5 ms·

Edit: Removed comment, sparked unconstructive discussion.

by cj 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> A lot of people are very attached to their pets, there's nothing wrong with that. Particularly single people living alone without kids (I fall in that bucket). I'm in that category as well, but that by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience.
- cj 6y ago
  > by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience. The decision wasn't for my personal convenience. It's much more convenient to throw an animal in the cargo hold. It really is not fun to deal with an animal with you on a crowded plane. Convenience is not the motivating factor at least for me... it's simply treating the animal humanely, which to me means avoiding throwing them in the cargo hold for long haul flights.
  - flflfppp 6y ago
    Then you should have absorbed the inconvenience of driving cross-country, not abusing a system meant to help people that need it. Also, I'm perplexed by people's use of the word "humane" when it comes to pets. If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - freeflight 6y ago
      > If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. This is quite reductive considering that most pets are animals that have been domesticated by humans for hundreds and thousands of years. In many cases we've bred them towards certain tasks and behavioral patterns, in the process we also bred out of them traits they often would need to survive in nature. When humans did that then humans took on a responsibility, you can't just handwave that away with "these are animals, they are unworthy of any consideration". > I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human. It's preposterous to claim humans are not animals to justify inhumane treatment of other living, and in many cases highly emphatic, beings. And not to get me wrong here: I'm not some kind of hardcore vegan who thinks all animal products should be banned. I'm merely recognizing that as the dominant species on this planet we have certain obligations towards the rest of it's inhabitants and particularly those we've utilized to get us where we are today.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      >open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I'm pretty sure my drunken parents' methods of pet care were not in fact humane or in any way to the benefit of the pets who were killed by it.
    - watwut 6y ago
      That system is bare minimum required by law.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      Just because "humane" is related to "human", it doesn't mean it applies only to humans. Also it's silly to allow cats on planes while prohibiting dogs.
unishark 6y ago
Delta allows pets in the cabin. Was your dog too big or something?
- RandallBrown 6y ago
  Probably. Isn't that only pets small enough to fit under the seat?
  - unishark 6y ago
    Yes I believe the carrier has to go under the seat. It is basically a piece of luggage.
sysadmindotfail 6y ago
Let's say my way of self-medicating for anxiety during flights is to get wasted. Does this now entitle me to be a drunk asshole on the flight? No, it does not. This is how I view those who abuse this loophole. Find another way to travel that doesn't impact everyone else in the aluminum tube traveling 550mph.
- pfisch 6y ago
  It is abusive for airlines to charge $250 per roundtrip for a ~10 lb carryon that fits under your seat. They are operating a scam. This was the only way around it.
  - pfisch 6y ago
    I love all the downvotes with no explanation about how this is a defensible practice in any way. I could understand if airlines kept a blacklist for people who have animals out of control, but they don't even do that right now with their absurd overcharging. I could also understand putting down a refundable deposit and a $20-40 charge(though you can bring much heavier carry-ons for free). The airlines' practices are indefensible. They are wildly overcharging and it is clearly a scam. It is sad they are closing this loophole that allowed people to end run the scammers.
    - ehnto 6y ago
      I didn't downvote you, but your original comment was extremely generalized which makes it annoying to argue against, because you have to point out all the caveats or else people will cling on to them each subsequent iteration. Eg:"Not all animals are 10lbs, not all animals fit under a chair, not all airlines charge $250, not all flights are the same distance, it's not just a carry-on (disingenuous) not all flights make money (so how can you claim it's a scam when they lose money) Etcetera. It's just a tedious and lopsided way to argue.
      - liuhenry 6y ago
        It's worth noting that the Department of Transportation final ruling devotes a section to economic impact [1], and estimates a ~$55M increase in fees paid by passengers traveling with ESAs to airlines. > The current policy amounts to a price restriction which requires that airlines forgo a potential revenue source, as airlines are currently prohibited from charging a pet fee for transporting emotional support animals > Removing the current requirement that carriers must transport emotional support animals free of charge will allow market forces (i.e., carriers as producers and passengers as consumers) to set the price for air transportation of emotional support animals as pets. This provision will allow carriers to charge passengers traveling with emotional support animals (dogs and other accepted species on board of an aircraft) with pet transportation fees. This represents a transfer of surplus from passengers to airlines, and does not have implications for the net benefits calculation of the final rule." [1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/Service%20Animal%20Final%20Rule.pdf https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/S...
jonas21 6y ago
> The only alternative was to drive cross-country, or... What was wrong with this alternative (other than being inconvenient for you)?
- cj 6y ago
  I don't have a car.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    So at what point do you have so many constraints that you "don't get to do it"? You've mentioned you need your animal, but you can't afford a one-way car rental, or a hotel, and that flying is affordable regardless of what happens to folks with allergies. At what point is there not a workable solution in completing your travel task?
  - randmeerkat 6y ago
    You missed out on a great life experience. My partner and I had an incredible time moving across the country and driving our pets with us.
    - watwut 6y ago
      I drove long distance and it was not much experience. Most difficult is to have discipline to not drive too much.
  - CincinnatiMan 6y ago
    Are you able to rent one?
crocodiletears 6y ago
I love my dog. He's my best and most sycophantic friend. If I'm going anywhere he might be allowed, he's with me. I'd be damned if I put him in a crate at the bottom of an airplane for 10-hours straight. When I worked jobs as a janitor, and as a retail worker, I have at various times had clean up the shit, piss vomit, and any number of other bodily expulsions produced by 'emotional support' animals, invariably left untouched and without comment by their owners, or argued with people whose pets growl and bark at everyone if they aren't muzzled. I can't imagine being a flight attendant trying to manage that with a potentially belligerent owner for 10 hours on a plane. No matter how well-behaved your animal is next time, if you aren't traveling over the ocean, please just drive, so you aren't putting the burden of your pet's presence of everyone else.
hackeraccount 6y ago
This is exactly how I feel about handicapped parking spaces. If I could pay for a spot right next to the door I would but they don't offer that and schlepping myself all the way across the parking lot makes me feel uncomfortable. Or at least sweaty.
dr_orpheus 6y ago
I haven't gotten far enough to see how expensive it actually is but there are services that will transport your pet. Seems a lot better than air as they have more room and get checked on regularly. https://www.petvanlines.com/ https://www.petvanlines.com/
randycupertino 6y ago
I was in the same situation and thus drove with my dog. It wasn't that hard and was pretty fun.

Edit: Removed comment, sparked unconstructive discussion.

by cj 6y ago

Edit: Removed comment, sparked unconstructive discussion.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> A lot of people are very attached to their pets, there's nothing wrong with that. Particularly single people living alone without kids (I fall in that bucket). I'm in that category as well, but that by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience.

cj 6y ago
> by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience. The decision wasn't for my personal convenience. It's much more convenient to throw an animal in the cargo hold. It really is not fun to deal with an animal with you on a crowded plane. Convenience is not the motivating factor at least for me... it's simply treating the animal humanely, which to me means avoiding throwing them in the cargo hold for long haul flights.
- flflfppp 6y ago
  Then you should have absorbed the inconvenience of driving cross-country, not abusing a system meant to help people that need it. Also, I'm perplexed by people's use of the word "humane" when it comes to pets. If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - freeflight 6y ago
    > If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. This is quite reductive considering that most pets are animals that have been domesticated by humans for hundreds and thousands of years. In many cases we've bred them towards certain tasks and behavioral patterns, in the process we also bred out of them traits they often would need to survive in nature. When humans did that then humans took on a responsibility, you can't just handwave that away with "these are animals, they are unworthy of any consideration". > I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human. It's preposterous to claim humans are not animals to justify inhumane treatment of other living, and in many cases highly emphatic, beings. And not to get me wrong here: I'm not some kind of hardcore vegan who thinks all animal products should be banned. I'm merely recognizing that as the dominant species on this planet we have certain obligations towards the rest of it's inhabitants and particularly those we've utilized to get us where we are today.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    >open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I'm pretty sure my drunken parents' methods of pet care were not in fact humane or in any way to the benefit of the pets who were killed by it.
  - watwut 6y ago
    That system is bare minimum required by law.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Just because "humane" is related to "human", it doesn't mean it applies only to humans. Also it's silly to allow cats on planes while prohibiting dogs.

unishark 6y ago

Delta allows pets in the cabin. Was your dog too big or something?

RandallBrown 6y ago
Probably. Isn't that only pets small enough to fit under the seat?
- unishark 6y ago
  Yes I believe the carrier has to go under the seat. It is basically a piece of luggage.

sysadmindotfail 6y ago

Let's say my way of self-medicating for anxiety during flights is to get wasted. Does this now entitle me to be a drunk asshole on the flight? No, it does not. This is how I view those who abuse this loophole. Find another way to travel that doesn't impact everyone else in the aluminum tube traveling 550mph.

pfisch 6y ago
It is abusive for airlines to charge $250 per roundtrip for a ~10 lb carryon that fits under your seat. They are operating a scam. This was the only way around it.
- pfisch 6y ago
  I love all the downvotes with no explanation about how this is a defensible practice in any way. I could understand if airlines kept a blacklist for people who have animals out of control, but they don't even do that right now with their absurd overcharging. I could also understand putting down a refundable deposit and a $20-40 charge(though you can bring much heavier carry-ons for free). The airlines' practices are indefensible. They are wildly overcharging and it is clearly a scam. It is sad they are closing this loophole that allowed people to end run the scammers.
  - ehnto 6y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but your original comment was extremely generalized which makes it annoying to argue against, because you have to point out all the caveats or else people will cling on to them each subsequent iteration. Eg:"Not all animals are 10lbs, not all animals fit under a chair, not all airlines charge $250, not all flights are the same distance, it's not just a carry-on (disingenuous) not all flights make money (so how can you claim it's a scam when they lose money) Etcetera. It's just a tedious and lopsided way to argue.
    - liuhenry 6y ago
      It's worth noting that the Department of Transportation final ruling devotes a section to economic impact [1], and estimates a ~$55M increase in fees paid by passengers traveling with ESAs to airlines. > The current policy amounts to a price restriction which requires that airlines forgo a potential revenue source, as airlines are currently prohibited from charging a pet fee for transporting emotional support animals > Removing the current requirement that carriers must transport emotional support animals free of charge will allow market forces (i.e., carriers as producers and passengers as consumers) to set the price for air transportation of emotional support animals as pets. This provision will allow carriers to charge passengers traveling with emotional support animals (dogs and other accepted species on board of an aircraft) with pet transportation fees. This represents a transfer of surplus from passengers to airlines, and does not have implications for the net benefits calculation of the final rule." [1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/Service%20Animal%20Final%20Rule.pdf https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/S...

jonas21 6y ago

> The only alternative was to drive cross-country, or... What was wrong with this alternative (other than being inconvenient for you)?

cj 6y ago
I don't have a car.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  So at what point do you have so many constraints that you "don't get to do it"? You've mentioned you need your animal, but you can't afford a one-way car rental, or a hotel, and that flying is affordable regardless of what happens to folks with allergies. At what point is there not a workable solution in completing your travel task?
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  You missed out on a great life experience. My partner and I had an incredible time moving across the country and driving our pets with us.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I drove long distance and it was not much experience. Most difficult is to have discipline to not drive too much.
- CincinnatiMan 6y ago
  Are you able to rent one?

crocodiletears 6y ago

I love my dog. He's my best and most sycophantic friend. If I'm going anywhere he might be allowed, he's with me. I'd be damned if I put him in a crate at the bottom of an airplane for 10-hours straight. When I worked jobs as a janitor, and as a retail worker, I have at various times had clean up the shit, piss vomit, and any number of other bodily expulsions produced by 'emotional support' animals, invariably left untouched and without comment by their owners, or argued with people whose pets growl and bark at everyone if they aren't muzzled. I can't imagine being a flight attendant trying to manage that with a potentially belligerent owner for 10 hours on a plane. No matter how well-behaved your animal is next time, if you aren't traveling over the ocean, please just drive, so you aren't putting the burden of your pet's presence of everyone else.

hackeraccount 6y ago

This is exactly how I feel about handicapped parking spaces. If I could pay for a spot right next to the door I would but they don't offer that and schlepping myself all the way across the parking lot makes me feel uncomfortable. Or at least sweaty.

dr_orpheus 6y ago

I haven't gotten far enough to see how expensive it actually is but there are services that will transport your pet. Seems a lot better than air as they have more room and get checked on regularly. https://www.petvanlines.com/ https://www.petvanlines.com/

randycupertino 6y ago

I was in the same situation and thus drove with my dog. It wasn't that hard and was pretty fun.