[JumpCrisscross]

> Why should one's disability (allergy) exclude the other passenger from a space?

Per my other comment [1], there is a muddling of terms going about. Service Animals [2] are "individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability." They are well-behaved and medically mandated. They are also legally protected by the ADA.

Emotional-support animals may have been medically prescribed but, critically, are not necessarily trained [3]. Heinously, some people claim their pets are emotional-support animals despite lacking the medical prescription. (They do this to skip the fee airlines charge for transporting an untrained pet.)

Nobody is assailing Service Animals. Some are upset about emotional-support animals. Most are upset about non-medically prescribed animals' owners misrepresenting them as emotional-support or Service animals.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16311646

[2] https://adata.org/factsheet/service-animals

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_support_animal

[sp332]

No, we're talking about allergies and annoyance to other passengers. Those aren't going to change based on how much the person needs them or what paperwork they have.

[JumpCrisscross]

> No, we're talking about allergies and annoyance to other passengers

We're talking about the relationship between two things. The rights of the allergy sufferer versus the rights of the animal owner. The weight of the latter varies with medical necessity and the risk the animal poses to others on the plane.

Allergies are a medical condition. Service animals are trained animals serving a medical need. Emotional-support animals also serve a medical need, but being untrained come with a greater safety and comfort risk. Pets don't serve a medical need; when represented as emotional-support animals, they're being transported by someone who made a false and willful misrepresentation to the airline for monetary gain.