|
|
|
|
|
by ehnto
2022 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
> 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...