[sysadmindotfail]

Let's say my way of self-medicating for anxiety during flights is to get wasted. Does this now entitle me to be a drunk asshole on the flight?

No, it does not. This is how I view those who abuse this loophole. Find another way to travel that doesn't impact everyone else in the aluminum tube traveling 550mph.

[pfisch]

It is abusive for airlines to charge $250 per roundtrip for a ~10 lb carryon that fits under your seat.

They are operating a scam. This was the only way around it.

[jrs235]

Sounds like you should start an airline that offers and allows pet to fly free or for whatever you think a ~10lb carryon should cost.

[pfisch]

I love all the downvotes with no explanation about how this is a defensible practice in any way.

I could understand if airlines kept a blacklist for people who have animals out of control, but they don't even do that right now with their absurd overcharging. I could also understand putting down a refundable deposit and a $20-40 charge(though you can bring much heavier carry-ons for free).

The airlines' practices are indefensible. They are wildly overcharging and it is clearly a scam.

It is sad they are closing this loophole that allowed people to end run the scammers.

[ehnto]

I didn't downvote you, but your original comment was extremely generalized which makes it annoying to argue against, because you have to point out all the caveats or else people will cling on to them each subsequent iteration.

Eg:"Not all animals are 10lbs, not all animals fit under a chair, not all airlines charge $250, not all flights are the same distance, it's not just a carry-on (disingenuous) not all flights make money (so how can you claim it's a scam when they lose money)

Etcetera. It's just a tedious and lopsided way to argue.

[liuhenry]

It's worth noting that the Department of Transportation final ruling devotes a section to economic impact [1], and estimates a ~$55M increase in fees paid by passengers traveling with ESAs to airlines.

> The current policy amounts to a price restriction which requires that airlines forgo a potential revenue source, as airlines are currently prohibited from charging a pet fee for transporting emotional support animals

> Removing the current requirement that carriers must transport emotional support animals free of charge will allow market forces (i.e., carriers as producers and passengers as consumers) to set the price for air transportation of emotional support animals as pets. This provision will allow carriers to charge passengers traveling with emotional support animals (dogs and other accepted species on board of an aircraft) with pet transportation fees. This represents a transfer of surplus from passengers to airlines, and does not have implications for the net benefits calculation of the final rule."

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

[pfisch]

Yeah, "market forces". Because they don't all just charge $125 right now per flight and not give a fuck.

[pfisch]

All airlines as far as I'm aware do charge around $125 per flight. Distance doesn't matter.

I think it is reasonable to charge more for larger animals. If your dog takes up a seat then a ticket price is a fair price.

If you have a well behaved animal it is basically just a carry-on.

If some flights aren't profitable that doesn't justify price gouging people with animals that weigh nothing and use up no jet fuel. Increase ticket prices and baggage prices. That actually makes sense.