11 ms·

Some people are allergic. Some people have phobias. Some people would simply prefer not to be near an animal that may drool, shed, bark or otherwise act unpre

• powerset 4y ago
  If we're being honest, many people would prefer not to be forced to share space with other humans, either
  • majormajor 4y ago
    Yeah, and it's easier for me to deal with that as a result: I can pay extra and get a first class ticket to get (depending on the plane) either some more space or A LOT more space to myself. Would be nice if airlines would make it just as easy to buy some more space for my pet. Pay more to buy the row out, pay more to get on a limited selection of "pet friendly" flights, probably other ideas could work too...
    • dwighttk 4y ago
      pet friendly flights seems like the best bet here... I was sort of assuming this was a pet friendly airline, not just a plane that you can put your pet on.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • bscphil 4y ago
      > Yeah, and it's easier for me to deal with that as a result: I can pay extra and get a first class ticket to get (depending on the plane) either some more space or A LOT more space to myself. I see people bring crying babies into first class all the time. I would dispute that most people really have an option to avoid "nuisance" contact with other people. (Not an option for me either way, I have never had a first class seat.)
  • amelius 4y ago
    Humans are not as unpredictable as most pets.
    • smt88 4y ago
      This is untrue of babies and small children, which are more common on flights than pets.
      • blooalien 4y ago
        Hell, it's honestly untrue of entirely too many adult humans these days, too. Humans have just become plain unpredictable in general (unless you predict "crazy"). :(
    • lijogdfljk 4y ago
      Heh, the last flight to florida i was on someone had urinated on the seat. if only.
  • imgabe 4y ago
    You’re not forced to go on an airplane. If you don’t want to be around other humans, stay home. The comfort of other humans is more important than anyone’s selfish desire to drag their pet to each and every place they happen to go.
    • turkeygizzard 4y ago
      I think a similar argument could be applied to babies on planes
      • imgabe 4y ago
        Babies are people. Dogs are not. We prioritize people over dogs. It’s really not that complicated.
        • turkeygizzard 4y ago
          Right, but if you just replace "pet" with "baby" in your comment, the argument is still relevant. I'm not saying either way is wrong, but I don't think you can immediately conclude that it's fair to bring a baby on a plane that disturbs the 30+ people in immediate proximity while obviously unfair to bring a small pet on board
          • imgabe 4y ago
            It's not still relevant because a baby and a dog are not equivalent. A baby has rights a dog doesn't. A baby might disturb people, so might an adult, but both are humans and you have to take the risk of being disturbed by humans because society is made of humans. Society is not made of or for dogs. Dogs are optional. The OP was not talking about small pets, which are already allowed. They're talking about buying a separate seat for a large dog. It is utterly insane to expect anyone to spend a cross-country flight with an 80lb Labrador next to them slobbering all over them.
            • turkeygizzard 4y ago
• jen20 4y ago
  > Some people would simply prefer not to sit next to an animal that may drool, shed, bark or otherwise act unpredictably when stressed on a flight. Can we at least apply this same standard to the other human passengers on a flight then?
• armchairhacker 4y ago
  There's an easy solution to this: pet-friendly and pet-unfriendly airlines. The prices shouldn't be much different, because there are benefits to both being allowed to bring your pet and not being around pets, and in most cases the experience is nearly the same. If they are, the pet-friendly airline would be the more expensive one.
  • lotsofpulp 4y ago
    And then everyone claims their animal is a service animal so they do not have to pay extra to go on the pet friendly airline per ADA, and we are back to square one. edit: sorry, I meant claiming their dog is a service animal, not any animal
    • scott_w 4y ago
      That’s not how that works. You don’t just “declare” they’re a service animal and all is well. In fact, even real service animals often have issues in spite of the laws supposedly ensuring their access.
      • lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Sorry, I meant claiming any dog is a service animal. Per this website: https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/service-animals https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer... And this one: https://beta.ada.gov/topics/service-animals/ https://beta.ada.gov/topics/service-animals/ It seems like there is nothing stopping someone from claiming their dog is a service animal. The DOT website says airlines can ask service animal owners to fill out a couple self attestation forms, and while that puts a little bit of skin in the game for the service animal owner, it does not seem easy to prove fraud.
      • dwighttk 4y ago
        >You don’t just “declare” they’re a service animal and all is well. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-airlines-changes-policy-on-comfort-animals-after-peacock-incident/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-airlines-changes-policy-... the peacock didn't get to fly, but before they changed their policy it was $125 for a pet or $0 for a comfort animal, and they hadn't been checking if the animal was vaccinated, obedient, or that there was any medical reason for the person to have the animal (so it seems like you could just declare your pet to be a comfort animal and save $125)
• remuskaos 4y ago
  Surely, these people would still have the option not to book a flight with PetFriendlyAirways.
• wcarss 4y ago
  They could offer just a few "pet flights", with different livery, and interiors for easier cleaning, and a premium on the tickets for the pet owner and pet seats -- then also a discount for the excess no-pet travelers who explicitly opt into filling out a pet flight. It might be a terrible idea, but I've both heard and had worse!
  • slillibri 4y ago
    I doubt there is enough demand for them to invest the hundreds of millions per aircraft to provide this service. In addition, each of the routes they would be able to provide would remove gates for other, more profitable flights. Another factor would be turnaround, i.e. cleaning and resetting a ‘pet-friendly’ flight would probably take longer then a regular flight, increasing the at-gate time and thus reducing the number of flights that could use that gate.
    • netr0ute 4y ago
      > I doubt there is enough demand for them to invest the hundreds of millions per aircraft to provide this service. Hooters tried something similar but arguably more niche back in the 2000s.
• silisili 4y ago
  Same. I love dogs. I don't want to share an airplane with them, sorry. I once made the mistake of staying in a 'pet friendly' section of a hotel. The smell alone was enough to make me check for that next time.
  • Sebb767 4y ago
    Thirded. It also depends quite a bit on the pet itself. Most dogs are very cute and well behaved, but some are quite loud and then there are some people with completely spoiled and possibly aggressive dogs, who are then put under stress in an enclosed space with a lot of other animals (prey and rivals alike). Combined with an owner who is unable or unwilling to control them, this is a recipe for disaster. Sure, there are not too many of those, but it only takes one to ruin a lot of days at once.
    • smeej 4y ago
      And the people who own that last kind of pet are the least likely to believe anyone sane could ever find their pet annoying.
  • Johnny555 4y ago
    I've never seen a hotel with a "pet friendly" section, usually hotels that allow pets allow them pretty much anywhere.
    • silisili 4y ago
      IIRC, the first floor was pet friendly, the other floors were not.
• nagisa 4y ago
  There are also many people who would prefer to not sit next to a human that may droll, vomit, start screaming or otherwise act unpredictably when stressed on a flight. None of that is unreasonable… is it? That's why I don't fly with my dog (in large part out of concern of their well-being), but maybe airlines should also consider not allowing toddlers on the plane if these things are the concern?
  • boopmaster 4y ago
    Oh, wow... was really not expecting "toddlers". Those descriptions of otherwise unpredictably acting humans is not restricted to merely the toddler aged humans.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • thedailymail 4y ago
    I was a frequent air traveler for around 15 years and would sometimes fantasize about an airline or subsidiary that catered only to human people with, say, 500,000 miles in experience as passengers. No kids, no pets, no rookies. But I am even happier now with my unplanned alternative – no air travel at for 2+ years.
  • gumby 4y ago
    Toddlers should be fine as long as they qualify for free cocktails.
  • tshaddox 4y ago
    Very young humans visibly in prolonged intense agony probably shouldn't have been brought onto the plane either.
  • Angostura 4y ago
    Generally it's frowned upon to put your toddler in a kennel for a week.
• robbrown451 4y ago
  What if the back of the plane is pets ok and the front of the plane is for people who don't want to be near them? Where I live people bring the dogs into the grocery store (carrying them, putting them in the cart, or just walking on a leash.... and no, they aren't all service dogs) and I've never seen a problem. Personally I think you should be able to get a special collar or jacket for them that says they have passed a test that they are well enough trained for such things etc.
  • sophacles 4y ago
    > Personally I think you should be able to get a special collar or jacket for them that says they have passed a test that they are well enough trained for such things etc. I agree with your overall point - but I doubt this would be effective. Supposedly we already have such a system for service animals, but there's been enough shenanigans around that to make me cautious of this specific plan.
    • robbrown451 4y ago
      Well it's better than nothing. But as I said, where I live (San Francisco) people bring dogs in stores all the time, and I never see problems. Presumably most of them realize that if their pet is going to poop on the floor or bark or snap at people, they just don't bring them in. What are the shenanigans you are aware of with service dogs? Badly behaved dogs, or just people that lie about why they need a dog? My suggested plan would make such lying unnecessary since all you need to do is prove the dog can pass a behavior test, it has nothing to do with whether you supposedly need the emotional support animal. (and of course, this doesn't give anyone the right to bring the dog in a store or in a plane or whatever, unless the business wants to allow it)
      • kelnos 4y ago
        > What are the shenanigans you are aware of with service dogs? Badly behaved dogs, or just people that lie about why they need a dog? The problem with "service" dogs is that you can buy a vest on Amazon for $25[0] without that dog having been trained to do anything in particular. Many people (in San Francisco especially; I'm surprised you haven't seen this) just put these on their dog and claim that they can bring the dog into restaurants (where non-service animals are specifically banned by health code). The whole "emotional support animal" thing has been abused like crazy by people who just feel entitled to bring their pet anywhere they want, regardless of the law, or even just the policy of a particular establishment. Generally it's fairly legally perilous for a business owner to attempt to ascertain if the animal is really a service animal that's been properly trained to do tasks for their human, so they often feel stuck and unable to turn them away. I like (most) dogs just fine, but I don't want to be seated indoors in a restaurant one table over from one, even if they're well-behaved. I'm fairly allergic to some breeds, and I don't want to spend my meal with itchy eyes and a stuffy nose. And I certainly don't want random pets walking around grocery stores, sniffing the produce and shedding hair on everything. Actual service animals are trained to handle those situations properly and not be a nuisance, but your random pet or "emotional support animal" is not. [0] https://smile.amazon.com/Service-Vest-Hook-Straps-Handle/dp/B00NSIYLLK https://smile.amazon.com/Service-Vest-Hook-Straps-Handle/dp/... for example
• ldiracdelta 4y ago
  If you think a crying baby is a bummer on a flight, try a crying dog. Just happened to me on my last flight.
• amelius 4y ago
  I completely support making flights less comfortable. Less flying means less pollution. Bring in the pets! And let's remove the chairs while we're at it.
• Fezzik 4y ago
  FWIW it’s worth (not much, obviously) I’m allergic to cats but I would much rather sit next to someone with a cat on an airplane than the absolutely noxious scents so many people insist in dousing themselves in before flying. The headaches from the latter are excruciating.
• ajmurmann 4y ago
  While the cases you lay out are valid, cats and dogs are already allowed on flights. They must fit into a cannel that fits under the seat though. If I recall correctly you can take the dog on your lap once in the air as well (might misremember this part. It's been a long time sober I've done this). Still would be a problem for anyone who struggles with allergies.
• pontus 4y ago
  I used to have a dog and got this feedback from people quite often. As far as I understand, pet allergies are not like peanut allergies in that they're not actually lethal (correct me if I'm wrong!) As such, I feel like it's just one of those things that people might just need to deal with when they're part of a shared space much like sitting next to someone with bad body oder, someone chewing loudly, or someone laughing out loud when they're watching their tv. If it's too much of an annoyance maybe one can try to get moved to a different seat?
  • Merad 4y ago
    I mean no offense, but this is insane. I have a cat that I love like it's my child, so I sympathize with where you're coming from, but come on. You're basically saying that people with legitimate medical conditions caused by your pet's presence should just suck it up because at least they aren't going to die. All so you can travel with your pet. Talk about a lack of empathy...
    • pontus 4y ago
      No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that if someone seated next to me is allergic to my pet (or for whatever reason doesn't want to sit next to it), then they could relocate either me or that person so that we're sufficiently far apart not to cause any issues. The argument presented to me in the past (and also the argument in comment I was replying to) is that since some people are allergic to pets or otherwise dislike them, we should completely disallow traveling with pets in a blanket fashion. I'm simply saying that I think that's too extreme and that a middle ground can be found. If we're going to completely ban pets on airplanes, then we should consider also banning flying with a cold because of immunocompromised people (in fact this is perhaps more warranted given the severity of the situation).
  • rush340 4y ago
    Who cares if the allergies are lethal or not? They'll cause the person to be miserable for days, possibly cause hives, possibly cause an asthma attack. That's not comparable to sitting next to someone who's annoying/smelly.