Maybe it was covered somewhere but.... did the one passenger actually provide proof the cat was an "emotional support animal" or do we just have to take their word? I am really glad Delta is cracking down on this. I am not blaming Alaska if they didn't. I just don't know if the other airlines have gotten to that point yet. If they haven't, I hope AS eventually follows DL lead.

Just cut this ESA nonsense. Pets aren’t people.

I never said that they were. Not trying to be rude or combative, I'm just not understanding how your response relates to my post. It doesn't matter if the pet is an ESA or not. If pets IN GENERAL are to be allowed in the cabin, and if a passenger's profile shows that they are severely allergic to said pets, then isn't up to the airline to check said profile? That's what my post was about.

Cats are superior animals to people, and therefore should get the right of way.

Well done, Alaska.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Just cut this ESA nonsense. Pets aren’t people.

I never said that they were. Not trying to be rude or combative, I'm just not understanding how your response relates to my post. It doesn't matter if the pet is an ESA or not. If pets IN GENERAL are to be allowed in the cabin, and if a passenger's profile shows that they are severely allergic to said pets, then isn't up to the airline to check said profile? That's what my post was about.

Wasn’t aimed at you. Was just frustration in general. Far too much time and money is spent on animals anymore. I don’t see a valid reason that a cat needs to be on an airplane with a person. Dogs that can be certified as necessary are a different story but we need a high bar for this stuff. And saying “it makes me feel better” doesn’t cut it for me.

Can anyone confirm the actual status of the cat? From what I am reading the only one saying it was an ESA is the mother of allergic child. Was it an ESA? Or was it a ticketed passenger paying to transport their pet?

Tugg

FriscoHeavy wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

mast2407 wrote:

Are you Americans so inherently emotionally unstable that you can’t cross the road without taking the Floof with you?

Entitlement and exceptionalism. Americans believe they can do what they want whenever they want without question. It isn’t anything new, it is just more visible.

I'm an American and sadly, this is the case. If you tell someone 'No, don't do that' or 'Pull up your pants and dress like a decent human being', you are labeled as intolerant and racist. There is no more common decency among people, but it's not just an American thing. I've been around the world and people dress like slobs, act snobbish, look and smell as though they just rolled out of bed after a night of partying, etc. It's ridiculous.

There is something to be said about going back to the good ole' days. A vast majority of people acted decently in the past. Now, with social media, everyone seems to have internet courage -- complain, protest everything, etc. Just be a clean, decent human being and take responsibility for your actions -- no matter who you are (I don't care if you're red, yellow, brown, green, white, black or anywhere in between).

I'm with you guys on this too. I'm also from the good old USA and I'm not shy about poking fun about how shallow and overly dramatic many Americans are. Common courtesy is another thing many American's are becoming too lazy and entitled to learn too.

However, while I don't know all the facts, I feel like the cat owner didn't do anything wrong. The mother is over-dramatizing the situation because she can on social media.

dc9northwest wrote:

Cats are superior animals to people, and therefore should get the right of way.

Well done, Alaska.

Try getting some facts before making a silly statement like that. While I don't personally take my cat traveling with me, I consider her a part of the family. What did you expect AS to do, make the cat get off and dump her on the street to die? Or make the cat and owner get off? From what I can tell, the owner and cat didn't do anything wrong.

So if I'm allergic to children, I can walk on an airplane and demand AS make all the children get off just for me?

MIflyer12 wrote:

questions wrote:

Another FAKE emotional support animal!

I don’t doubt that these people have emotional problems and are unstable in public situations, but that damn cat doesn’t do jack except bring out the two year old in them. Give the woman a pacifier laced with a sedative and leave the cat at home!


Note: This excludes people who actually require trained service animals.

alfa164 wrote:

ESA's are covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, and that legislation will probably be addressed - as it should be - to further refine and restrict the conditions required for certification.

That's the thing: passengers traveling with ESAs are protected under the ACAA. Fifteen year old UMs are not.

Ignorance of U.S. law does not lead to intelligent discussion on this topic.

As far as I know, this sounds wrong. Service Animals are protected (not above people, but as a part of a disabled person's accommodation). But:

"Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under Title II and Title III of the ADA. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual’s disability. It does not matter if a person has a note from a doctor that states that the person has a disability and needs to have the animal for emotional support. A doctor’s letter does not turn an animal into a service animal."
https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-booklet

In the case of a UM versus an Emotional Support animal, the airline should clearly favor the human customer. One potential solution is give the cat or dog to a nice shelter or put it in the cargo deck. Or just don't go. Deboarding a human passenger to serve a lapdog's needs seems unthinkable to me.

I've gotten flamed in other threads, but I will say it again ... If you need an emotional anything, should you really be flying? The only cases I see relevant are guide dogs for the blind and maybe the dogs that sense epileptic seizures. Animals the have been trained and it can be proven.
Flying is a privilege not a right.

Flighty wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

questions wrote:

Another FAKE emotional support animal!

I don’t doubt that these people have emotional problems and are unstable in public situations, but that damn cat doesn’t do jack except bring out the two year old in them. Give the woman a pacifier laced with a sedative and leave the cat at home!


Note: This excludes people who actually require trained service animals.

alfa164 wrote:

ESA's are covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, and that legislation will probably be addressed - as it should be - to further refine and restrict the conditions required for certification.

That's the thing: passengers traveling with ESAs are protected under the ACAA. Fifteen year old UMs are not.

Ignorance of U.S. law does not lead to intelligent discussion on this topic.

As far as I know, this sounds wrong. Service Animals are protected (not above people, but as a part of a disabled person's accommodation). But:

"Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under Title II and Title III of the ADA. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual’s disability. It does not matter if a person has a note from a doctor that states that the person has a disability and needs to have the animal for emotional support. A doctor’s letter does not turn an animal into a service animal."
https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-booklet

Thank you.

BoeingGuy wrote:

dc9northwest wrote:

Cats are superior animals to people, and therefore should get the right of way.

Well done, Alaska.

Try getting some facts before making a silly statement like that. While I don't personally take my cat traveling with me, I consider her a part of the family. What did you expect AS to do, make the cat get off and dump her on the street to die? Or make the cat and owner get off? From what I can tell, the owner and cat didn't do anything wrong.

So if I'm allergic to children, I can walk on an airplane and demand AS make all the children get off just for me?

Your posts are normally spot on however this one is silly.
Animals are that ... Animals.
All animals other then those trained by a recognized organization belong in the cargo hold.
Children are human beings, if your allegeric to them ( I know you were joking) stay home - they are everywhere.

7673mech wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

dc9northwest wrote:

Cats are superior animals to people, and therefore should get the right of way.

Well done, Alaska.

Try getting some facts before making a silly statement like that. While I don't personally take my cat traveling with me, I consider her a part of the family. What did you expect AS to do, make the cat get off and dump her on the street to die? Or make the cat and owner get off? From what I can tell, the owner and cat didn't do anything wrong.

So if I'm allergic to children, I can walk on an airplane and demand AS make all the children get off just for me?

Your posts are normally spot on however this one is silly.
Animals are that ... Animals.
All animals other then those trained by a recognized organization belong in the cargo hold.
Children are human beings, if your allegeric to them ( I know you were joking) stay home - they are everywhere.

Thanks, sort of. So what do you expect AS should have done? Make the cat and cat owner get off? Let the cat go in a field someplace nearby?

As I said, this won't happen to me. I don't choose to travel with my cat. I think she is much happier - and it's better for all of us - if she stays with friends while I travel.

BoeingGuy wrote:

7673mech wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Try getting some facts before making a silly statement like that. While I don't personally take my cat traveling with me, I consider her a part of the family. What did you expect AS to do, make the cat get off and dump her on the street to die? Or make the cat and owner get off? From what I can tell, the owner and cat didn't do anything wrong.

So if I'm allergic to children, I can walk on an airplane and demand AS make all the children get off just for me?

Your posts are normally spot on however this one is silly.
Animals are that ... Animals.
All animals other then those trained by a recognized organization belong in the cargo hold.
Children are human beings, if your allegeric to them ( I know you were joking) stay home - they are everywhere.

Thanks, sort of. So what do you expect AS should have done? Make the cat and cat owner get off? Let the cat go in a field someplace nearby?

As I said, this won't happen to me. I don't choose to travel with my cat. I think she is much happier - and it's better for all of us - if she stays with friends while I travel.

AS should notify the cat owner to take the animal off the airplane. A cat does not take priority over a paid human passenger. Reason #938 why taking your pet with you on vacation is a terrible idea.

I’m sure I’m showing my age but I remember a time when people didn’t have the need to bring along Fido or Kitty on a flight. 30 years ago it just didn’t happen. Also there wasn’t this constant issue of allergies. Remember planes used to be full of smoke and no one had a tizzy fit over it.

An a/c is a public space and should be treated so. If one just simply can’t leave home without Fido at their side maybe they just need to fly private.

Airlines, as a courtesy, try to meet customers needs as it regards allergies. They are NOT required, nor should they be, to guarantee a flight without allergens. In that case would you kick off a paying passenger if they were eating peanuts during boarding, and someone with a peanut allergy boarded and saw them?

This entitlement BS needs to stop. If you want a cat free, dog free, peanut free flight...charter a plane or drive. Why do others have to change something because YOU chose to pay a private company to fly you to another location and then have special requirements?

This BS also includes support animals, if you want to take the dog, cat, rabbit, horse, etc with you then you need to pay the fees and meet the size requirements. Also they do not come out in flight. If you have that many issues, then maybe you should not get in a metal tube 35,000 ft in the air going 300 miles per hour. If they are ADA compliant service animals, they & the owners know the rules and there are no problems. In my 10 years I had ZERO problems with true Service Animals.

Start ticketing people who let their dogs crap and piss in the terminals, or require $500 deposit/hold on their credit card until 72 hours after the completion of their trip to cover cleaning costs of planes and the terminal if Bingo wants to Crapo. Sat in the MCO food court a couple months ago, this couple pulled the dog out of the crate where it pissed all over the carpet....they just stood there looking at it for about 5 mins. Finally a WN employee noticed it and got janitorial staff over, and the couple just walked off.The airports have HAD to put in pet facilities so that idiot pet owners will maybe stop to take care of their animals.

Crap like this is one of the reasons I stopped working as a Gate Agent.

Exactly most hotels charge a fee if a pet is brought into the room, emotional support or not. If airlines began to charge a fee for all animals this stupidity would cease.

Miamiairport wrote:

Exactly most hotels charge a fee if a pet is brought into the room, emotional support or not. If airlines began to charge a fee for all animals this stupidity would cease.

They do charge a fee for all animals. It's $100 on AS.

AirCalSNA wrote:

Makes me miss the good old days when people had a modicum of common sense and the crazy cat lady down the street wasn't allowed to bring her "emotional support animal" on a public conveyance.

This

PlanesNTrains wrote:

An interesting scenario, but after countless of these stories lately, I'm fried. It's like serving on a jury in perpetuity. So for those reasons, I'm out.

Couldn't have stated it better myself.

Tugger wrote:

Can anyone confirm the actual status of the cat? From what I am reading the only one saying it was an ESA is the mother of allergic child. Was it an ESA? Or was it a ticketed passenger paying to transport their pet?

Tugg

This! I haven't yet seen any independent confirmation that the cat was an "emotional support animal." I haven't seen any confirmation other than what the mother has said regarding the situation. Further, it's been mentioned the passenger purchased a fare for the cat. The story is really unclear as to whether she simply paid the $100 pet fee or if she bought an actual seat for the cat. If so, then I can see why AS chose to put the girl on a later flight. Beyond the fact that the girl is severely allergic, if this woman bought a second seat for the cat, then it would be easier to re-accommodate the girl than the woman and her cat.

Flighty wrote:

As far as I know, this sounds wrong. Service Animals are protected (not above people, but as a part of a disabled person's accommodation).

Emotional support animals do indeed appear to be protected under the Air Carrier Access Act. However, it's not a free for all. The airlines have a right under the act to access for specific documentation corroborating the underlying issue the animal is supposed to support. So I think you're correct in that an emotional support animal does not have more rights than a UM, since the airline can require documentation from the passenger.

Wasn’t aimed at you. Was just frustration in general. Far too much time and money is spent on animals anymore. I don’t see a valid reason that a cat needs to be on an airplane with a person. Dogs that can be certified as necessary are a different story but we need a high bar for this stuff. And saying “it makes me feel better” doesn’t cut it for me.

Gotcha, thanks. No worries.

I have no trouble traveling alone, but my dog gets very upset when I leave without her. Can I register somewhere as an emotional support human? I'd be happy to buy her a seat, and she can sit upright like a person for the flight. She can easily go 8-10 hours without a potty break and I think everyone one would enjoy sitting next to an 80 pound German Shepard.

The emotional support elephant in the room is that carriers may not have much choice in the matters; they have to follow (even silly) laws. And of course prevent dangerous outcomes, too, like allergic reaction. But, the main thing here should be prevention through database... which did not happen, and that's a screwup.

FlyHappy wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

who's to say that the seat the child was to occupy wasn't previously occupied by someone with a cat? Or the seat next to it... Airplanes are not deep cleaned between each flight. If someone is that sensitive to allergens then an public airplane seat is probably not a great idea.

why do people make these kinds of arguments? There's a massive difference between passive exposure to traces of allergens, and direct proximity in an enclosed space to living organism to which you are quickly affected by. Is this really hard to picture?

Because it's easy enough to separate the person that has an allergy to animal dander from the animal inside the cabin of an airplane such that it shouldn't make a difference. If you're going to argue that being in an enclosed space is enough to trigger an allergic reaction then I'm going to counter with airplanes are not deep cleaned. If being 150 feet away from an animal isn't enough space then I don't know how a person manages to function outside their home.

Does it matter?

If you are so allergic to cats, every flight is a risk. What if the passenger using your seat on the flight before transported his pet cat in an open carriage, does anybody believe the cleaning crew will have removed all hairs from the cat?

Why do theses things only happen in America? Either way - a 15 year old is more important than a Cat. Totally unacceptable in my opinion that a women with a cat stopped another person flying.

ASFlyer wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

who's to say that the seat the child was to occupy wasn't previously occupied by someone with a cat? Or the seat next to it... Airplanes are not deep cleaned between each flight. If someone is that sensitive to allergens then an public airplane seat is probably not a great idea.

why do people make these kinds of arguments? There's a massive difference between passive exposure to traces of allergens, and direct proximity in an enclosed space to living organism to which you are quickly affected by. Is this really hard to picture?

Because it's easy enough to separate the person that has an allergy to animal dander from the animal inside the cabin of an airplane such that it shouldn't make a difference. If you're going to argue that being in an enclosed space is enough to trigger an allergic reaction then I'm going to counter with airplanes are not deep cleaned. If being 150 feet away from an animal isn't enough space then I don't know how a person manages to function outside their home.

150 feet away? That would be at least 58 (coach; at 31" pitch) rows apart. AS must have pulled a special aircraft out of thin air for this trip!

Couple of things. 1st story is after a 5 hour delay on a B6 flight from JFK-ORD, I remember walking through concourse L at ORD and watching a dog take a leak in the middle of the concourse. Tile floor, but I was floored that this even happened. What I can't remember is whether or not the owner cleaned it up or just kept going. Either way, floored beyond belief.

As for ESAs, I've seen video evidence of situations where they are helpful. Dogs though, not cats, not birds (and I love birds), not fish, lizards, donkeys, kangaroos, whatever. It is scientifically proven that dogs can sense certain situations which is why they can be certified as Emotional Support Animals and Service Animals. They can sense seizures, panic attacks, guide the visually impaired. It's all cool stuff.

Coming home from EYW, I saw a girl board my ATL-JFK flight terrified of flying. She was in tears and her parents barely got her on the plane. I felt terrible for her, but she had emotional support parents. No pets. I'm a plane crash survivor, I didn't need my emotional support animal to get back on a plane with me. I just did it no matter how messed up in the head I was. Doctors need to become more liberal again about prescribing Xanax. That's the best emotional support you can get

iad51fl wrote:

Airlines, as a courtesy, try to meet customers needs as it regards allergies. They are NOT required, nor should they be, to guarantee a flight without allergens. In that case would you kick off a paying passenger if they were eating peanuts during boarding, and someone with a peanut allergy boarded and saw them?

This entitlement BS needs to stop. If you want a cat free, dog free, peanut free flight...charter a plane or drive. Why do others have to change something because YOU chose to pay a private company to fly you to another location and then have special requirements?

This BS also includes support animals, if you want to take the dog, cat, rabbit, horse, etc with you then you need to pay the fees and meet the size requirements. Also they do not come out in flight. If you have that many issues, then maybe you should not get in a metal tube 35,000 ft in the air going 300 miles per hour. If they are ADA compliant service animals, they & the owners know the rules and there are no problems. In my 10 years I had ZERO problems with true Service Animals.

Start ticketing people who let their dogs crap and piss in the terminals, or require $500 deposit/hold on their credit card until 72 hours after the completion of their trip to cover cleaning costs of planes and the terminal if Bingo wants to Crapo. Sat in the MCO food court a couple months ago, this couple pulled the dog out of the crate where it pissed all over the carpet....they just stood there looking at it for about 5 mins. Finally a WN employee noticed it and got janitorial staff over, and the couple just walked off.The airports have HAD to put in pet facilities so that idiot pet owners will maybe stop to take care of their animals.

Crap like this is one of the reasons I stopped working as a Gate Agent.

If there is one peanut allergic passenger on board and the crew tells the passengers not to eat or open peanut snacks, than any passenger opening a peanut snack or peanut bag is not following the instructions of the crew, should be thrown of the plane and being banned to fly for life, simple. Eat your peanut snack before or after the flight.

No, you can not guaranty a flight without allergens, but why should that keep airlines from trying to reduce the risk?

You seem to hate animals, but the moment an allergic person is on board, you want to make his/her life miserable. So no animals to keep your comfort, but yes animals when persons are allergic to their shedding hair, so they know not to travel while allergic.

You are really a caring personality and I can understand that you would not fit as gate agent.

EvanWSFO wrote:

These stories of airlines denying pax are getting old. It has been happening for decades. Were it not for social media, these every day occurrences would never make the news.

I agree!

For the record, AS's UM policy does not require passengers aged 13-17 to pay for UM services by the airline. It's optional and based on what I've read in this thread, the mother didn't pay for it, so by AS Policy, this child is not a UM, she was an adult passenger. However, the article doesn't clearly state one way or the other, so I'm going to guess that this could be a factor too?

sldispatcher wrote:

This can be easily solved. Put the pets back in the cargo hold where they belong.
(And no, animals have not been a routine site onboard "forever". I've been flying since there was a smoking section onboard and seat assignments were given with stickers.) There is not a single pet that NEEDS to be in the passenger compartment of the aircraft. Period.

Not necessarily disagreeing, but people with extremely sensitive allergies need to pack frigging epi-pens and masks (which you can buy at just about any drug or hardware store). Pet dander, peanut dust, perfumes, and other allergens don’t just exist in airplanes. If you’re that sensitive, it’s incumbent on YOU to adjust. Sorry, but life ain’t fair. Get used to it.