With the dominoes falling on emotional support animals, there’s a business opportunity for one airline to be an outlier.
A Business Opportunity For Emotional Support Animals
When it comes to masks, Delta does not require young children to wear masks if they cannot keep them on. It is alone in that respect, with every other U.S. airline requiring children two and older to wear one. This is a market differentiator that has driven many customers to Delta.
When it comes to loyalty, Alaska Airlines has resisted the urge to make elite status driven primarily by revenue. Instead, you can still earn miles on Alaska based upon miles flown, not dollars spent. It’s an important market differentiator that has driven many customers to Alaska Airlines.
Now comes the issue of emotional support animals. With Southwest’s ban of emotional support animals yesterday, all major U.S. airlines have banned them.
Part of me simply wants to applaud the news and say nothing more. I cannot count the number of trips I have seen entitled yuppies bring their oversized dogs onboard and parade them through the cabin, as if they really need the emotional support. Somehow, our Mexican, Canadian, African, Asian, Australian, South American, and European brothers sisters get by just fine without an emotional support dog. So why not us?
A Timely Market Opportunity
But the huge number of these dogs onboard points to the market opportunity for an airline willing to cater to such customers. The rationale I hear from those who claim “emotional support” needs is that they would rather drive then place their animals in the cargo hold.
I get it. I don’t have pets (beyond fish in my pond), but I used to have a dog and I can fully relate to how precious that dog was. Even if statistically unlikely there would be any issues, there’s no way I am entrusting my beloved pet to an airline cargo hold.
Certainly, many bring on their “emotional support” animals just to save the pet transport fees airline levy. But it was more than just money, since airlines strictly limited the size of optional cabin pets (versus “emotional support” animals).
Now comes an opportunity. One airline could become the pet-friendly airline and make a lot of money doing so. Will it be Alaska? Spirit perhaps? Frontier to go along with the animals on each aircraft tail?
This I know: already clients have told me they will not be traveling by air if they cannot bring their large dogs in-cabin. While they may get away with the new “psychiatric service animals” loophole, I see a business opportunity.
Charge people to take their larger pets onboard and you will build 1.) a very loyal base of customers and 2.) an attractive ancillary revenue opportunity. People don’t want to keep their animals caged. They consider their dogs and cats as family members and want them to be treated as such.
While it is possible that such a move could backfire (it might turn more people away than attract them), I think a pet-friendly airline could offer passengers a meaningful choice and charge enough to make it worthwhile.
CONCLUSION
As I watch airline after airline ban emotional support pets, I cannot help but to think there is room for an enterprising airline to cash in on the new market conditions. I will be watching to see if a U.S. airline, most likely a budget carrier, would be willing to try catering to animal-loving clientele.
Would you be far less likely to fly on a pet-friendly airline? How much would you pay so that your dog or other animal did not have to be caged onboard?
image: United
@ Matthew — I vote for Spirit.
I knew you would!
It can work both ways. I see the money opportunity but at the same time at least for me I feel there are more people preferring to fly an airline that bans emotional support animals than fly an airline that openly embraces it. I might be out of touch though since I don’t own a dog.
Let’s look at this from how a free market is (supposed) to work.
The option to allow emotional support animals, for example, shouldn’t happen in a total vacuum where two airlines, A and B, are precisely the same (ticket prices, amenities, etc.) except for that single variable.
The airline can get more money, certainly, but then should pass on a benefit to the other passengers in the cabin for sharing it with someone’s FIDO. Assume 5 emotional support animals on a flight generating net $1000 in revenue. If $700 of that was slushed towards free drinks for the cabin, would that make it go down easier for you?
Although emotional support animals are sometimes a scam, there are people who may be more calm and happy in the cabin with them and perhaps a better overall effect on the flight. No (free) checked bags and lack of beverage and food amenities may have helped drop the price of airfare, but the overall nature of people in the cabin has become grimmer in recent years.
Agree with you Matt. There is a business opportunity here, including a fee for the carrier per trip, as well as a periodic fee opportunity to secure a “license” for the pet/ESA certifying its propensity to behave. The carriers have a lot of control now over this, and there is a market to be served.
Simple solution is to allow passengers to purchase the seats for their pets, making their pets just another paying passenger. Possibly require a full fare ticket
I’d happily pay full fare J for a seat for my mini poodle (but she has better get the full meal service, as I don’t want to share mine with her, let her have her own meal)
In some cases that might be cheaper than paying the pet fee. My sister recently traveled with her cat on AA and the fare for her seat was less than the pet fee AA charges. When she inquired about simply buying an extra seat for her cat to have the extra space she was told she could, but she would still have to pay the pet fee on top of that.
That said, I understand why airlines charge pet fees and think closing the emotional support animal loophole is a good thing. So long as your pet is well-behaved and willing to stay in their carrier under the seat in front of you the whole flight (most vets can prescribe medicines to sedate pets for 4-5 hours) and you are willing to pay the pet fee, I don’t see the issue with allowing small pets on flights.
That is exactly what I did. I forked up $800 without hesitation for an extra seat for my 4-legged companion. And I will tell you, several flight attendants complimented me on how well behaved he was, stating better than many 2-legged passengers! Yes, it is true that there are many who abuse & misrepresent their animals in order to save a buck and that’s plain wrong. But to ban all ESA is not only extreme but prejudicial. It discriminates against those who suffer from emotional & psychiatric conditions, conditions that are pacified with the love and attention of a pet. I do believe the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act) needs to be modified, like no peacocks, pigs nor small ponies! But an emotional support dog or cat should not be banned. Would you rather sit next to a restless passenger or one who has been consoled by the companionship of their pet.
Another class?
First class (domestic)
Business class (rare)
Premium economy
Economy
(Basic Economy, same seating as Economy)
Cattle Class or, to not have jokes about cattle, Pet Class
Towards the back of the plane is where the pets and their owners would sit. Occasionally, dogs would fight with each other but not too often. Maybe the carpet would be replaced with vinyl flooring?
Currently, dogs can get Covid-19, as well as mink and other animals so such Pet Class should be after the pandemic downgrades to an epidemic.
Yes, provision must be made for those needing to travel with their animals; aviation should be for everyone, including those with special needs. No reasonable person will complain about sharing the cabin with the dear creatures that make it possible for their owners to fly.
As long as there’s a plan for addressing potty training and the animal is muzzled, why not?
Agree somewhat. There is also the matter of safety for the animal and the passengers. If the aircraft hits moderate to severe turbulence, the animal could be injured along with passengers sitting around them. If the aircraft is involved in an emergency evacuation, the animal could panic, block an escape route or hide.
Perhaps dedicated flights are the answer. Or Charter flights. And the owners would need to purchase a harness to keep the animal secure. Now these types of flights would likely be pretty expensive, but it would address those who don’t want their animal shipped below deck. BTW-I have three dogs and would have no issue shipping them below deck.
Matthew, it’s not uniquely US-American…
In Brazil and Colombia, the concept of an ESA does exist, is common, and is accepted by the airlines. Latam, Gol, and Avianca have the same policy as US Carriers did. It’s not uncommon to get off flights ex-Brazil in Miami and see a dog or two walking off with the sleepy masses.
I stand corrected! I honestly did not know (and am a bit surprised).
ZooAir!!! If you are emotionally unstable to fly by yourself, STAY HOME!!!!! Why would you lock yourself inside a metal tube at 30,000 ft for many hours if you are emotionally unstable?
Nonsense. These are people with a need for support; anxiety is often the symptom. Why do they need to stay home, denied travel , according to you, because they’re unstable?
We should fully embrace, indeed celebrate, animals in the cabin, if it means helping others to live their fullest life.
You should launch the ZooAir and welcome all these emotional support animals to your plane.
Nonsense, the obsession for animal support is an USAmerican specialty, as mentioned in the original article already. You will not find an animal except for trained guiding dogs in a European plane/hotel. This is the same obesession of “individual rights” as is the claim to ban all nuts from a flight because of the allergy of one person. Americans often seem to forget that the claim of my individual “rights” the as valuable rights of others.
And I agree, if one is either too unstable to survive a couple of hours without a pet or can’t see this one in the cargo hold: do not fly.
Bollocks. Dogs are more common on planes in Europe than in the USA ( perhaps they’re handled more discreetly and consequently less obvious); one difference is that brachycephalic breeds like Frenchies, Pugs, Shi Tzu are not permitted because of the stress on their breathing.
Germans take their dogs everywhere: hotels, supermarkets, restaurants. It’s a good thing.
A lot of them aren’t needed for emotional support, however, and their owners are just looking for a way to get around paying the pet fees.
I have to agree with chasgoose.
Has the government tested evac procedures with multiple animals in the cabin? Forget the luggage, how does an 80 Rottweiler may delay an emergency evac.
they would lose far more business than they would gain. Most of these travelers object more to having to pay for the pet than they do for the placement in the cargo area. I have seen so many of these “emotional support” pets simply being put on the floor and ignore rather than giving their owner any support. They are welcome to drive or pay. Mor will pay in the end
ESA Life’s Matter?
Southwest’s policy of two free checked bags (regardless of ticket price or fare code) is a market differentiator that has caused me to take as much of my business to that airline when I need to fly. So the concept of a market differentiator is real. I personally take a dim view of animals in the cabin especially uncaged animals. If an airline such as Frontier wants to allow emotional support animals uncaged in the cabin, fine, but I would avoid flying that airline if at all possible.
I had a conversation with a customer services rep who specailaizes in special assistance matters at one of the biggest legacy carriers on this very topic.
We’ve flown with our legitimately prescribed emotional support Springer Spaniel several times. The last journey was an overnight flight to Europe. We sat in Row 1; other passengers had no idea there’d been a dog on board until they saw us on the jetway upon arrival.
When I reached out to this particular rep, as we need to now return to the US, I reminded her that (a) passenger loads in premium cabins are currently meager, (b) the animal with whom we need to fly is already known to the airline and comports with the updated DOT regulation that stipulates only dogs are allowed, and (c) we’re prepared to spend big bucks on a private aircraft (open-leg booking). My point to the rep was that to accept us with our ESA is a win-win: revenue for the carrier at a time when it is hurting and a lower-price option for good customers (who happen to be in one of the carrier’s highest frequent flyer tiers). She told me the company is indeed reviewing their updated ESA policy — and that more customers in our position need to weigh in to affect change.
Others with well-behaved, prescribed emotional support dogs need to speak up.