> The difference is that back then, it was to transport the animal from one side of the country to the other safely, so the animal stayed in its container under the sea

Many, if not most, of these folk just have larger dogs that don't qualify for under-seat.

I drove my golden retriever across the country on three occasions (~130 hours of driving all told?). I wish there were a reasonable and ethical flight option, but I would never trust an animal to cargo.

I fly dozens of times a year. I've seen plenty of animals flying properly (in a soft sided crate, under the seat). I have never once seen an animal allow to run around the plane, and I imagine if someone tried to do that with their animals the flight attendants would put a stop to it quite quickly, given the obvious hazard that poses.

Just yesterday there was an article in my Apple News feed about an uncrated rabbit on an airliner.

Are you referring to this article (it was the only recent one I could find about a rabbit on a plane)? https://www.insider.com/rabbit-business-class-flight-photos-... The article explains that the rabbit was brought on to the plane in a crate, but was allowed out by the flight attendants, since the passenger had an empty seat next to them and the attendants enjoyed playing with the rabbit. That hardly sounds like "attention whores [who] treat other living creatures like they're fashion accessories, and let them run around the cabin and sit in the seats and do whatever they want". It is another example of potential abuse of the concept of an ESA, but I certainly wouldn't want to subject my pet to the conditions of the cargo hold for a trans-pacific flight.