Emotional support animals

[akcruz]

1 hour ago, Donald said:

Knowing what the law actually covers is challenging enough - but the challenges go far further than that.

 

A cruise line denies boarding to an American couple who have saved all their lives to go on a cruise - and decide to take their "comfort / support / service / pet mini-pig" with them. The cruise line says "No".

The next day this completely devastated couple is on CNN and Foxnews, sobbing about losing their cruise of a lifetime because the evil cruise line was cruel to them and their pet pig.

Cruise Line PR people are very adverse to negative images like this one.

So are Cruise Line Presidents.

Cruise Line employees who would like to keep their jobs will go to great lengths to avoid getting caught between Cruise Line Executives and the cruising public.

 

If they signed a cruise contract stating no ESAs allowed they have no case.  All the rest of the passengers would if they did allow them onboard.  

 

[NLH Arizona]

1 hour ago, Donald said:

Knowing what the law actually covers is challenging enough - but the challenges go far further than that.

 

A cruise line denies boarding to an American couple who have saved all their lives to go on a cruise - and decide to take their "comfort / support / service / pet mini-pig" with them. The cruise line says "No".

The next day this completely devastated couple is on CNN and Foxnews, sobbing about losing their cruise of a lifetime because the evil cruise line was cruel to them and their pet pig.

Cruise Line PR people are very adverse to negative images like this one.

So are Cruise Line Presidents.

Cruise Line employees who would like to keep their jobs will go to great lengths to avoid getting caught between Cruise Line Executives and the cruising public.

I honestly don't think that your scenario would be an issue or bad PR, because most people are tired of folks and their emotional support animals, because of all the fakers.

[Donald]

2 minutes ago, akcruz said:

 

If they signed a cruise contract stating no ESAs allowed they have no case.  All the rest of the passengers would if they did allow them onboard.  

 

You should be aware that nobody actually signs a cruise contract.

Cruise contracts claim that use of the passage ticket legally binds a passenger to the contract - read or not.

In fact nobody reads them either.

 

If passengers actually followed the terms of their cruise contract, we would not have people smoking where they should not, nor would passengers smuggle alcohol onboard, babies would not be wearing diapers in the swimming pool, passengers would not show up at the dining room in bathing suits, passengers would not steal towels, robes, sheets, pillows, televisions - and anything else they can get their hands on.

[Donald]

1 minute ago, NLH Arizona said:

I honestly don't think that your scenario would be an issue or bad PR, because most people are tired of folks and their emotional support animals, because of all the fakers.

Unless you are a Cruise Line President or VP of Public Relations, your opinion in this matter is meaningless. If I get tangled up in an dispute between some selfish idiot who wants to bring his pet whatever onboard - and the President of my Cruise Line- I am in danger of termination. Explaining that "NHL Arizona thinks it is OK" is not going to save me.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Donald said:

Knowing what the law actually covers is challenging enough - but the challenges go far further than that.

 

A cruise line denies boarding to an American couple who have saved all their lives to go on a cruise - and decide to take their "comfort / support / service / pet mini-pig" with them. The cruise line says "No".

The next day this completely devastated couple is on CNN and Foxnews, sobbing about losing their cruise of a lifetime because the evil cruise line was cruel to them and their pet pig.

Cruise Line PR people are very adverse to negative images like this one.

So are Cruise Line Presidents.

Cruise Line employees who would like to keep their jobs will go to great lengths to avoid getting caught between Cruise Line Executives and the cruising public.

 

4 minutes ago, Donald said:

You should be aware that nobody actually signs a cruise contract.

Cruise contracts claim that use of the passage ticket legally binds a passenger to the contract - read or not.

In fact nobody reads them either.

 

If passengers actually followed the terms of their cruise contract, we would not have people smoking where they should not, nor would passengers smuggle alcohol onboard, babies would not be wearing diapers in the swimming pool, passengers would not show up at the dining room in bathing suits, passengers would not steal towels, robes, sheets, pillows, televisions - and anything else they can get their hands on.

And both of these show the corporate cowardice to enforce the terms and conditions of the legalese that they word into the ticket contract.  The only bad PR that would entail from enforcing these conditions would be if they were not reliably and consistently enforced.  Issue a press release, better still by CLIA, that in future the cruise lines will abide by the letter of the ADA, and bad PR goes away.

[Cruzaholic41]

27 minutes ago, Donald said:

You should be aware that nobody actually signs a cruise contract.

Not true. I can’t think of a single line where I didn’t have to acknowledge the contract during the online check in. Acknowledging it is the the same as pen-and-ink signature. 

[NLH Arizona]

54 minutes ago, Donald said:

Unless you are a Cruise Line President or VP of Public Relations, your opinion in this matter is meaningless. If I get tangled up in an dispute between some selfish idiot who wants to bring his pet whatever onboard - and the President of my Cruise Line- I am in danger of termination. Explaining that "NHL Arizona thinks it is OK" is not going to save me.

I'm guessing you have never been in upper management at a company.  I seriously doubt that a cruise line is going to bend over, cry or compensate the couple based on your erroneous opinion.  They will simply ignore the couple and their dog, because the majority of their customers will be on the side of NCL on this one.

 

Now, since we had our tit for tat, lets just agree to disagree.

[Donald]

21 minutes ago, NLH Arizona said:

I'm guessing you have never been in upper management at a company.  I seriously doubt that a cruise line is going to bend over, cry or compensate the couple based on your erroneous opinion.  They will simply ignore the couple and their dog, because the majority of their customers will be on the side of NCL on this one.

 

Now, since we had our tit for tat, lets just agree to disagree.

Your guess is wrong. I am in currently in upper management in a cruise line company.

But I do not have to guess that you have never worked for a cruise line - in any capacity.

[akcruz]

1 hour ago, Donald said:

You should be aware that nobody actually signs a cruise contract.

Cruise contracts claim that use of the passage ticket legally binds a passenger to the contract - read or not.

In fact nobody reads them either.

 

If passengers actually followed the terms of their cruise contract, we would not have people smoking where they should not, nor would passengers smuggle alcohol onboard, babies would not be wearing diapers in the swimming pool, passengers would not show up at the dining room in bathing suits, passengers would not steal towels, robes, sheets, pillows, televisions - and anything else they can get their hands on.

 

My bad, I should have used the word acknowledge instead of sign but still the same outcome. 

 

While I agree that you do have people ignoring the rules on a daily basis all the line needs to do is point to the contract that was agreed to, in whatever way you want to say it was, if someone claims they are being treated unfairly by the company if they are not following those rules.  In your case they agreed to not bringing the ESA but did anyway so were denied boarding.  The line need only to point that out if the offended party goes to the press.  It will soon go away. No need to agree with me, seems like everyone else here does.

 

 

[NLH Arizona]

1 hour ago, akcruz said:

 

My bad, I should have used the word acknowledge instead of sign but still the same outcome. 

 

While I agree that you do have people ignoring the rules on a daily basis all the line needs to do is point to the contract that was agreed to, in whatever way you want to say it was, if someone claims they are being treated unfairly by the company if they are not following those rules.  In your case they agreed to not bringing the ESA but did anyway so were denied boarding.  The line need only to point that out if the offended party goes to the press.  It will soon go away. No need to agree with me, seems like everyone else here does.

I think the major problem is that the cruise lines don't enforce a lot of their own rules, thus passengers get the idea that the rules are just their for people to read, but they don't necessarily have to follow them, because they know the cruise line won't do a darn thing.  Best example is the chair hogging issue, if the cruise line would enforce their own rules about it, it would probably either stop or chair hogs would be at a minimum.  

[Cruzaholic41]

2 hours ago, Donald said:

Your guess is wrong. I am in currently in upper management in a cruise line company.

Considering the accuracy of many of your posts, I would seriously have to question that claim. 

[navybankerteacher]

5 hours ago, Donald said:

Your guess is wrong. I am in currently in upper management in a cruise line company.

But I do not have to guess that you have never worked for a cruise line - in any capacity.

Please let us know which line.   A number of posters are interested in owning cruise company stock, and the nature of some of your posts gives reasonable cause to question your knowledge of the business.

[ldubs]

22 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Please let us know which line.   A number of posters are interested in owning cruise company stock, and the nature of some of your posts gives reasonable cause to question your knowledge of the business.

 

What?  You don't agree that the "customer is always wrong".  haha  

[navybankerteacher]

13 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

What?  You don't agree that the "customer is always wrong".  haha  

No —- nor with his contention that ships’ captains may not even ask about  such emotional support animals such as horses and peacocks brought on board by passengers.

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

No —- nor with his contention that ships’ captains may not even ask about  such emotional support animals such as horses and peacocks brought on board by passengers.

 

Actually I can see a corporate decision to ignore the emotional support dog issue.  Support horses or peacocks on a cruise ship is of course ridiculous.  

[FredT]

10 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Actually I can see a corporate decision to ignore the emotional support dog issue.  Support horses or peacocks on a cruise ship is of course ridiculous.  

It certainly is... UNTIL it happens.    I know I thought that no one in their right mind would bring an "emotional support animal" onto a cruise ship until I was sitting at a table in the MDR on a Celebrety ship and looking straight on at a lady holding her Chihuahua (In a pink dress) and feeding it with her fork.....    A day later, my wife had the "dubious" honor of stepping in the dogs droppings just off the elevator.    I ALMOST got thrown off the ship due to the scene I made at guest relations!  (And anyone who knows me knows I am one of the more passive individuals there is!)

[dkjretired]

On 3/9/2020 at 8:29 AM, chengkp75 said:

And this is the problem, not with the law, but with companies not knowing what their rights are, or what the legal limitations are.  As others have noted, and you seem to misunderstand, only dogs and miniature horses can be "service animals", anything else is an "emotional support animal", and therefore can be denied on a cruise ship.  The stories about peacocks and pigs, comes from the fact that there are two laws regarding accessibility for service or support animals, the ADA (which covers cruise ships, among everywhere else) and the ACAA (air carrier accessibility act) which covers airlines, and does allow emotional support animals, which up until recently could be any animal, but is now restricted.

 

While you are correct that the cruise line, and any of its employees can only ask two questions regarding an animal:  "is this animal required due to a disability" and "what task does the animal perform in relation to this disability", the SCOTUS, in its ruling in Spector v. NCL, that "certain aspects of the ADA do not apply to foreign flag cruise ships if those aspects interfere with the ship's "internal policies and procedures"".  Further, the DOJ has a set of "good behavior" guidelines that service animals must adhere to (no barking, except as an alert signal, no sniffing others, fully housebroken, no eating from the table, etc), and business owners are entirely legally entitled to ask the animal and owner to leave the premises if those behaviors are not followed.  Further, if the animal interferes with the basic business of the business, then service animals may be excluded, and even some areas of the ship could be "off limits" (DOJ's example is one dormitory at a college that would be animal free for those with allergies) provided that it does not limit an activity to the owner of the animal (i.e. there are other dorms available).

 

"Comfort animals" have no protection under US law.  "Emotional Support Animals" are protected under the above mentioned ACAA, and the Fair Housing Act, and that's it.  ESA's are not supposed to be allowed in other businesses, unless those businesses allow it.

Correct and we are not taking into account the laws of the countries you will be visiting.