In December 2020, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced changes to the Air Carrier Access Act, the law which allows service animals on airplanes. The new law limits service animals to dogs only and states that emotional service animals can no longer be considered service animals. The change comes after years of airlines complaining that passengers could claim any animal to be their service animal as a way to have it ride in the cabin with them.

The sad fact is that for far too many years, the public at large took advantage of a system that allowed animals on airplanes or in any public access area that are not trained to be there. Service dog training is hard work. I know that because my husband and I worked hard to service dog train our Golden Retriever, Alton, but he could not pass the public access requirements. Those trainers/handlers who do the intense work required with an exceptional dog who loves to serve should not be misjudged as dogs that don't know how to serve. Unfortunately, many dogs, and other types of animals, are being brought onto planes under the pretense of being service animals when they are really just a family pet. This is not fair for the airlines and their staff, the traveling public, or disabled people who legitimately need service animals to assist disabled people's daily life activities.

The Department says they received over 15,000 comments from various stakeholders impacted by the decision. Everyone from flight attendants, airlines, airports, and also including disabled people as well as the general public. The results of those comments resulted in the culmination of policy details outlined in this final rule:

• Defines a service animal as a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability;

• No longer considers an emotional support animal to be a service animal;

• Requires airlines to treat psychiatric service animals the same as other service animals;

• Allows airlines to require forms developed by DOT attesting to a service animal's health, behavior, and training, and if taking a long flight attesting that the service animal can either not relieve itself, or can relieve itself in a sanitary manner;

• Allows airlines to require individuals traveling with a service animal to provide the DOT service animal form(s) up to 48 hours in advance of the date of travel if the passenger's reservation was made prior to that time;

• Prohibits airlines from requiring passengers with a disability who are traveling with a service animal to physically check-in at the airport instead of using the online check-in process;

• Allows airlines to require a person with a disability seeking to travel with a service animal to provide the DOT service animal form(s) at the passenger's departure gate on the date of travel;

• Allows airlines to limit the number of service animals traveling with a single passenger with a disability to two service animals;

• Allows airlines to require a service animal to fit within its handler's foot space on the aircraft;

• Allows airlines to require that service animals be harnessed, leashed, or tethered at all times in the airport and on the aircraft;

• Continues to allow airlines to refuse transportation to service animals that exhibit aggressive behavior and that pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others; and

• Continues to prohibit airlines from refusing to transport a service animal solely based on breed.

It seems to me that this is a good and comprehensive list that was arrived at through open dialogue, communication, and compromise. On the one hand, I understand why airlines and some passengers wanted to restrict service animals to dogs. We have all heard the stories of passengers boarding planes with birds, snakes, other rare species in tow. As much as the owner of such an animal might claim that it is harmless and provides emotional support, do you really want to be the person sitting next to Patty the Python?

One aspect of the law that I find most problematic is how it excludes emotional support animals but allows "psychiatric service animals." Primarily because of the definitions of need for those two classifications (emotional vs. psychiatric) and what defines a service animal. As stated above, the revised ACAA defines a service animal as "a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability." Hmmm, let's unpack that for a moment in the context of emotional support.

It seems as if the new rule is trying to limit the fallout of banning emotional support animals by stating that airlines must treat "psychiatric service animals" the same as "other service animals." How you define a service animal as providing a psychiatric service is where problems can arise. I'm assuming that the psychiatric issues they are referring to are things like panic disorder, claustrophobia, PTSD, etc. These are conditions that passengers who use emotional support animals say they struggle with and for which their emotional service animal provides them support.

Getting a psychiatric service animal on an airplane is still technically possible. The airline can require the owner to provide a completed Department of Transportation form up to 24 hours in advance of their flight that describes how the dog is a service dog, what task(s) it performs, and verifying that it meets the airline's criteria for travel. The rule allows airlines to require this form, but it doesn't mandate they use it, and it still gives the airlines discretion to refuse service-- form provided or not.

There are other issues as well. While a passenger can provide a medical note describing a medical, mental health/psychiatric condition, one is not required. Suppose they aren't presenting with a physical manifestation of those symptoms at the time of flight. In that case, airport personnel may not be as amenable to reading or even believing the documentation. Additionally, under the ADA (which I know isn't the same as the ACAA), it is not legal to ask a person for "proof" of their disability. (This assumes a person with a mental health or psychological condition even identifies themself as disabled.)

The only thing the airport or airline personnel are allowed to ask is: is that animal a service animal, and what does the animal help you with? i.e., what service does the dog provide? This article describes how a passenger answers this can be critical, as one couple found out on their flight from Puerto Rico to the United States on JetBlue.

When the female passenger replied in a generalized way that the dog helps her when she gets panic attacks, the gate agent took that to mean that the dog provided her "comfort" more like an emotional support animal would, even though she had documentation stating otherwise. If, however, she has answered, "I have panic disorder, and he licks my hand to keep me from having a panic attack," the agent might have been more inclined to permit the dog on board.

The need for such word-play acrobatics might seem very arbitrary and capricious, and in many ways, they are. But we, as disabled passengers, have had to learn how to jump through these hoops and navigate these barriers to access, not only on airplanes but everywhere in our everyday life. Clearly, there needs to be a lot more education for airport and airline staff about the new ACAA and some courses in general disability etiquette.

Likewise, passengers with medical considerations need to learn how to travel with these new rules, particularly if they were used to traveling with an emotional support animal in the past. One way this might happen is if someone, who, for example, has extreme claustrophobia, learns to accept it as a type of disability and then gets comfortable being a strong self-advocate for their rights under the law.

The other area of concern I have about this new law is that airlines can require the passenger's service animal to fit in their footwell, the area underneath the seat in front of them. I have 100 pound Golden Retriever, and if he were my service dog, there is no way he would fit in that space. Many large breed dogs such as Labradors and Golden Retrievers are service dogs. Their size could prohibit disabled people from traveling due to this policy.

The fact is, being an airline passenger with a disability can be a very stressful and scary experience, service animal issues or not. Often, the airlines regard disabled passengers as "extra baggage" for which they don't want to be bothered. Even though I am allowed to pre-board the aircraft, I still need assistance with my ventilator, portable oxygen concentrator, batteries, and all the necessary accessories that I don't dare put into checked luggage should it get lost. (I learned that lesson the hard way.) Most of the time, the flight attendants are friendly and helpful in storing my bags in the overhead compartment. But get one having a bad day, and it can be a very unpleasant experience. And then there is the pilot, who can unilaterally determine whether you will be able to fly at all. I've had friends who use power wheelchairs who have been kicked off planes because pilots didn't want the cargo of their wheelchair on the plane. But if you are lucky enough to stay on the flight with all your mobility device in tow, you can't really breathe a sigh of relief until you are reunited with it when you land, where it is hopefully not broken.

I don't mean to be the voice of doom and gloom here. Still, my overall point is that while traveling has become more low-frills for non-disabled passengers, disabled passengers aren't getting any frills, either. In fact, we are entirely helpless over factors we have no control, but that is crucial to our health and independence. For example, if the airline loses your luggage, eventually, you will be reunited with it. But, they lose or break my wheelchair, I won't be leaving the boarding area— at least not with any dignity or autonomy. And if they decide I can't travel with my service animal, I won't be going anywhere at all.

I hope that this new law helps to clear up the confusion and lack of consistent policy enforcement surrounding service animals on airlines. There has been far too much ignorance among the public about the law and too much scapegoating by airlines not taking responsibility for appropriately accommodating disabled travelers. We have a right to travel just like anyone else. If we require the presence of our service animal in flight, then we should be allowed to do so without harassment, discrimination, and the burden of appeasement that we, and our service animal will "behave."

After all, where is the law that defines what I can do as a passenger to make the screaming toddler sitting behind me be quiet, or the sleepy guy next to me who keeps elbowing me in his sleep? There are many problems passengers on airplanes face these days, yet, it seems disabled passengers are always the only ones who need to be fixed.

For more reading:

The final rule on Traveling by Air with Service Animals can be found here: Service Animal Final Rule

To read Frequently Asked Questions about this final rule, please click here: Service Animal final Rule FAQs

USA Today Article