Dog Mauls Passenger on Delta Flight

[traderjake]

A Delta Air Lines passenger was left bloody and badly injured after being attacked by an emotional support dog aboard a flight at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/new...-flight/ar-BBC4LEY?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

[jimntx]

Some emotional support animal! Can't believe that Delta accommodated the dog and the owner on a later flight. Seems to me "emotional support animal attacks another passenger" invalidates one's contract for carriage. Greyhound still serves Atlanta. Send them there.

As article points out, there's a lot of abuse of the "emotional support" animal baloney. I heard two women talking in DFW airport one day. Conversation went something like this:
Woman #1: Don't you get tired of having to pay that $150 fee to have your dog with you in the cabin?
Woman #2: Oh, I never pay that. I have a doctor who will write me any prescription or note I want. So, I had him write a note that Fifi is an emotional support animal, and the airlines can't charge me a fee.

 

[xUT]

Some emotional support animal! Can't believe that Delta accommodated the dog and the owner on a later flight. Seems to me "emotional support animal attacks another passenger" invalidates one's contract for carriage. Greyhound still serves Atlanta. Send them there.

As article points out, there's a lot of abuse of the "emotional support" animal baloney. I heard two women talking in DFW airport one day. Conversation went something like this:
Woman #1: Don't you get tired of having to pay that $150 fee to have your dog with you in the cabin?
Woman #2: Oh, I never pay that. I have a doctor who will write me any prescription or note I want. So, I had him write a note that Fifi is an emotional support animal, and the airlines can't charge me a fee.

That's a problem everywhere.
Ever notice the increase in pets in retail?
It's pretty common to see dogs at the home depot, lowes, costco, safeway, etc...
The problem is our laws.
It will not change until the law changes.

 

[swamt]

Owner of dog started crying after the attack because she thought her dog would be put down. REALLY? She should have been crying because an innocent man was just attacked. Now here's what needs to happen. Investigate first and foremost if the dog is actually a support dog and for what reasons. If it is found that this woman presented false paperwork to get her dog in the cabin, then she needs to be charged for that. Secondly, she should be charged and reliable for NOT controlling her dog. And she will be reliable for all cost this man endures and any loss in funds from the attack. If this woman did in fact get her dog on board illegally, then an example needs to made of her big time to help stop the lying for passengers to get their pets to sit with them.

 

[FWAAA]

Owner of dog started crying after the attack because she thought her dog would be put down. REALLY? She should have been crying because an innocent man was just attacked.

Where did you get the mistaken impression that the dog's handler is female? The article linked by the OP contains no such suggestion.

The dog's handler is a male US Marine combat vet who was issued the dog for emotional support. My guess is that the Marine suffers from PTSD, not an uncommon situation given our 16 year wars in two countries. Not terribly surprising that a disabled vet might be crying about the very real possibility that Georgia authorities might confiscate and put down his canine companion after it viciously mauled a fellow passenger.

Here are more articles about the incident, some with pictures of the Marine and the victim:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tional-support-dog-bites-Delta-passenger.html (details and lots of pictures)

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/06/dog-attack-delta-lab-u-s-marine/ (pictures)

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/258862347-story (they broke the story)

http://airport.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/05/emotional-support-dog-bites-passenger-on-delta-flight/ (the Atlanta paper with details)

Now here's what needs to happen. Investigate first and foremost if the dog is actually a support dog and for what reasons. If it is found that this woman presented false paperwork to get her dog in the cabin, then she needs to be charged for that. Secondly, she should be charged and reliable for NOT controlling her dog. And she will be reliable for all cost this man endures and any loss in funds from the attack. If this woman did in fact get her dog on board illegally, then an example needs to made of her big time to help stop the lying for passengers to get their pets to sit with them.

The above really doesn't matter now that we know he's a Marine with a real emotional support animal.

I feel for the mauling victim. Allegedly, the dog was growling at him and he asked the Marine if the dog was going to bite him, and right then, the dog attacked his face. What a horrible situation.

 

[xUT]

Where did you get the mistaken impression that the dog's handler is female? The article linked by the OP contains no such suggestion.

The dog's handler is a male US Marine combat vet who was issued the dog for emotional support. My guess is that the Marine suffers from PTSD, not an uncommon situation given our 16 year wars in two countries. Not terribly surprising that a disabled vet might be crying about the very real possibility that Georgia authorities might confiscate and put down his canine companion after it viciously mauled a fellow passenger.

Here are more articles about the incident, some with pictures of the Marine and the victim:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tional-support-dog-bites-Delta-passenger.html (details and lots of pictures)

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/06/dog-attack-delta-lab-u-s-marine/ (pictures)

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/258862347-story (they broke the story)

http://airport.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/05/emotional-support-dog-bites-passenger-on-delta-flight/ (the Atlanta paper with details)



The above really doesn't matter now that we know he's a Marine with a real emotional support animal.

I feel for the mauling victim. Allegedly, the dog was growling at him and he asked the Marine if the dog was going to bite him, and right then, the dog attacked his face. What a horrible situation.

Hey FWAAA,
You are a lawyer and know about how ridiculous the law is in regards to 'service animals'.
He double hockey sticks, The law is so ambiguous that it can not be enforced.
JMHO, the Doctor that approved this dog as a 'service pet' should bare the brunt of of damages.
Truth, may be, there was never a Doctor involved.
Under the 'LAW' you can't challenge someone and ask for their proof that they need and/or authorized to have a service animal.
This stupidity needs to be fixed.
JMHO,
Xut

 

[FWAAA]

Yeah, I know, but I've met so many young veterans who are definitely effed up in the head after what they've been thru that I've mellowed on the emotional support dog concept. Some of them take their dogs everywhere, even places where they don't have a strict legal basis for bringing their dogs. They claim that their dogs help them cope, and I'm not going to argue with them. I've gone weak in my old age.

 

[eolesen]

The dog's handler is a male US Marine combat vet who was issued the dog for emotional support.

"Issued" seems to be a bit in doubt here... The military doesn't "issue" support animals according to a couple people I've talked with, including my now-discharged son. Maybe they did, but the only source right now saying the dog was "issued" was the distraught owner.

Per the rules for having any animal on-base at both Camp LeJeune and Camp Pendleton, this dog would have been sequestered pending a disposition ruling and either banned from the base or euthanized. The same rules apply to service animals when someone or another animal is attacked.

All that said, if it works to have the dog for support, let it happen. But there should be a little more to getting an animal certified as an emotional support animal than going online.

On Tuesday, I went to the site Certapet.com, and got approved for an emotional support animal letter. All I had to do was pay 149 and talk to a "registered professional" on the phone. It's right up there with the sites that sell fake death certificates and doctors letters to get out of airline change fees.

The link below bypasses the questionairre needed to be certified:

https://www.certapet.com/medical/v2-vsl-v4/

 

[xUT]

Yeah, I know, but I've met so many young veterans who are definitely effed up in the head after what they've been thru that I've mellowed on the emotional support dog concept. Some of them take their dogs everywhere, even places where they don't have a strict legal basis for bringing their dogs. They claim that their dogs help them cope, and I'm not going to argue with them. I've gone weak in my old age.

Well, I am a Vietnam Vet. Sometimes I wake up in night sweats.
Yes,
45.23013699 months later and still have issues ( I love math)..
Yes, I have had issues but I grabbed myself by the balls and worked through it.
No doubt, that service animals are a benefit, but, hey... Let's be reasonable.

 

[swamt]

Where did you get the mistaken impression that the dog's handler is female? The article linked by the OP contains no such suggestion.

The dog's handler is a male US Marine combat vet who was issued the dog for emotional support. My guess is that the Marine suffers from PTSD, not an uncommon situation given our 16 year wars in two countries. Not terribly surprising that a disabled vet might be crying about the very real possibility that Georgia authorities might confiscate and put down his canine companion after it viciously mauled a fellow passenger.

Here are more articles about the incident, some with pictures of the Marine and the victim:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tional-support-dog-bites-Delta-passenger.html (details and lots of pictures)

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/06/dog-attack-delta-lab-u-s-marine/ (pictures)

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/258862347-story (they broke the story)

http://airport.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/05/emotional-support-dog-bites-passenger-on-delta-flight/ (the Atlanta paper with details)



The above really doesn't matter now that we know he's a Marine with a real emotional support animal.

I feel for the mauling victim. Allegedly, the dog was growling at him and he asked the Marine if the dog was going to bite him, and right then, the dog attacked his face. What a horrible situation.

My bad FWAAA, I took the following quote as it was the owner, turns out to just be another passenger. I mistakenly skimmed thru it rather quickly, thx for the correction;

"The gentleman’s face was completely bloody, blood in his eyes, cheeks, nose, his mouth, his shirt was covered in blood," passenger Bridget Maddox-Peoples told Fox 5.

She described the dog as a possible lab mix weighing an estimated 50 pounds.

On a second note; I did not read any other articles except for the one posted above (first post) so I did not know the owner was better described by other articles, however, it does not change my thoughts at all. I still say it needs to be investigated on rather this was a legal support dog to be allowed in the cabin. I don't care that the owner is military or not, that does not change the fact that they should still check it out.
Now, I also believe that the owner should have had his dog muzzled IF there was any doubt that the dog would get aggressive. If it was the first flight ever then it was a very expensive flight for the dog owner as I say he is still reliable.

 

[xUT]

My bad FWAAA, I took the following quote as it was the owner, turns out to just be another passenger. I mistakenly skimmed thru it rather quickly, thx for the correction;

"The gentleman’s face was completely bloody, blood in his eyes, cheeks, nose, his mouth, his shirt was covered in blood," passenger Bridget Maddox-Peoples told Fox 5.

She described the dog as a possible lab mix weighing an estimated 50 pounds.

On a second note; I did not read any other articles except for the one posted above (first post) so I did not know the owner was better described by other articles, however, it does not change my thoughts at all. I still say it needs to be investigated on rather this was a legal support dog to be allowed in the cabin. I don't care that the owner is military or not, that does not change the fact that they should still check it out.
Now, I also believe that the owner should have had his dog muzzled IF there was any doubt that the dog would get aggressive. If it was the first flight ever then it was a very expensive flight for the dog owner as I say he is still reliable.

I am sure you meant 'liable'.
The DR. that issued a letter of certification (if any) should be liable.
Service animals are trained to be compliant.
xUT

 

[jimntx]

I am sure you meant 'liable'.
The DR. that issued a letter of certification (if any) should be liable.
Service animals are trained to be compliant.
xUT

Actually, I don't think that is correct. As a rule, emotional support animals are not trained to be anything. The Doctor simply needs to put in writing the statement that the animal is needed by the affected person. This means that Fifi who has never been trained to do anything other than defecate in the yard and not on the living room carpet can be "certified" as an ESAN. Yes, service animals are trained to be compliant. ESANs (Emotional Support Animal) are not classified as service animals the way that say an assist animal for a blind person is. On the passenger manifest, there are separate listings for ESANs and SVANs (service animal).

I was told by a gate agent that there is no prior investigation by the airline to determine that the person writing the ESAN statement is even a doctor! It's such a touchy subject, and the airlines fear being sued. As a flight attendant, I am supposed to verify that any person bringing an animal onboard is listed on the passenger manifest as having either a service animal or an ESAN, OR has paid the fee ($150. I think) to bring a pet on board. Because, if Fifi is just a plain vanilla pet, the airline is held (at least, partially) responsible if Fifi bites another passenger or animal. In the fee paid situation, the animal must remain in a closed pet carrier at all times while on board, and no I don't care that Fifi is scared of the engine noise, you may not hold her in flight. Fifi stays in the carrier and the carrier stays under the seat in front of you--end of discussion. (Which also means that passengers with "just a" pets may not be seated in a bulkhead row.)

(You may or may not be surprised at how many people hide a small dog, cat or other pet in one of their carryon bags to avoid having to pay the fee for taking the animal on board. We caught one several years ago because the sneaky passenger with a cat in her purse, got seated next to a passenger who was highly allergic to cats.) Here's the catch...if the passenger uses the words "service animal" the verification process stops immediately. Now, I still have to write a report that I saw no documentation of service animal status--ostensibly so that the company can investigate further. But, I can not pursue the issue any further if those magic words are said.

 

[xUT]

Actually, I don't think that is correct. As a rule, emotional support animals are not trained to be anything. The Doctor simply needs to put in writing the statement that the animal is needed by the affected person. This means that Fifi who has never been trained to do anything other than defecate in the yard and not on the living room carpet can be "certified" as an ESAN. Yes, service animals are trained to be compliant. ESANs (Emotional Support Animal) are not classified as service animals the way that say an assist animal for a blind person is. On the passenger manifest, there are separate listings for ESANs and SVANs (service animal).

I was told by a gate agent that there is no prior investigation by the airline to determine that the person writing the ESAN statement is even a doctor! It's such a touchy subject, and the airlines fear being sued. As a flight attendant, I am supposed to verify that any person bringing an animal onboard is listed on the passenger manifest as having either a service animal or an ESAN, OR has paid the fee ($150. I think) to bring a pet on board. Because, if Fifi is just a plain vanilla pet, the airline is held (at least, partially) responsible if Fifi bites another passenger or animal. In the fee paid situation, the animal must remain in a closed pet carrier at all times while on board, and no I don't care that Fifi is scared of the engine noise, you may not hold her in flight. Fifi stays in the carrier and the carrier stays under the seat in front of you--end of discussion. (Which also means that passengers with "just a" pets may not be seated in a bulkhead row.)

(You may or may not be surprised at how many people hide a small dog, cat or other pet in one of their carryon bags to avoid having to pay the fee for taking the animal on board. We caught one several years ago because the sneaky passenger with a cat in her purse, got seated next to a passenger who was highly allergic to cats.) Here's the catch...if the passenger uses the words "service animal" the verification process stops immediately. Now, I still have to write a report that I saw no documentation of service animal status--ostensibly so that the company can investigate further. But, I can not pursue the issue any further if those magic words are said.

Well, I believe you are correct.
That's why I stated 'If Any".
This is just another law that is ambiguous and should be defined.
I know some people that have service animals and they are responsible people.
Their animals are very well behaved, but that is them and not the general population.

JMHO, sometimes, the ADA laws are all ambiguous and it drives me crazy trying to comply with a moving target.
That's all I am going to say on this subject and I am fully aware of the handcuffs the gooberment has given you and I.

Take Care Jim,
xUT

 

[jimntx]

Thought just occurred to me... (I know you all smelled rubber burning.)

Why not "issue" teddy bears to the emotionally fragile? They are animals who are guaranteed not to bite another passenger. And, I bet they are just as comforting as a real animal.

 

[1AA]

There is a saying that people love their dogs to death. I've seen so many pax with their dogs wearing that stupid harness labeled as an emotional support animal.
Some even say service dog. You know they are just family pets that their owners want to drag them all over the place. I've seen dogs dump their loads right on the terminal floor while being pulled by the leash by their non attentive owners. The poor animals go hours without relieving themselves. The one thing that no one talks about is what happens to your pet should the cabin lose pressure. Masks are not made for dogs. The dog will have a high risk of oxygen deprivation.
Last week I took a trip and I noticed on the safety announcement that there is no mention about the masks that will not work on animals should they need to be used. It's very clear to put yours on first then infants or others that can't. So your dog is going to risk death. Hence my opening line. We love our dogs to death. Let's not even think how a dog or passenger with a dog will react in a emergency evacuation.