‘Emotional Support’ livestock on boardBack to Forum
If my recollection is correct both Air France and Lufthansa used to (and perhaps still do) allow small pets in the cabin on shorter flights and perhaps Swiss do also.
For a not insubstantial fee of course and maybe they also needed to be caged,13 Nov 2019
That explains the very small canine leadings its owner a merry dance at 6.30 Sunday morning in Tallinn Airport departures area……. That is what emotional support looks like?
At least it was only a dog – apparently the emotional supporters in the attached are permitted in the US….
You must be logged in to access attached files.
1 user thanked author for this post.13 Nov 2019
n the case of the Aeroflot [passenger , it all ended with a Catastrophic result !
After a Rigarous investigation by Aeroflot.
Support animals are fine so long as the adjacent passenger has the right to refuse. They should be told at check in.
For an assistance animal – I’d have no problem being next to a dog for 12 hours though.13 Nov 2019
Behind the jokes and stories, and behind the eye-rolling about how things (and people) are different the other side of the Atlantic, there is a real issue here. And that is how much we have the right to inflict our needs or wishes on our fellow passengers.
For example, it takes just one person who is allergic to nuts for the whole planeload to be denied any nuts in their snacks. Personally, I don’t have too much issue with this, because being denied the right to eat nuts barely rises above “mildly disappointing” – it certainly isn’t a serious matter for me, let alone a life or death one.
But what if the person who “absolutely must” have their pet cat with them is next to someone who actively dislikes cats, or worse, is actually allergic to them? Whose right should prevail? I don’t, for example, like dogs – I was bitten by one when small and have an intense dislike for sharing space with them. Is this relevant? Can I say “I am allergic to dogs” in the same way someone else says “I am allergic to nuts”?
At what point does the airline say to the passenger who insists on taking a support animal with them that “this is public transport not your personal plane, and in the interests of everyone else, you cannot”?
Of course it is all part of a wider debate on how society tolerates those who wish to impose on it. One only needs to look at the debate between the rights of transgender women to utilise female facilities and the rights of born women to retain a male-free environment – to which there seems to be no answer at all.14 Nov 2019
I once sat next to a lady who had brought her pooch on board (also on a Charlotte flight, like AFlyingDutchman – what a coincidence!). It clearly wasn’t an emotional support dog, she was equally clearly its emotional support human, as it was terrified throughout. She had to inject it with sedatives twice during the flight (which was a domestic one – don’t recall which destination but probably somewhere like Dallas). I was perfectly fine with the animal itself as I like dogs, but I can quite understand that someone with allergies might justifiably have challenged it, and in addition it was clearly so upset it would have been much kinder not to have brought it.
I wonder how long it will be before we see someone take exception on religious grounds – after all dogs are regarded as “haram” (as I understand it, the opposite of “halal” – forbidden or unclean) in certain branches of Islam and I would not be too surprised if this causes a confrontation at some point. There may be other religious objections to certain animals (pigs being an obvious candidate). How will an airline sort that out?
Incidentally the miniature horses pictured up-thread might be genuine service animals. They are widely used, not least because they have a much longer working lifespan than service dogs, and are now recognised as eligible service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
1 user thanked author for this post.26 Nov 2019