3 ms·
I've long thought that the whole 'emotional support animal' term is not ideal: after all, aren't any non-working dogs emotional support animals? I think someth
by zeveb 9y ago
I've long thought that the whole 'emotional support animal' term is not ideal: after all, aren't any non-working dogs emotional support animals? I think something like 'service animal' is more appropriate.
> Ultimately, I hope the Department of Transportation creates a fairly strict uniform rule for all airlines.
Why not let the individual airlines decide? Pet owners can choose to fly Pet Airways, and everyone else can choose not to. It's not immediately obvious that this is a case where there must be a uniform rule (although it would be tricky if one had to switch carriers mid-trip).
> It’s true that some people honestly believe they have an emotional condition that an animal solves. But they are often confusing their preferences with actual medical needs.
That, I think, is a quote which aptly describes much of 21st-century American society: a failure to recognise the difference between preference & reality.
- chadash 9y ago> Why not let the individual airlines decide? Airlines are free to allow pets aboard. But they've all made the decision not to allow it, except for a fee (and even then, only for small animals that go under your seat). Right now, the airlines are forced to allow emotional support animals. I don't think many people would be against a pet friendly airline. I think the issue is that the airlines don't want to be pet friendly (most likely they'd rather not deal with the hassle), but the law requires them to accommodate trained service animals (e.g. seeing eye dogs or dogs trained to detect imminent seizures), which most people probably don't object to as well as emotional support dogs (which many people do object to because they feel that the system is being gamed)