4 ms·

Reading the comments on this thread is genuinely depressing. It's amazing how callous people can be to simply say "good" and move on, nevermind that people actu

Reading the comments on this thread is genuinely depressing. It's amazing how callous people can be to simply say "good" and move on, nevermind that people actually benefited massively from this and that most of those people used it in good faith, and likely did not attempt to bring ostriches and ponies aboard. Not to mention the comments that say something to the effect of "well even if it did help a few people, it drove up prices for everyone". The implication being that disabled people only deserve accommodations (and therefore the right to participate in society) when they are convenient for everyone/companies. It's very telling that these are the responses of the community when it comes to disabled people rather than the responses we see on other threads about how some framework or Salas is dropping support for some beloved feature, i.e. responses such as "why can't we try X? Won't Y work?" I'm physically ill reading the comments here.

HideousKojima 6y ago
Do you have any hard numbers on how many people used it in good faith vs. milked the system?
- jfengel 6y ago
  I don't really care how many people "milked the system". It's no skin off my nose that they got away with something. The better question, I believe, is how often flights were disrupted by poorly trained animals. It certainly happened; how much? Then we can at least attempt to compare the benefits against the actual costs. The impression I get is that a lot of people don't care about the costs. They simply care that there was a rule in place that people circumvented, and they resent that a lot.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Airline companies care about the costs. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm also not comfortable being that close to an animal from random people, especially ones that have proven they can be dangerous. If I was encountering a service animal every once in a while from a disabled person, it might be okay. But it feels like everyone other person has one, and I have no idea what the owner or trainer is like and that raises the risk profile quite a bit. There's a very high likelihood that the same people that ignore leash laws are on flights with an animal in close quarters to me.
macspoofing 6y ago
I think you're beating down a strawman you created. Nobody is against accessibility for disabled. The problem is that there were no standards around this policy and it was abused without any clear indication that it helped anyone. There is also little clinical evidence that ESAs ameliorate patient symptoms, and much less that they help around travel. Policies around ESAs, like anything, require effort to implement and support, and therefore need good evidential support ... instead of an emotional appeal.
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
There is a concerning amount of strawman comments that hinge on conflating service animals with emotional support animals. No one said anything about disabled people, we are talking about people who want their Caucasian Shepard to join them in economy class for no other reason than wanting their dog.

HideousKojima 6y ago

Do you have any hard numbers on how many people used it in good faith vs. milked the system?

jfengel 6y ago
I don't really care how many people "milked the system". It's no skin off my nose that they got away with something. The better question, I believe, is how often flights were disrupted by poorly trained animals. It certainly happened; how much? Then we can at least attempt to compare the benefits against the actual costs. The impression I get is that a lot of people don't care about the costs. They simply care that there was a rule in place that people circumvented, and they resent that a lot.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Airline companies care about the costs. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm also not comfortable being that close to an animal from random people, especially ones that have proven they can be dangerous. If I was encountering a service animal every once in a while from a disabled person, it might be okay. But it feels like everyone other person has one, and I have no idea what the owner or trainer is like and that raises the risk profile quite a bit. There's a very high likelihood that the same people that ignore leash laws are on flights with an animal in close quarters to me.

macspoofing 6y ago

I think you're beating down a strawman you created. Nobody is against accessibility for disabled. The problem is that there were no standards around this policy and it was abused without any clear indication that it helped anyone. There is also little clinical evidence that ESAs ameliorate patient symptoms, and much less that they help around travel. Policies around ESAs, like anything, require effort to implement and support, and therefore need good evidential support ... instead of an emotional appeal.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

There is a concerning amount of strawman comments that hinge on conflating service animals with emotional support animals. No one said anything about disabled people, we are talking about people who want their Caucasian Shepard to join them in economy class for no other reason than wanting their dog.