FAA Changes Service Dog and ESA Flight Rules

[JimMIA]

The Federal Aviation Authority has made a final rule change regarding Service Dogs and Emotional Support Animals. The new rules go into effect in 30 days.

The major changes are as follows:

• Service dogs - may now be used for either physical disabilities or psychiatric disabilities. The addition of psychiatric disabilities was sought by veterans and other advocacy groups.
  • Note that this only applies to disabilities, NOT emotional support animals.
• Emotional Support Animals - BIG changes here!
  • Emotional Support Animals may only be permitted checked into the cargo holds of aircraft. They may not be permitted in the passenger areas of aircraft. From other stories, apparently the airlines have latitude in this area.
  • An ESA fee will be charged -- no longer free.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/02/us-tightens-definition-of-service-animals-allowed-on-planes-.html

 

[DVC-Don]

About time. Guess my aunt is going to have to ditch the Emotional Support vest she bought for her dog off eBay.

 

[Simba's Mom]

Vowed interesting Like so much, it will definitely make it harder, but some people will still find a way around it As I understand it, isn't it illegal to ask what your disballitiy is that the dog is trained for? And service dogs don't have to carry a certification (although I can't understand why trained service dogs don't have a certificate, like car drivers have drivers licenses) However, it will make it harder and may discourage some people, which is good since the next trip we took was just as full of dogs (one woman carried her "not so little" dog in her arms onto the plane and one woman was very upset that she couldn't hold her dog for take off "I have to put her under the seat in a CARRIER)

 

[Lilsia]

I am wondering what kind of paperwork they are talking about. Is it just the passenger's word that the dog is a legitimate service animal? It is time for the government to put a national registry together and have some kind of certification that the animal has the appropriate training. Things are more then out of hand and it will only get worse. I feel bad for people with legitimate service animals because of all of the "bad eggs" out there making things worse.

 

[JimMIA]

As I understand it, isn't it illegal to ask what your disballitiy is that the dog is trained for? And service dogs don't have to carry a certification (although I can't understand why trained service dogs don't have a certificate, like car drivers have drivers licenses)

Service animal owners can only be asked two questions, by law.

• Is the animal necessary because of a disability? (but not allowed to ask what the disability is)
• What tasks is the animal trained to perform?

A disabled person with a trained service animal will have no difficulty answering those questions, and zero patience for anyone going beyond those two questions. They know the law very well.

Service animals don't have certificates because there is no such thing. And requiring a certificate, or anything else, would be discriminatory and against the law.

Here's a link to American Airlines' service and support animal page. If interested, you can download the actual form for Emotional Support Animals to see what's in it. Also note that this page does not reflect the new changes for psychiatric service animals because those were just announced today.

https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/special-assistance/service-animals.jsp

 

[Keetchino]

Service animals don't have certificates because there is no such thing. And requiring a certificate, or anything else, would be discriminatory and against the law.

I've never understood how implementing this would be any different from the requirements needed to apply for a handicap parking tag. When getting a parking permit they certainly require more than just the person's word that they need one

Regardless, at the very least there should be stiff penalties for anyone caught misrepresenting their pet as a "service animal" in order to have their pet with them in places where they would otherwise be banned.

 

[SteveMouse]

Service animal owners can only be asked two questions, by law.

• Is the animal necessary because of a disability? (but not allowed to ask what the disability is)
• What tasks is the animal trained to perform?

A disabled person with a trained service animal will have no difficulty answering those questions, and zero patience for anyone going beyond those two questions. They know the law very well.

The Air Carrier Access Act is the law responsible for accessibility on aircraft, not the ADA.

 

[JimMIA]

The Air Carrier Access Act is the law responsible for accessibility on aircraft, not the ADA.

Right, but what you are allowed to ask doesn't change.

 

[JimMIA]

I've never understood how implementing this would be any different from the requirements needed to apply for a handicap parking tag. When getting a parking permit they certainly require more than just the person's word that they need one

I think a lot of that difference is the difference between state laws and federal laws. The ADA (and related laws governing housing and air travel) is federal law amplified by regulations from federal agencies. It was established by Congress, and reflects their perspective.

Also, preferential parking spots are somewhat different from denying access to a disabled person because of their disability. That's an "apples and elephants" comparison.

Regardless, at the very least there should be stiff penalties for anyone caught misrepresenting their pet as a "service animal" in order to have their pet with them in places where they would otherwise be banned.

I doubt if those will ever be prosecuted.

To me, the importance of this change is that it gives airlines legal cover to deny unreasonable (and phony) claims. The rule now basically says airlines are not required to transport ANY ESAs in the passenger cabin, so they can choose to permit an ESA...or not. And they can charge a fee...or not.

 

[Keetchino]

Also, preferential parking spots are somewhat different from denying access to a disabled person because of their disability. That's an "apples and elephants" comparison.

That’s another thing though, I don’t see how that would be “denying access”..... pick any disability where there’s a service dog for that, and you have someone who does NOT have a service dog.... they aren’t denied access, it’s just that a service dog can make things *a lot* easier. Seeing eye dogs, seizure alert dogs, whatever the case is, there is someone who goes about their life like WITHOUT the dog.

 

[Keetchino]

Not to mention that service animals are also a unique accommodation in the sense that they can directly affect the welfare of other people around them. There are people who are very allergic to dogs, or people who are actually very scared of dogs, does their condition not matter compared to the *other* condition? There is no other accommodation that I can think of that can have a direct affect on someone else nearby..... and that alone should be reason to absolutely make sure it is a legit service animal instead of someone’s pet

 

[Keetchino]

Also to be clear, I think actual service animals are amazing and I have no issue with them, I have an issue with all the people who abuse it and insist on bringing Fifi along and passing it off as an emotional support animal because they don’t think they should do it the correct way
(I don’t mind the polite quiet ones where you don’t even know they are there, I’m more so talking about the ones who clearly have not even the most basic of training)

 

[JimMIA]

That’s another thing though, I don’t see how that would be “denying access”..... pick any disability where there’s a service dog for that, and you have someone who does NOT have a service dog.... they aren’t denied access, it’s just that a service dog can make things *a lot* easier. Seeing eye dogs, seizure alert dogs, whatever the case is, there is someone who goes about their life like WITHOUT the dog.

I'm just not following your logic.

If a disabled person comes to your place of business with a service animal, you are not allowed to question them about the animal beyond the two basic questions I posted above. Period.

And if they say, "Yes, the animal is required because of a disability I have" and "The animal is trained to do the following...," that's the end of the conversation. They enter your place of business.

That's the federal law. It doesn't matter what you or I think of it -- it's the law, and the penalties can be harsh for violating this law.

The idea that others with similar disabilities find ways to manage without a service animal is irrelevant.

 

[JimMIA]

Not to mention that service animals are also a unique accommodation in the sense that they can directly affect the welfare of other people around them. There are people who are very allergic to dogs, or people who are actually very scared of dogs, does their condition not matter compared to the *other* condition? There is no other accommodation that I can think of that can have a direct affect on someone else nearby..... and that alone should be reason to absolutely make sure it is a legit service animal instead of someone’s pet

The difference is that people with disabilities are protected by law, and people with allergies and/or fears are not.

It's not that allergic or fearful people don't matter. It's that they are not protected by the law. They are expected to make their own accommodations for whatever issues they have...and they do.

 

[Keetchino]

What I’m getting at is that people abuse the service animal/ emotional support animal issue all the time because they can, there is no real regulation of it. There is no real consequence for lying about it. And people who drag their pet around everywhere with them are exploiting this. Using a common accommodation as an example, wheelchairs: Other people aren’t allergic to wheelchairs, nor do people have a fear of wheelchairs. You don’t see people faking needing a wheelchair too often, but even if they do there’s not a chance of the wheelchair suddenly snapping at someone as they pass by. Which is why the Federal Govt needs to do a better job at making sure the only animals being used as service animals are, in fact, true service animals.

Once again I have no issue with true service animals, but something needs to be done to weed out the increasing number of fake ones.

 

[JimMIA]

Also to be clear, I think actual service animals are amazing and I have no issue with them, I have an issue with all the people who abuse it and insist on bringing Fifi along and passing it off as an emotional support animal because they don’t think they should do it the correct way
(I don’t mind the polite quiet ones where you don’t even know they are there, I’m more so talking about the ones who clearly have not even the most basic of training)

You are conflating service animals, emotional support animals, and pets being passed off as one or the other.

Service animals are very, very different from ESAs and pets -- and therefore their use and access is protected by federal law. There is no requirement for documentation or identifying items, but you can spot a legitimate service animal from 100 yards away most of the time because of their behavior.

ESAs are NOT service animals, but they do enjoy various levels of protection through state laws which vary greatly from state to state. For the purpose of air travel (the topic of this thread), airlines can and do require documentation of ESA status.

Pets are pets and should be pretty easy for airline personnel to differentiate from legitimate ESAs. The new rule will give them some legal backup in doing so. I don't have any high hopes for the enforcement aspect, but simply requiring a fee and having them ride in the cargo hold will eliminate most of the abuse.

Or at least I hope it will. But I'm nagged by a favorite saying of a friend of mine: "If you make the system idiot-proof, we'll make a better idiot."

 

[JimMIA]

Using a common accommodation as an example, wheelchairs: Other people aren’t allergic to wheelchairs, nor do people have a fear of wheelchairs.

Right, but individuals are responsible for managing their own allergies and fears. That's not the job of the government, and it's certainly not the job of airline personnel.

the Federal Govt needs to do a better job at making sure the only animals being used as service animals are, in fact, true service animals.

And they are, in the only way they can unless you want TSA trying to manage the critter problem.

After considerable study and public comment, they have changed the rules to give the airlines the latitude and legal backing to say no.

I'm personally hoping the airlines will take a hard line on this issue. They will be doing their employees and the vast majority of their customers a big favor if they "just say no."

Once again I have no issue with true service animals, but something needs to be done to weed out the increasing number of fake ones.

Agree.

 

[Keetchino]

you can spot a legitimate service animal from 100 yards away most of the time because of their behavior.

I think a big problem though is where the animal is jumping around, going up to people, and it’s glaringly obvious the animal is not a trained service animal. But then you ask those two questions, “is it a service animal?” And “what service does it perform?” And the person goes yes it’s a service animal, and it performs [insert whatever function]..... you know they’re lying but you can’t do anything about it. As for the emotional support animals, people ARE conflating the two, saying (and often times truly believing) that ESA’s have the same rights as service animals. The average employee just assumes that to be true, and rather then risk a scene or a lawsuit they allow the ESA in. They may have 1 true service animal in a week, but now there’s 4 ESA’a on a daily basis.

It just seems like it would be easier for service animals to wear some kind of token or ID tag marking them as “official” (or whatever) and the penalties for forging one would be the same as forging a government form, like a fake drivers license. Make it simple for those truly needing a service animal to obtain, and free so there’s no undue hardship for them, but seems like it would eliminate this guessing game of whether or not it’s a “true” service animal

 

[JimMIA]

I think a big problem though is where the animal is jumping around, going up to people, and it’s glaringly obvious the animal is not a trained service animal. But then you ask those two questions, “is it a service animal?” And “what service does it perform?” And the person goes yes it’s a service animal, and it performs [insert whatever function]..... you know they’re lying but you can’t do anything about it.

Yep, that's the law. Nobody said the law was perfect -- but that IS the legal requirement.

As for the emotional support animals, people ARE conflating the two, saying (and often times truly believing) that ESA’s have the same rights as service animals.

Right, and some of that is legitimate confusion. Most people don't deal with the legal technicalities, and there are some situations where ESAs and service animals ARE treated identically, both in state laws and in some federal regulations. So it's confusing and easy to take advantage of.

The other factor is that there is a whole industry getting paid to provide "certifications" that don't really exist, identifying leashes, collars, vests, etc that mean nothing, and all sorts of other stuff. It's a money thing. And many people feel if someone is selling something on the Internet, it must be legit.

It just seems like it would be easier for service animals to wear some kind of token or ID tag marking them as “official” (or whatever) and the penalties for forging one would be the same as forging a government form, like a fake drivers license. Make it simple for those truly needing a service animal to obtain, and free so there’s no undue hardship for them, but seems like it would eliminate this guessing game of whether or not it’s a “true” service animal

Yeah, I get your point.

But the ADA and other related federal laws/rules are not about "easier." They are about prohibiting any kind of discrimination against people with disabilities. And creating hoops for disabled people to jump through is considered one form of discrimination -- so the law only allows those two questions. Anything beyond that is considered unreasonably burdensome, discriminatory, and is illegal.

If you want to change that, you need to change the law...and that ain't happening.

 

[SteveMouse]

Right, but what you are allowed to ask doesn't change.

Under the ADA, yes, those are the two questions that may be asked, however it is the Air Carrier Access Act which applies to passenger aviation and not the ADA. The airlines have additional flexibilty and operate under a separate set of regulations (the ACAA regulations, not the ADA regulations).