4 ms·

not to be jerk or anything, but if I said that a cow or an elephant is the only thing that soothes me so accommodate them in a plane? How many other people sho

not to be jerk or anything, but if I said that a cow or an elephant is the only thing that soothes me so accommodate them in a plane? How many other people should be inconvenienced by my issues?

happytoexplain 6y ago
None, since it would probably be deemed infeasible. I think the tendency of engineers to extrapolate "rules" to extreme cases creates a lot of noise. Rules in law, business, and society are not the same as rules in engineering - they allow for subjectivity.
- raztogt21 6y ago
  "Rules in law, business, and society are not the same as rules in engineering - they allow for subjectivity." Thanks for sharing this thought.
- RegnisGnaw 6y ago
  Peacocks: https://www.nj.com/news/2020/12/no-your-emotional-support-peacock-cant-fly-with-you-feds-set-new-rules-for-service-animals.html https://www.nj.com/news/2020/12/no-your-emotional-support-pe... Pig https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/travel/emotional-support-pig-booted-flight/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/travel/emotional-support-pig-... Kangaroo https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mcdonalds-kangaroo-beaver-dam-wisconsin_n_6623206 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mcdonalds-kangaroo-beaver-dam...
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    I don't understand the point you're making. A. Your examples are of animals disallowed - not allowed. B. Those animals are obviously much more feasible, physically. C. Regardless of how feasible they are, I simply gave a reasonable answer to the question - I didn't imply that all human systems have that same answer. You should explain your thoughts, instead of only posting links with no context.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
None, now that the rules have been clarified to disallow your cow or elephant.
DanBC 6y ago
Adjustments for disabled people need to be "reasonable". It's reasonable for a blind person to take their guide dog on a plane. It's reasonable for someone with mental illness to take their well trained support animal on the plane. It's unreasonable for someone who's struggling a bit to take their pet cow on a plane.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Who decides what's reasonable, though? The whole thing is a big grey area. The rules should be explicit.
  - llbeansandrice 6y ago
    > Who decides what's reasonable, though? The court system. I say something is reasonable, you do not and don't allow me on a flight so I take you to court over it and the court decides.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      That's not good. The courts should only have to get involved in exceptional scenarios. The law itself should be more clear.
      - llbeansandrice 6y ago
        I suppose that's your opinion but that's just not how the law works and in many cases the subjectivity is a feature not a bug. It might be a common sense thing to say that no one would ever want or have need to use a horse as a service animal, but there are miniature horses that are service animals.
        TulliusCicero 6y ago
        It's not uncommon for judges to complain about laws being excessively vague, so no, it's not just my opinion. Also IIRC miniature horses being service animals is explicitly part of the law, so I'm not sure why you're using that as an example.
devteambravo 6y ago
So let's just make assumptions then. Disabled people should have a case prepared, and always be ready to argue it in front of people. Upon challenge, by people "inconvenienced" by your accommodations, you should be able to spend 2 minutes showcasing your disability, how it came to be, and plead for said accommodations. Maybe you could edit that "not to be a jerk" bit to "I'm a jerk, hence:".
- claytongulick 6y ago
  When "inconvenienced" means a trip to the ER or landing a plane because you have severe allergies (like me) then the definition of who is being a jerk in the "emotional support animal" situation is a big more vague, no?
- dash2 6y ago
  To be clear about this, your argument is that a disabled person should be able to say "I need an elephant on this plane" without having to explain why? Also, disagreeing with this point of view makes someone a jerk? :-)
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Please read up on the term "Invisible Disabilities". Not every disability is obvious, not every disability is immediately provable to satisfy an adhoc request, and not every disability has immediate effects. Your suggestion would lead to people being further marginalized, if every person feels that they can barge in for 2 minutes each. Add up more and more people each stealing away 2 minutes, and that is quite a lot of time. How would that even work, too? If a random person decides that somebody's disability doesn't exist, do they then just barge in even more than usual. "I decided that your coeliac disease didn't exist, so I used wheat as a thickener. Your fault for not explaining it better."
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    This is a bit of a whoosh moment, as the person you're replying to is actually on the same side as you.
  - 6y ago
maxk42 6y ago
Well the laws here are really stupid. ESAs are not covered under federal law. But service animals are. However - there is no accreditation program for service animals, so you cannot ask for proof that an animal is a service animal. You are also not allowed to ask a person what their disability is or demand they demonstrate some sort of proof of either disability or specialized training in their animal. So essentially, anyone can still claim any animal is a service animal and the airlines have to accommodate them. The ESA designation is NOT a service animal (although a service animal can also be an ESA). So this is something the airlines could easily disallow. I'm afraid we haven't seen the last of people abusing the system for their own convenience, however.
- crazcarl 6y ago
  This is incorrect per the article. It clearly states "Wednesday's rule change by the US Department of Transportation now says only dogs qualify as service animals." So no, the airlines don't have to accept someone's service animal that isn't a dog.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxk42 6y ago
    I didn't say they did.

not to be jerk or anything, but if I said that a cow or an elephant is the only thing that soothes me so accommodate them in a plane? How many other people should be inconvenienced by my issues?

happytoexplain 6y ago

None, since it would probably be deemed infeasible. I think the tendency of engineers to extrapolate "rules" to extreme cases creates a lot of noise. Rules in law, business, and society are not the same as rules in engineering - they allow for subjectivity.

raztogt21 6y ago
"Rules in law, business, and society are not the same as rules in engineering - they allow for subjectivity." Thanks for sharing this thought.
RegnisGnaw 6y ago
Peacocks: https://www.nj.com/news/2020/12/no-your-emotional-support-peacock-cant-fly-with-you-feds-set-new-rules-for-service-animals.html https://www.nj.com/news/2020/12/no-your-emotional-support-pe... Pig https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/travel/emotional-support-pig-booted-flight/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/travel/emotional-support-pig-... Kangaroo https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mcdonalds-kangaroo-beaver-dam-wisconsin_n_6623206 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mcdonalds-kangaroo-beaver-dam...
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  I don't understand the point you're making. A. Your examples are of animals disallowed - not allowed. B. Those animals are obviously much more feasible, physically. C. Regardless of how feasible they are, I simply gave a reasonable answer to the question - I didn't imply that all human systems have that same answer. You should explain your thoughts, instead of only posting links with no context.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

None, now that the rules have been clarified to disallow your cow or elephant.

DanBC 6y ago

Adjustments for disabled people need to be "reasonable". It's reasonable for a blind person to take their guide dog on a plane. It's reasonable for someone with mental illness to take their well trained support animal on the plane. It's unreasonable for someone who's struggling a bit to take their pet cow on a plane.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
Who decides what's reasonable, though? The whole thing is a big grey area. The rules should be explicit.
- llbeansandrice 6y ago
  > Who decides what's reasonable, though? The court system. I say something is reasonable, you do not and don't allow me on a flight so I take you to court over it and the court decides.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    That's not good. The courts should only have to get involved in exceptional scenarios. The law itself should be more clear.
    - llbeansandrice 6y ago
      I suppose that's your opinion but that's just not how the law works and in many cases the subjectivity is a feature not a bug. It might be a common sense thing to say that no one would ever want or have need to use a horse as a service animal, but there are miniature horses that are service animals.
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
        It's not uncommon for judges to complain about laws being excessively vague, so no, it's not just my opinion. Also IIRC miniature horses being service animals is explicitly part of the law, so I'm not sure why you're using that as an example.

devteambravo 6y ago

So let's just make assumptions then. Disabled people should have a case prepared, and always be ready to argue it in front of people. Upon challenge, by people "inconvenienced" by your accommodations, you should be able to spend 2 minutes showcasing your disability, how it came to be, and plead for said accommodations. Maybe you could edit that "not to be a jerk" bit to "I'm a jerk, hence:".

claytongulick 6y ago
When "inconvenienced" means a trip to the ER or landing a plane because you have severe allergies (like me) then the definition of who is being a jerk in the "emotional support animal" situation is a big more vague, no?
dash2 6y ago
To be clear about this, your argument is that a disabled person should be able to say "I need an elephant on this plane" without having to explain why? Also, disagreeing with this point of view makes someone a jerk? :-)
MereInterest 6y ago
Please read up on the term "Invisible Disabilities". Not every disability is obvious, not every disability is immediately provable to satisfy an adhoc request, and not every disability has immediate effects. Your suggestion would lead to people being further marginalized, if every person feels that they can barge in for 2 minutes each. Add up more and more people each stealing away 2 minutes, and that is quite a lot of time. How would that even work, too? If a random person decides that somebody's disability doesn't exist, do they then just barge in even more than usual. "I decided that your coeliac disease didn't exist, so I used wheat as a thickener. Your fault for not explaining it better."
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  This is a bit of a whoosh moment, as the person you're replying to is actually on the same side as you.
- 6y ago

maxk42 6y ago

Well the laws here are really stupid. ESAs are not covered under federal law. But service animals are. However - there is no accreditation program for service animals, so you cannot ask for proof that an animal is a service animal. You are also not allowed to ask a person what their disability is or demand they demonstrate some sort of proof of either disability or specialized training in their animal. So essentially, anyone can still claim any animal is a service animal and the airlines have to accommodate them. The ESA designation is NOT a service animal (although a service animal can also be an ESA). So this is something the airlines could easily disallow. I'm afraid we haven't seen the last of people abusing the system for their own convenience, however.

crazcarl 6y ago
This is incorrect per the article. It clearly states "Wednesday's rule change by the US Department of Transportation now says only dogs qualify as service animals." So no, the airlines don't have to accept someone's service animal that isn't a dog.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- maxk42 6y ago
  I didn't say they did.