is a legitimate Service Dog.

Yet every day, people with legitimate animals find themselves inconvenienced, harassed and humiliated by people with attitudes of the type displayed here. Maybe more people subject to such discrimination should sue. 

Also: Many veterans suffering from PTSD and other mental difficulties have service animals. Where is the automatic snapping to attention and "Thank you for your service" that modern times nearly mandates for those with such a background? Or does needing a dog erase the requirement for understanding and respect? And is PTSD only understandable if the need is from a military cause?

Think, people!

 

I doubt anybody here is against the service animals like the seeing eye dogs, cadaver dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, etc.  The issue people have is with the emotional support animal designation that people with no legitimate illness will use to get their pets into places they otherwise can't go.

35 minutes ago, THibben said:

....We paid an attendant extra to make sure the dog got on the airplane.  .....

Sounds like an unscrupulous attendant pocketing money from unsuspecting people. 

17 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

I doubt anybody here is against the service animals like the seeing eye dogs, cadaver dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, etc.  The issue people have is with the emotional support animal designation that people with no legitimate illness will use to get their pets into places they otherwise can't go.

Again there is a lack of knowledge. The ADA specifically does not include "Mere" ESA's.

However, the Air carriers act does allow them, so if you have an actual strong objection, you can start there.

I myself would say that it's probably a lot of wasted effort however, since in a growing number of states, falsely claiming service dog status for your animal is already illegal. Violators can be in some cases be fined up to $1000 and jailed for up to six months.

Does anyone have a better idea?

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Again there is a lack of knowledge. The ADA specifically does not include "Mere" ESA's.

However, the Air carriers act does allow them, so if you have an actual strong objection, you can start there.

I myself would say that it's probably a lot of wasted effort however, since in a growing number of states, falsely claiming service dog status for your animal is already illegal. Violators can be in some cases be fined up to $1000 and jailed for up to six months.

Does anyone have a better idea?

The process for designating an animal as an esan should be made more arduous than it currently is. That would be a start to cut down on the abuse.  That is interesting that they are not actually covered by ada.  We've always treated it as if these people with them were covered by ada.  Which made it all the more bothersome to hear people brag about taking advantage of esan rules or seeing animals that were more pet like than service like get priveledged treatment.

I fly every week and have for years. It use to be dogs we're kept in the hold and needed papers from a vet prior to flying. In the last 5 years I've seen a massive amount of people flying with dogs.

 

Southwest was wrong period. Why? They do not make people prove by a doctor that they have a condition for preboard. I fly many airlines including Southwest. Southwest by far has the most preboards with supposedly medical condition than anybody out there. How I know they don't check? I'm A list Preferred on Southwest. A month ago they had a computer glitch. I'm supposed to be checked in automatically in A section. When I got my boarding pass I was last in C. When I called Southwest told me to go to ticketing and tell them I need preboard. I did. Never asked for proof. I really despise Southwest. They use to be a great airline but ended up like all the others and to some point worse. I've been on flights where dogs have urinated and defecated on Southwest flights. I've seen two dogs get into fights on a flight.

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion......if it isn't a service dog, it shouldn't be in the passenger cabin.

8 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

In my opinion......if it isn't a service dog, it shouldn't be in the passenger cabin.

That is why pet owners buy a $79 certificate... who is to judge?  The cabin crew?  I think not..

19 hours ago, Camsdad13 said:

Southwest was wrong period. Why? They do not make people prove by a doctor that they have a condition for preboard.

The good professor claimed she had severe allergies to dogs... so bad she could get deathly ill.  Yet she could not prove her claim, whereupon the captain played it safe and directed her off the airplane.  If she did indeed have severe allergies to dogs and had an episode at 35,000 ft the captain would have been tarred & feathered for allowing her to stay onboard.  He did the right thing ordering her off.

One of the professor's numerous mistakes was believing the dogs would be removed... instead of herself.

Greg

Many years ago I purchased a puppy which was shipped in the pressurized bagged hold and I would never do that again. It is basically the definition of animal cruelty. 

Of all the inconveniences imposed on passengers by the airlines, crying babies, service animals and even the occasional pet dog kept under the seat, are well down the list of importance. Maybe the people who are complaining in this thread should channel all that hostility into prodding the airlines about their arrogant cattle car mentality. These days all passengers are treated like dogs, so what's the problem with having a few more onboard?

12 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

...I purchased a puppy which was shipped in the pressurized bagged hold ...

Disgraceful! An older dog may well be OK being left alone for some time in a hold, but a puppy?!! By their nature they need a lot more attention and reassurance. I hope your dog turned out fine after that episode!