[macdamaniac]

I have a pretty unpopular take on this, being married to someone with severe pet allergies. That take is, dogs (and cats) have no place on an airplane, and responsible adults shouldn't get pets that they can't find sitters for or board while they are away.

Planes are enclosed-air spaces, and the allergens from your dog make anyone with allergies miserable for the entire duration of the flight. Every single time we end up on a plane with a dog (even the "hypoallergenic" ones), my wife ends up sick. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people with severe phobias of dogs, and that the animals themselves tend to be extremely uncomfortable on flights. That last factor has actually led to a number of innocent people sitting next to folks with dogs getting bit, etc on planes.

Actual service animals do still belong, because they provide an actual service, are extremely well-trained, and are worth the allergen/phobia tradeoff because folks who need them literally need them.

[danbolt]

I get sick around people's dogs from allergies like your wife. Thanks for voicing your comment; I feel like pet owners usually don't take things very seriously when I talk about getting sick from dogs.

[denimnerd46]

I wanted to post the same comment but was afraid of the wrath of pet lovers. I have the same concerns regarding pet phobias and allergies.

And to your point about pet sitters or boarding. My family did not choose to get another pet at some point while I was growing up because the cost of boarding while traveling was just too much.

I wish pet culture would be dialed back a few notches on the dial.

[volkl48]

I'll entirely support this take, as one of those people (allergy side of things).

I'll also mention that it's the contact side of it too. If I touch anyone's dog, I have to wash my hands, because one absentminded rub of my face is all it takes to go full allergy misery. Sitting on any furniture that a dog has been on for a length of time (say, your couch)? Also going to cause me problems.

Pets shed, airplanes have carpeted floors and airplanes aren't exactly deep cleaned between flights, at least in non-COVID times.

If your dog was in that seat or on the floor of that row on the last flight, and I'm in it on this flight, I'm likely going to be both personally miserable and making everyone else around me miserable for my entire flight.

[jacurtis]

> "Pets shed, airplanes have carpeted floors and airplanes aren't exactly deep cleaned between flights, at least in non-COVID times."

Just to reinforce the truthfullness of this. Most planes only get cursory garbage removal between flights. Thats it! They are only cleaned every 24 - 48 hours. But a plane might make 4-12 flights between cleanings, and even these cleanings aren't serious. They do a vacuum and spray sanitizer on main surfaces, but that's it.

In fact one of the reasons that diseases spread so much on planes is not because of people on your flight or the re-circulated air as most people assume. But often disease spreads from people that sat where you are sitting on a flight 1-3 flights ago.

And of course allergenic have similar characteristics to viruses and bacteria. So they follow the same pattern.

[jacurtis]

My aunt flies frequently for business (at least once a week). She has routinely had to move because of people with pets (or "emotional support animals"). This isn't to be rude, but because she is highly allergic and it is not only uncomfortable for her, but dangerous.

Have you ever been on a flight where someone with peanut allergies is on the plane? The flight attendants announce that someone on the plane is allergic, so peanuts will not be served on the plane as a matter of safety.

The same courtesy should exist for people with allergies to pets. Many of them have to spend the whole flight concerned that they might have a reaction because they are forced to share the same re-circulated air as a pet that is potentially dangerous to them.

[liuhenry]

I'm sympathetic to this point, but won't it continue to be a problem as long as airlines still allow pets?

The DOT ruling cites an industry statistic that 784k pets and 751k ESAs were transported in 2017 [1]. I can certainly believe that it's grown more lopsided since then, but it still seems that a significant number of flights would have animals on them after this rule takes effect.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/S...

[colejohnson66]

> That take is, dogs (and cats) have no place on an airplane, and responsible adults shouldn't get pets that they can't find sitters for or board while they are away.

And for the situation where you’ll be away for a long time? It’s cheaper to take a pet aboard a plane than to board for a few weeks. But there should be better options than either (1) the cargo bay or (2) in the cabin with everyone else.

> Actual service animals do still belong, because they provide an actual service, are extremely well-trained, and are worth the allergen/phobia tradeoff because folks who need them literally need them.

Emotional support animals absolutely are a thing. The problem is everyone abuses the idea. But for someone with depression, just having your dog or cat next to you can keep you sane better than your medicine can. I know, because that someone is me. Do I take my pet everyone? No, but they absolutely do help when needed.

[throwaway201103]

> And for the situation where you’ll be away for a long time?

Again, if that's your life, don't own pets. We had a dog, and having to deal with her when we would go on vacations or even just needing to stay late at work knowing she had been inside and would need to go out was a constant hassle. She was a sweet dog and loved but I'm not ever having another one.

As far as traveling on a plane, I don't see any other practical options, I could imagine something like a kennel area in the passenger compartment but cannot imagine any airline actually providing that unless they could consistently fill it for fees that make up for the loss of the passenger seats, which seems unlikely.

[mmglr]

Certainly you could go on netjets.com and fly private if "enclosed-air spaces" are such an issue.

Ridiculous right? The way I understand the argument so far is:

Pets should be allowed on planes and everyone else must deal with that.

Pets should not be allowed so pet owners must deal with that.

Neither option sounds reasonable to me.

Really it looks to me like there is a market for safe and reliable pet air transport. Why have carriers not addressed this?

[bagacrap]

That pet owners must deal with the headaches of owning a pet, and not unduly inconvenience others, seems like a perfectly reasonable stance to me.

In fact, some animals are not allowed to be kept as pets at all. I'm fine with extending that to all types of animals. Dogs are out there spreading covid right now but I can't go to the gym. That makes so much sense.

I don't understand the pet owners' sense of entitlement.

[mmglr]

> Dogs are out there spreading covid right now but I can't go to the gym.

Where is this data? [1] says "Currently, there is no evidence that animals play a significant role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people"

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...

> I don't understand the pet owners' sense of entitlement.

I don't know if this is directed at me? I don't have a pet. I'm just advocating for pet owners here.

And if you can't understand how shortsighted your view of "anything that inconveniences me is bad" then nothing I can write will change your mind.

[bagacrap]

> "anything that inconveniences me is bad"

I didn't say these words, nor imply them. I find it befuddling how you act as if non-owners of pets are the selfish ones. Let's replace "dogs" with "cigarettes". After all, smokers like nicotine as much or more than dog owners like dogs. Am I also selfish if I don't wish to endure sitting next to a smoker on a flight?

Lots of things inconvenience me but are inescapable or benefit society at large. Dogs are neither of these things, and the burden of owning them should not be externalized to those who derive no benefit from them.

[lotsofpulp]

>Really it looks to me like there is a market for safe and reliable pet air transport. Why have carriers not addressed this? reply

As long as all flights are forced to accept service animals without verification for free, it's not a viable business to have flights exclusively for pets.

[slaymaker1907]

You are aware that people sometimes have to move, right? Not everyone wants to take their pets on planes just because they are going on vacation.

[strstr]

Yes, people need to move. Which would you prioritize? Pets or GP’s spouse?

Pets are a choice.

[mLuby]

So permanently abandon a vulnerable creature because GP's spouse can't take Claritin for a few hours?

I'm being hyperbolic, but still the "pets (or kids) are a choice" argument falls apart after a moment's scrutiny.

[strstr]

How does this fail after a moments scrutiny? Pet owners have an alternative: put them in cargo. People are categorically more important than pets. To suggest anything else is insulting, frankly.

(Note: putting kids and pets in the same category seems a bit bold.)