Actual service animals do still belong, because they provide an actual service, are extremely well-trained, and are worth the allergen/phobia tradeoff because folks who need them literally need them.
The amount of entitlement that pet owners have to impose the downsides of their pets on others boggles my mind sometimes.
If your opinion includes that proviso then then I can’t see how’s unpopular! It is quite reasonable overall.
Our current healthcare system is a disgrace of paternalism and bureaucracy, amounting to a constructive denial of care. If anything many more drugs need to be made available directly over the counter - a consultation with the pharmacist should be enough.
I've arrived at these conclusions even with most of the costs being covered by Medicare (family member), good relationships with providers, intelligence/bandwidth to understand what they do, and now free telehealth visits. I can't even imagine the financial-bureaucratic world of pain for people on private "insurance" (or even worse, without) trying to get care for themselves while the system just milks them.
I generally trust people with physical disabilities to "self-medicate". If someone with a wheelchair says that something will help them live like a normal person, I'm inclined to think they're telling the truth.
But an awful lot of mental health issues are ones where the people tend to make terrible choices when it comes to dealing with their mental health (not every disease, but an awful lot these days). A lot of these disabilities are sustained and enabled by poor coping strategies (e.g. avoiding things they don't like, acting in destructive ways, expecting and getting special treatment, etc).
What about the cases where allowing people to use their mental health as an excuse is making their mental health worse?
Much as we imagine we know what's best for them, ultimately they have a right to their free choice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They are operating a scam. This was the only way around it.
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.
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.
> 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/S...
I think it is reasonable to charge more for larger animals. If your dog takes up a seat then a ticket price is a fair price.
If you have a well behaved animal it is basically just a carry-on.
If some flights aren't profitable that doesn't justify price gouging people with animals that weigh nothing and use up no jet fuel. Increase ticket prices and baggage prices. That actually makes sense.
What was wrong with this alternative (other than being inconvenient for you)?
That is hardly the only alternative. There are other forms of travel and it is quite likely that your pet will be better off at home with a sitter or boarded while you're gone.
And of course, the reason this was bad was because inevitably, people abusing the system would screw it up for the people who actually need it or would benefit from it. Which is what happened.