[Wasagdu] air carrier change

[Michael Forzano]

I wouldn't think accommodating a dog should be an issue unless you
want/need a seat with extra space, etc. It's totally reasonable to
request that in advance. My concern is that this is a requirement, and
could result in you missing your flight if you don't fill it out or
some other mix-up. It's one of those things that doesn't seem like a
big deal, but could easily become one.

Mike

On 10/3/16, Becky Frankeberger via WASAGDU <wasagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Seems to me when I traveled using my wheelchair I had to call the airline
> ahead of time. They were able to store the chair in the closet in the
> cabin.
> Since our dogs like medical equipment have to be accounted for, maybe this
> is why they want notice just once hopefully ahead of time. Just throwing
> ideas out, not making conclusive remarks.
>
> Wonder what Marion thinks, as NAGDU is on the committee as well.
>
> I already heard an ACB person object for many of the same reason you gave,
> smile.
>
> Becky and Jake
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WASAGDU [mailto:wasagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> Forzano via WASAGDU
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:05 PM
> To: Washington Association of Guide Dog Users <wasagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: Michael Forzano <michaeldforzano at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wasagdu] air carrier change
>
> This is not good. Fake service dogs are a problem everywhere, but we aren't
> required to fill out a form to access other public places, public
> transportation or even for housing accommodation. So why should flying be
> any different? They may be trying to account for all scenarios like
> canceled/changed flights and standby, but airline employees can be
> incompetent and I'm sure this will hurt us.
>
> And, even if we put these restrictions in place, what about the high
> percentage of the work we do with our dogs that is outdoors, where dogs
> will
> always be allowed? What will this really solve for us?
>
> Of course the airlines want this put in place so they can charge fees for
> pets, but I think we should be opposing this. We never have had to pay the
> price for the public's ignorance, why start now?
>
> Mike
>
> On 10/3/16, Becky Frankeberger via WASAGDU <wasagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>> Yes I know this is from the other group. But this is vital you read
>> and re-read to understand the change that will take place.
>>
>> Becky and Jake
>>
>> Dear GDUI Members and Friends, The information included in Jenine
>> Stanley's update below will be interesting to everyone who travels via
>> U. S. air carriers with their guide dogs. I thank Jenine Stanley for
>> sharing this update with our members. It will also be included in the
>> upcoming PawTracks issue. Please don't hesitate to contact Jenine, or
>> me, or Tony Stephens with any concerns or suggestions that you may
>> have. We're closing in on the date of the final committee meetings, by
>> which time we will either succeed in improving the regulations that
>> guarantee our civil rights when we fly or the RegNeg process will end
>> in a stalemate. I hope that the disability community succeeds in
>> improving the regulations which implement the Air Carrier Access Act.
>> Making the kind of progress that will diminish the number of
>> encounters with untrained pets we may have to endure while traveling
>> through airports and flying is especially important to those of us who
>> depend on our guide dogs and service animals to improve our safety and
>> comfort in all environments, whether on the ground or in the air.
>>
>> [BEGINNING OF ARTICLE]
>> An Update Regarding the Air Carrier Access Act
>> Regulations-Negotiations Process Jenine Stanley
>>
>> [GDUI President's Introduction: Early in 2016, the U. S. Department of
>> Transportation announced and convened a formal process for negotiating
>> changes in the regulations which implement the Air Carrier Access Act
>> (ACAA), the law that guarantees certain civil rights protections to
>> people with disabilities who wish to fly on American air carriers, and
>> allows people with disabilities to acquire the accommodations they
>> need in order to fly safely. Although GDUI applied for membership - as
>> a stakeholder - on the formal committee which is negotiating changes
>> in ACAA regulations, the Department did not grant our request to
>> participate as members of the formal committee. Fortunately, Anthony
>> Stephens, Director of Advocacy and Legislation for the American
>> Council of the Blind, and Jenine Stanley, a former president of GDUI
>> and an employee of the Guide Dog Foundation, have been representing
>> our needs and our positions admirably at formal committee meetings and
>> during the negotiations process. I have been participating as a member
>> of the Service Animals Working Group, which meets via conference call
>> in-between formal committee meetings and which serves to advise
>> committee members.
>>
>> The first formal ACAA RegNeg Committee meeting was held in early May,
>> and the Committee has been meeting for several days each month since
>> then. The U. S. Department of Transportation  ruled, from the very
>> beginning, that all negotiations would be completed in October. The
>> next, and final  committee meeting will take place on October 12-14.
>>
>> Below is Jenine's summary of the negotiation process that has taken
>> place thus far. GDUI appreciates hers and Tony's active participation
>> and advocacy on our behalf. By the time you read this article, the
>> negotiation process will have ended, and hopefully, we will be able to
>> anticipate changes in the regulations regarding Service Dogs,
>> Psychiatric Service Animals, and Emotional Support Animals that will
>> make flying safer and more comfortable for us and for our guide dogs.
>> Below you will find Jenine's update. I encourage you to contact me or
>> Tony Stephens or Jenine, or the U. S. Department of Transportation,
>> with any concerns that you may have about the negotiations or their
>> outcome. Thank you, Jenine, for your hard work on our behalf and for
>> providing this update for PawTracks readers.]
>>
>>  Several people have asked about the meetings I'm participating in
>> regarding the Air Carrier Access Act changes. Here's the long and
>> short of this process which began in May.
>>
>> The Department of Transportation (DOT) put out a call for
>> representatives of the disability community, organizations and
>> airlines to take part in a Negotiated Regulation process called,
>> strangely enough, a "Reg-Neg process." This system is designed to pull
>> together experts in the subject matter to craft proposed regulatory
>> language for the DOT to review and use in its Notice of Proposed Rule
>> Making (NPRM) for given issues. This particular Reg-Neg is unusual in
>> that there are 3 separate issues being discussed, access to In-Flight
>> Entertainment (IFE), provision of accessible lavatories on
>> single-aisle aircraft (Lav) and definition of Service Animals (SA).
>> The reason I'm using abbreviations here is that this is how we refer
>> to the 3 groups.
>>
>> In this Reg-Neg, 25 people have been convened to form the ACCESS
>> Committee. I represent the Guide Dog Foundation and America's VetDogs
>> and in essence, the organized service animal training community. Other
>> representatives include American Council of the Blind, National
>> Federation of the Blind, Psychiatric Service Dog partners and National
>> Alliance on Mental Illness, among a host of others from the airline
>> industry. If any one would like a link to the site established for
>> this committee, let me know privately. I do not think I have the
>> authority to post it here.
>>
>> In the beginning of this process we assembled based on several
>> factors. DOT recognizes that the system of defining service animals
>> under the ACAA is not working in practice. As a result, safety
>> concerns regarding service animal handlers, fraud by members of the
>> public who either do not have qualifying disabilities or just want to
>> fly their pets at no cost, and the erosion of civil rights for people
>> with disabilities who work with service animals are rampant.
>>
>> Our goal on the 19-member Service Animal Working Group (that's 19
>> voting members) is to come up with a proposal that changes the
>> definition of service animal in ways that eliminate as much risk of
>> fraud, while minimizing damage to our animals and our civil rights.
>> The Working Group (SAWG) is made up of voting members of the ACCESS
>> Committee and many others from the service animal community. The list
>> of SAWG members is available. There are 5 people serving as co-chairs
>> of this committee from the "Advocate" side, me among them. The groups
>> represented besides mine are: Paralyzed Veterans of America,
>> Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, National Alliance of Mental Illness
>> and Independent Association of Canine Professionals. (We've been
>> working from a list of around 15 points involving this definition for
>> the past 5 months now. Below, I will try to explain the key, or tent
>> pole issues of this list and why it's taking so long to do something
>> you'd think was not rocket science.
>>
>> Before we get started, let's get one thing clear. The ADA does not
>> apply in any way, other than for comparison, to what we will discuss.
>> The Air Carrier Access Act is the set of regulations to which we
>> refer. OK, got that? Got it.
>>
>> So, why is the ACAA service animal definition broken you ask? Right
>> now it allows for animals of a wide variety of species to be
>> recognized as service animals. This means turkeys, birds and yes, even
>> pigs, fly...free...as service animals, if the passenger says they are
>> service animals.
>>
>> That's at least true for the majority of animals trained to do work or
>> perform tasks to help with someone's disability. This training also
>> includes public exposure or access training so the animal not only
>> does things for us but also is accustom to behaving properly in public
>> places and chaotic environments like airports and airplane cabins.
>>
>> There are 2 subcategories of the broad definition of service animal
>> that some people may not understand. Each of these has different
>> requirements.
>>
>> Psychiatric Service Animals (PSAs) are exactly like my guide dog in
>> that they have been trained to do work and perform tasks to help
>> someone with a psychiatric disability. They have also had public
>> access/exposure training as part of their ability to be with their
>> handlers in public places. Nowhere else in civil rights access law are
>> people who work with dogs that perform such functions forced to
>> provide the proof they are under the ACAA. PSA handlers must provide
>> the airline with a letter, on the letterhead of a mental health
>> professional, which includes a stated diagnosis from the Diagnostic
>> and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V (DSm5) as a justification
>> for the animal.
>>
>> This same letter must be provided if someone has the last category of
>> animal, and Emotional Support Animal or ESA. ESAs have no formal
>> training to do work or tasks and though some may have degrees of
>> public access/exposure training, not all do. ESAs do though help their
>> users through their presence, keeping the person calm, grounded, etc.,
>> during the stressful time of flying or during activities at their
>> destination.
>>
>> Given those definitions, you can see how confusing this is already.
>> Add to that a growing industry of on-line providers of vests,
>> certificates, medical letters and more to be able to get your pet
>> deemed a PSA or ESA or even a standard service animal, to avoid the
>> $150 and up fees for bringing pets aboard air carriers, and you have a
>> recipe for disaster.
>>
>> There is also very little ability to enforce control over animals that
>> misbehave either at the airport or on the plane due to fear of social
>> media reprisal against the airlines.
>>
>> We've identified 3 tent pole issues in this situation. A tent pole
>> issue is one that is critical to continuing the process, i.e., we
>> can't go to sleep until we put up the tent and we can't put up the
>> tent until we find and work together to erect the tent poles. Hope
>> that makes sense because many people aren't familiar with that term in
>> a process like this apparently.
>>
>> Our 3 issues are: Species limitations, whether or not to even include
>> ESAs, and what type of documentation/verification/justification people
>> would provide to claim their accommodation of having an animal travel
>> with them.
>>
>> Species limitations sounds like a simple thing on which to agree. Not
>> so. There have been several proposals put forward by both airlines and
>> advocates. Both industry and advocate groups agreed initially that
>> Psychiatric Service Dogs (PSAs) should be melted into the general
>> definition of service animal without documentation requirement. Both
>> sides also agreed that there should be 2 distinct and separate
>> definitions, one for "service animal" and one for Emotional Support
>> Animal (ESA). This would allow for different treatment of each type of
>> animal and lessen the confusion and stigma associated for ESA and PSA
>> users. DOT also provided us with "springboard language" from which to
>> work. Unfortunately, DOT did not see our distinction of separating the
>> definitions but does say that if this is something both sides support,
>> it can't be ignored.
>>
>> All of these proposals limit the types of animals to dogs. Some
>> proposals add cats as there seem to be some advocates who can cite
>> examples of service cats.
>>
>> The side that opposes adding cats does ask for a specific timeline for
>> DOT to review the use of other species. DOT can review aspects of
>> regulations any time it wants but by making a specific request to do
>> so within a time period, it's more likely to happen.
>>
>> I'm on the no cats for now side and base my logic on the 2010 update
>> to species in the ADA. The Department of Justice chose dogs for a
>> number of reasons.
>>
>> I can say with a fair amount of certainty that most service dog
>> training programs agree with this view.
>>
>> We have also given handlers of miniature horses some access similar to
>> what is done under the ADA definition, because it has been done. We
>> included Capuchin Monkeys as having similar limited access so they may
>> fly with their handlers. Such monkeys are professionally trained to
>> provide disability mitigation in a person's home. The monkey *must*
>> remain in its carrier throughout the flight though as they do not have
>> public access/exposure training.
>>
>> OK, that's issue 1. We all seem to agree on service animals having the
>> ADA type definition, doing work and performing tasks and having public
>> access/exposure training, and also being at the very least, dogs,
>> miniature horses and Capuchin monkeys.
>>
>> Emotional Support Animals, should they be included and if so, what
>> species should be allowed?
>> The species question is, in part, key to the initial question, should
>> there still be a category of ESA?
>>
>> Early in this process we asked the airlines to show us the scope, from
>> their data, of problems or incidents involving any type of "service
>> animal". We learned several things from this information. 1. Airlines
>> do not keep records of incidents involving service animals of any
>> stripe. They need to tease this information out of all incident
>> reports in many cases, which is why we don't call it data.
>>
>> 2. Airlines often don't distinguish or even know the difference
>> between an ESA, a PSA and a service animal. They specifically have
>> difficulty between the first two types of animals as they both require
>> the same level of documentation, something the gate and flight crews
>> rarely see.
>>
>> 3. The number and severity of incidents involving "ESAs" was
>> significantly higher than it was for traditional service animals.
>> Incidents primarily involved arguments about proper documentation but
>> also involved animal misbehavior, including biting flight crews and
>> other passengers. People with traditional service animals report
>> having their animals growled at, lunged at and yes, attacked by
>> animals whose owners claim they are ESAs.
>>
>> This would tell many people that ESAs are a bad idea and should be
>> removed from consideration. Many airlines and advocacy groups have
>> this view, based on the fraud or lack of education of ESA owners.
>>
>> The SAWG though wants to be sure not to penalize those who truly do
>> need an ESA and handle their animals responsibly. We are including
>> them but under a separate definition.
>>
>> In our first straw pole on the issue, it appeared the airlines agree
>> with this point.
>>
>> Where we all disagree is in the number of species represented and the
>> restrictions placed upon ESAs that are not placed upon traditional
>> service animals. Remember, we've pretty much agreed that Psychiatric
>> Service Animals are now included in the traditional service animal
>> definition.
>>
>> There are several positions among the Advocates about species and
>> containment of ESAs. I'll outline them here with the designation AP1,
>> etc., as they are in our materials.
>>
>> AP1. ESAs are dogs, cats and rabbits. All ESAs must fit into
>> FAA-approved pet carriers and must be in those carriers unless
>> providing disability mitigation. When doing so, they must be on the
>> person's lap and connected to the person by a leash or tether. If the
>> animal is not behaving according to the behavior standards laid out in
>> the ACAA (which are already there by the way, the flight crew can
>> require that the animal be put back into the pet carrier for the
>> remainder of the flight.
>>
>> AP2. ESAs are dogs, cats and rabbits. Cats and rabbits must be in
>> FAA-approved pet carriers but can come out for disability mitigation.
>> They also can be required by the flight crew to be put back into the
>> carriers if misbehaving. Dogs have no size limitation but if they are
>> well-behaved, they can enter the aircraft and remain outside a
>> carrier. If they are knowingly not well behaved, they must remain in
>> the carrier, with the same rules as for cats and rabbits.
>>
>> AP3. Only dogs that can fit into FAA-approved carriers are ESAs. ESAs
>> cannot be removed from carriers.
>>
>> The DOT has a position in its "springboard document" similar to AP3
>> but dogs have no size limitation and no carrier restriction.
>>
>> All animals, service or ESA, must be under the control of their owners
>> and must have leashes or tethers unless providing disability
>> mitigation that prohibits them, such as distance retrieves. (This is
>> taken almost directly from the 2010 ADA wording on control, by the
>> way.)
>>
>> Now, guess which position I hold? Yes, AP1. It makes little sense not
>> to allow animals whose purpose is to assist through their presence,
>> i.e., being able to hold and pet them. The rules for pet carriers are
>> the same as those for baggage that goes under the seats, so the
>> animals would not be available during the most stressful parts of the
>> flight. Requiring them to remain in carriers defeats their purpose and
>> stigmatizes them as "pets who fly free" or "fakes".
>>
>> AP1 also allows for the animal to be returned to the carrier if it is
>> not providing a service to the person. Since most incidents we've
>> heard involve ESAs, we want a means of controlling them and removing
>> them from other service animals, passengers and flight crew. This
>> cannot be done for larger dogs if allowed.
>>
>> Honestly, this particular aspect of the regulation definition has
>> split the Advocates in several directions. I'd urge anyone considering
>> commenting to remember why this Reg-Neg was convened. Safety for
>> service animal teams was one of the paramount concerns expressed by
>> advocates. Given that fraud, either intentional or through lack of
>> education, is also an issue, particularly with ESAs, we regret that
>> AP1 limits access for those with larger dogs as ESAs, but something
>> has to give to achieve the goals here. We do appreciate your support
>> for AP1.
>>
>> Documentation/Verification/Attestation
>> This is by far the most controversial part of the entire definition.
>> The current state of play is that if you have a traditional service
>> animal, you are not required to do anything, other than possibly
>> answer the two questions allowed under the ADA as well as the ACAA,
>> which are:
>> "Is that a service animal required because of a disability?"
>> "How does that animal assist you with your disability?"
>> These two questions can be asked by airline staff. They cannot ask,
>> however, anything specific, such as "What is your disability?", "Can
>> you demonstrate the dog's work?", "What's the dog's breed, weight,
>> size, training provider,.
>>
>> If you have a PSA or ESA, you must provide a letter, 48 hours in
>> advance of your flight, stating your diagnosis and that the animal is
>> necessary. This letter must be on the letterhead of a licensed mental
>> health professional and must include their name, address and license
>> number. The letter is good for 1 year.
>>
>> In theory this sounds good enough to prevent fraud. In practice, it's
>> just the opposite. Many reading this post can show lots of examples of
>> where to get credentials for your pet on line to transform it into
>> either and ESA, with a real doctor's note, or a traditional service
>> animal.
>>
>> AP1. Since the airlines feel more secure with some type of assurance
>> that we are who we say we are and that our animals are what we claim,
>> traditional service animals or ESAs, we have come up with a decision
>> tree concept. This is a form that goes something like this:
>>
>> I am traveling with an animal. Yes/No
>>
>> If yes: My animal is a(n( Pet/ESA/Service Animal
>>
>> If Service Animal, then some language would appear that says you
>> attest to the fact that you do have a qualifying disability, not what
>> that disability is, but that you have one, and you require this animal
>> to assist with said disability.
>>
>> You will also attest to the fact that the animal has been trained and
>> will remain under your control, and that you are responsible for
>> damages caused by the animal.
>>
>> This short data form would be filled out as soon after your ticket
>> purchase has been confirmed as possible. Just how that will happen is
>> not yet clear but suggestions include the form being part of the
>> ticket reservation process on an airline's web site or 3rd party
>> ticket seller's site, an email being sent with the confirmation of
>> ticket purchase with a link to the form on the airline's entry site,
>> etc.
>>
>> This data form would need to be completed by anyone traveling with a
>> service animals or ESA no less than 12 hours prior to the flight. If
>> you don't get it done prior to the flight, you may be required to do
>> so at the airport, may be asked for additional documentation or may be
>> asked to take another flight, giving you time to complete the form.
>>
>> If you have done so ahead of time though the airline cannot ask you
>> anything else about your animal (dog in most cases). This does not
>> apply to any other type of assistance requested or offered by the
>> airline involving your disability, such as meet and assist. It just
>> means you won't get questions about your dog from the airline staff.
>>
>> Arguments on this point are quite vehement. People with traditional
>> service animals have not been asked to do anything extra to gain
>> access to flights with their animals. Many people feel that this is
>> discriminatory and that identifying themselves ahead of time to the
>> airlines as a person with a disability primes the staff for
>> inappropriate and often infantilizing treatment.
>>
>> I can't argue that. It happens.
>>
>> Unfortunately we are at the point though where the regulations
>> involving animals on flights have come to a tipping point of safety.
>> Cabin space is at a premium. In order to secure our rights, sadly, we
>> are going to have to start notifying the airline of a need for the
>> accommodation of having our service animals with us.
>>
>> The airlines would rather we *all* got a 3rd party to verify that we
>> have disabilities and that we need our animals for said disability
>> mitigation.
>>
>> What do we get by checking boxes on this form? Good question.
>>
>> We, not a 3rd party, are responsible for the accommodation request.
>> The airlines can deal with us directly if there is any question about
>> our animals. Completing the form holds someone who is fraudulently
>> representing themselves or their animals to a legal standard for which
>> they can be punished by law if found guilty. For many people that
>> threat is enough to stop them from completing the form and taking
>> their pet, who has never been out of their yard, on an airplane.
>>
>> The airlines do truly want to stop people who *are not disabled* from
>> claiming accommodations designed for those who are. Yes, there's a
>> financial component on their side but the people we deal with on the
>> ACCESS Committee and SAWG are very angry that people would disrespect
>> people with disabilities and the work that goes into maintaining the
>> training of a service dog, just to get something free. They see much
>> more of this rampant fraud than we do directly.
>>
>>  My final word on this is that we need to realize, unfortunate as the
>> "group slap" mentality is, that we are going to have to justify our
>> need for our animals in some form, across the board. People who use
>> other assistive devices have to do so as well under certain
>> conditions. No, a national registry of "legitimate service dogs" will
>> not work.
>>
>> The airlines are looking into ways of voluntarily keeping your
>> information about your animal in some type of passenger profile, be it
>> your frequent flyer account or other information so you don't have to
>> check every box, every time. They are also looking at how you would
>> deal with canceled flights or stand-by situations, even switching
>> airlines during a trip. Trust me, thanks to discussing this with many
>> different people, we've tried to think of everything.
>>
>>  Finally, if we don't agree to this concept in some form, it will be
>> forced upon us by DOT. That's not necessarily a threat. It's just a
>> reality.
>>
>> I appreciate any
>> questions regarding this process. the final meetings for this Reg-Neg
>> will take place October 12 - 14 in Washington, DC. The public is
>> welcome to attend.
>>
>> Jenine Stanley
>> <Jeninems at icloud.com>
>>  NG
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WASAGDU mailing list
>> WASAGDU at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/wasagdu_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> WASAGDU:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/wasagdu_nfbnet.org/michaeldforzano%4
>> 0gmail.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WASAGDU mailing list
> WASAGDU at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/wasagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> WASAGDU:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/wasagdu_nfbnet.org/b.butterfly%40comcast.n
> et
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WASAGDU mailing list
> WASAGDU at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/wasagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> WASAGDU:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/wasagdu_nfbnet.org/michaeldforzano%40gmail.com
>