MagicallyMom
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2017
You'd have to prove they're at fault first. They can also afford better lawyers.I'd definitely sue the airline. They have the deeper pockets and will likely settle!
You'd have to prove they're at fault first. They can also afford better lawyers.I'd definitely sue the airline. They have the deeper pockets and will likely settle!
I don't mind seeing eye dogs, or seizure dogs, etc.
But an untrained yorkie someone just needs because leaving them at home might make them sad, so EMOTIONAL SUPPORT!....Nope.
In short: trained and licensed dogs: yes. Untrained, possibly unwarranted dogs: no thank you.
Delta could have insisted that the dog be in a crate. When the dog was cleared for a later flight, it was crated.
Meanwhile, there's absolutely no way I would agree to sit next to an unknown "support pet" on a flight, regardless of the species.
Delta could have insisted that the dog be in a crate. When the dog was cleared for a later flight, it was crated.
Meanwhile, there's absolutely no way I would agree to sit next to an unknown "support pet" on a flight, regardless of the species.
Interesting dilemma. Passenger A presents for boarding to their pre-booked seat with their ESA and documents. Passenger B presents for boarding to their pre-booked seat and informs flight crew they are both unable to sit next to Passenger A and their ESA because of PTSD, and will not willingly give up their pre-booked seat because of having paid extra for the specific seat two months before. Flight is full and no other passengers agree to swap seats. I want to see the airline sort that one out.
Clearly something's got to give regarding this ESA nonsense.
That is a dilemma, isn't it? I have seen dogs on a plane but none have sat next to me. Not sure what I would do?
My own personal opinion is that 50lb dog has no business on a passenger plane (unless it is for police purposes).
Quarters are just too restrictive for a dog of that size. You feel like a sardine in a can already! I can't imagine having my 50lb dog with me on a plane. Maybe they should buy first class? Or was this in first class?
How awful for that passenger.
I think assistance animals need to be somehow registered as such with some governmental agency and those that have them should be prepared to provide the registration information.
I guess I'd be in the minority because I wouldn't be suing the owner because the dog is an emotional support animal but rather because a dog bit me. If an animal is brought on board regardless of the reason and they bit me unprovoked then I would be suing the owner.
As far as abuse it does happen for sure I know and it sucks that it does it truly does for those who honest to gosh benefit from having the animal.
Pictures out today those involved, if anyone wants to see them, including the dog.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tional-support-dog-bites-Delta-passenger.html
I would not be happy sitting next to a dog that I knew nothing about, either, as much as I love dogs. I'd know that chances were good, unless it's *really* a trained service animal, that it's likely an over-indulged, under-socialized, un-trained accident waiting to happen, especially on somewhere like a plane, which is very stressful to the animal, and through no fault of the animal itself.
Mind you, I am NOT against support animals. This, coming as the daughter of a service veteran with life-altering PTSD. Animals were actually calming to him long before the concept of support animals came to be. But as he taught me, there is a time and place for everything. And this wasn't it. As much as I love German Shepherds, I always kept a healthy respect going for those who might be afraid of them. Always. I would never dream of taking one on a plane in the passenger compartment. A pit bull? No way.
I flew last week and there were two dogs on the plane that I saw - one was a puppy who was kept crated, and the other was a very large dog who had a "service vest" on. Not sure where that dog sat, nor was he muzzled, at least in the gate area. I think they will have to look at this as a matter of public policy soon. This case will no doubt get the ball rolling. I hope, anyway. I feel sorry for this passenger who was no doubt afraid of this dog. The dog's owner obviously did not have control of his dog.
Honestly, tired of hearing complaints about the Daily Mail. It's the most read online newspaper in the world - even more so than The NY Times. And it has great graphics. They usually report the same information that other news outlets come out with later, too. About a day later. It's no better or worse than any other news outlet these days.Well, if the Daily Mail can be trusted (and it really can't, but let's overlook that for the moment)...
They claim this was a trained and certified service animal, issued to a US Marine Corp combat veteran.
In other words, if accurate, this story is not about "ESA"s at all. Or about anyone cheating the system.
The Daily Mail (ick) makes this sound more like what we'd have if a seeing eye dog attacked someone. If so, the plane cannot refuse entry to the dog. The owner of the dog has a legitimate, recognized disability as well as a history of honorable service to their country. The dog themselves has been trained and is a legitimate service dog, not an emotional support animal.
It's hard to tell what's true here - is the dog an "emotional support animal", or is it a "service animal"? There's a huge difference between the two, and I honestly can't find any news source that is making the distinction clear.
Honestly, tired of hearing complaints about the Daily Mail. It's the most read online newspaper in the world - even more so than The NY Times. And it has great graphics. They usually report the same information that other news outlets come out with later, too. About a day later. It's no better or worse than any other news outlet these days.
I fully agree.Honestly, tired of hearing complaints about the Daily Mail. It's the most read online newspaper in the world - even more so than The NY Times. And it has great graphics. They usually report the same information that other news outlets come out with later, too. About a day later. It's no better or worse than any other news outlet these days.
They've allowed a loophole for combat veterans making an "emotional support animal" (not trained) a "service animal". But they're still not a true service animal.They claim this was a trained and certified service animal, issued to a US Marine Corp combat veteran.
In other words, if accurate, this story is not about "ESA"s at all. Or about anyone cheating the system.
I fully agree.
Such remarks tell me more about the complainer than they realise and makes me treat the rest of their comments less seriously.
ford family
Whatever. I could pull up similar examples from any newspaper. So I'll agree to disagree.It's considerably worse. I still remember the thread on this board when The Daily Mail spun a child welfare agency's efforts to reunite a little girl with her uncle and cousins, into "Child Welfare Agency rips Indian child away from Good Christian Foster Home and gives her to Dodgy Not-Even-Real-Indians, because Political Correctness!"
So many ugly lies.
Anyway, you don't have to take my word for it:
Wikipedia
(Despite what some tabloids have claimed, Wikipedia did not actually "ban" the Daily Mail. On the other hand, I do believe you can't actually post links from the Daily Mail to Reddit's "News" or "World News" subreddits any more. The mods automatically block any submissions from tabloids.)
- In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution.
And this one's fun - the Daily Mail's list of things that give you cancer from A to Zed: http://www.anorak.co.uk/288298/tabl...things-that-give-you-cancer-from-a-to-z.html/