As in they follow the law. And not following the law does equate to litigation costs. I think they got blindsided by horses, turkeys and ducks. As well as the number of people that all of a sudden "need" an ESA.

Well yeah, it is definitely much more manageable than some huge dog or a bloody horse. A large dog in a airplane sounds a complete disaster.

I'll never forget the time I flew without my cadre of emotional support al qaeda fighters. A real failure of imagination on my part, luckily the young lady sitting next to me had enough emotional support box cutters, sarin gas and underwear bombs for both of us.

I use my Note 7 for emotional support. Damn airlines.

And that's the "law" of unintended consequences. Congratulations lawmakers! You make your "progressive" law and feel better about yourselves and can point to that in your campaigns (they're always campaigning for re-election) as an example of how forward thinking and inclusive you are. Wipe your hands and walk away from it; problem solved.

You give them too much credit. I bet some of those moron lawmakers think flying menageries are just fine.

Is there an actual statute addressing ESA's though? Or is it just some lawyers/judges interpreting disability rights legislation?

From ADA.gov:

I believe this is regulated by the Department of Transportation. They are working on new rules to be out for public comment within the year and to be set within three years which may limit which animals are permitted.

Current regulations require that the airline accommodate reasonable requests to fly with an ESA or PSD if the airline is contacted at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled departure time and the following described letter is offered on request.

These requirements for the letter are excerpted from http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/20030509.pdf

The letter:

* must not more than one year old
* must be on the professional's letterhead
* must be from a mental health professional

and must state all of the following:
(note: bolded phrases are of specific wording that should be used as presented and not paraphrased to minimize rejection of the letter)

1. That the passenger has a mental health-related DISABILITY that appears in the DSM-IV. Note it is not just a mental illness diagnosis, but a mental illness which*substantially limits one or more major life activities. Airlines are not permitted to require the documentation to specify the type of mental health disability or the specific diagnosis, but the letter must state that the diagnosis appears in the DSM-IV.

2. That the presence of the animal is*necessary*to the passenger's health or treatment during the flight and/or at the destination.

3. That the individual writing the letter is a licensed mental health professional and that the passenger is under his or her care. The individual writing the letter should clearly indicate what type of mental health care professional they are (psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker, et cetera).

NOTE: Airlines may also require documentation including the date, type, and state of the mental health professional's license so it may be wise to just have them include that from the start so you don't have to go back and ask for it later.

Some airlines do call the professional's office to verify the contents of the letter.

#2 is basically no one though

^this x100

It is in the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986.

***The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA, 49 U.S.C. 41705) prohibits discrimination by U.S. and foreign air carriers on the basis of physical or mental disability.***

Well clearly that law hasn't been interpreted the same way since 1986.

If you need a turkey to comfort you on a flight you definitely have a mental disability.

LOL, that's a stretch.

So, therefore you are allowed to bring your turkey on a plane...

Imagine all the other things that could be substituted for turkey and you begin to see just how absurd this whole thing is.

There will be a time not far off from now where there will be multiple dogs, a cat, a duck, and a pig on the same flight. Then there will be some pushback, but sadly it is here to stay. Only in America...literally.


The worst one I have seen is a big nervous dog just taking a massive diarrhea dump right in the aisle soon after takeoff. Can't really imagine how horrible a flight would be with that stank recirculating the entire flight.

It is any animal that could be reasonably accommodated and not pose an unreasonable physical threat to humans or other emotional support animals.

Interesting story about non-fake ESA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...-a-service-dog

Thank you Mr. Obvious. I think you've hammered that point plenty of times in this thread. Still no less absurd just because it's the law.

You are a not a medical professional or an individual with mental problems (I presume).

An ESA is much safer than drugs. People with pets tend to live longer and have lower blood pressure (backed by scientific studies -- not anecdotal).

PLUS, it seemed like the vast majority of passengers and people loved Daniel the Duck. He made People Magazine. The owner would have been lynched if she smoked, yet people are fawning over Daniel.

Can you imagine that horse? Dropping horsepies down the aisle? Someone slipping on a turd and suing the airline?

Like Typhoid Mary they are a carrier of stress. The pet owner feels just dandy while the people around them are inconvenienced.

That's about a legit service dog, not an ESA.

There is no such thing as a fake emotional support animal. It is just an opinion that another person does not require the services of an animal to perform selected activities they would not normally be capable. Like perhaps flying on a plane or going to a grocery store.