Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Because most of the time as I've seen it's been an excuse for someone to bring their dog where they wouldn't be allowed, causing many issues, and generally being self-absorbed people who let their animal poo all over causing issues for the service staff. It certainly does not endear the idea of a non-trained emotional animal over that of an actual trained self support pet.

You know that it's a fineable/potentially lawbreaking offense to call an animal a service animal when it's not right?

Biggest issue is that there are places online where you can just buy the harnesses and the like to say that something is a service animal and since it's something that not every employee/manager/whatever has experience with in knowing what to look for they'll fold up whenever someone talks about litigation against their place of employment for refusing to allow service animals in.

Yep I know, but under Federal law you can't even ask about paperwork or such either. It's essentially on the honor system of hoping people aren't breaking the law.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Because most of the time as I've seen it's been an excuse for someone to bring their dog where they wouldn't be allowed, causing many issues, and generally being self-absorbed people who let their animal poo all over causing issues for the service staff. It certainly does not endear the idea of a non-trained emotional animal over that of an actual trained self support pet.

You know that it's a fineable/potentially lawbreaking offense to call an animal a service animal when it's not right?

Biggest issue is that there are places online where you can just buy the harnesses and the like to say that something is a service animal and since it's something that not every employee/manager/whatever has experience with in knowing what to look for they'll fold up whenever someone talks about litigation against their place of employment for refusing to allow service animals in.

Yep I know, but under Federal law you can't even ask about paperwork or such either. It's essentially on the honor system of hoping people aren't breaking the law.

Important read.
That is, as far as I can find, the most recent guidelines. It does allow for you to ask about the service animal and it does provide for circumstances for the removal of a poorly behaving service dog.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm mostly surprised by how triggered people are getting over the very idea of emotional support pets.

Because most of the time as I've seen it's been an excuse for someone to bring their dog where they wouldn't be allowed, causing many issues, and generally being self-absorbed people who let their animal poo all over causing issues for the service staff. It certainly does not endear the idea of a non-trained emotional animal over that of an actual trained self support pet.

You know that it's a fineable/potentially lawbreaking offense to call an animal a service animal when it's not right?

Biggest issue is that there are places online where you can just buy the harnesses and the like to say that something is a service animal and since it's something that not every employee/manager/whatever has experience with in knowing what to look for they'll fold up whenever someone talks about litigation against their place of employment for refusing to allow service animals in.

Yep I know, but under Federal law you can't even ask about paperwork or such either. It's essentially on the honor system of hoping people aren't breaking the law.

Important read.
That is, as far as I can find, the most recent guidelines. It does allow for you to ask about the service animal and it does provide for circumstances for the removal of a poorly behaving service dog.

Q7. What questions can a covered entity's employees ask to determine if a dog is a service animal?
A. In situations where it is not obvious that the dog is a service animal, staff may ask only two specific questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability.

Q28. What can my staff do when a service animal is being disruptive?
A. If a service animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, staff may request that the animal be removed from the premises.

Q37. Do commercial airlines have to comply with the ADA?
A. No. The Air Carrier Access Act is the Federal law that protects the rights of people with disabilities in air travel. For information or to file a complaint, contact the U.S. Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, at 202-366-2220.

Q33. Are gyms, fitness centers, hotels, or municipalities that have swimming pools required to allow a service animal in the pool with its handler?
A. No. The ADA does not override public health rules that prohibit dogs in swimming pools. However, service animals must be allowed on the pool deck and in other areas where the public is allowed to go.

looking at these rules and taking a few as examples, theres abit of sense and reason to the laws, Service dogs have alot of rights, but theres also rules to obey and you cannot just do anything you like. with prvidges comes responsibilities/

The ADA doesn't cover airlines.

The Air Carrier Access Act covers airlines.

I wont assume that a hamster cannot be a service animal for a mentally ill person.
While bad news for the hamster the story is not inconsistent with a genuine mental health issue. Depending on how the mentally ill person was handled they might go off the rails this way.
I do not know if the airport/airline can be successfully sued for the randomness of a mentally ill individual as the consequences were apparently not immediate. The airline employee was allegedly being 'unhelpful' and 'insensitive' but the airline is denying that instruction was given to dispose of the hamster.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1630436/3-woman-flushes-hamster-airport-toilet-refusal-board/

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Sure, but if peacocks ever get accepted as a type of service animal it no longer becomes a choice. I'm not saying a peacock lends itself well to airtravel in any case, but I would assume some type of cage could be used if needed, but that would fall on the person transporting it.

Besides, exchange peacock with baby and plenty of people who have flown would still share that sentiment

You've seen the size of peacocks right? The size of the cage to be able to contain the bird and not cause it problems would block an aisle which would be a massive airline issue for both passengers and plane.

Yeah, just like I have seen the size of large service dogs. Like I said, I'm not saying a peacock lends itself to airtravel. Maybe the owner has to buy more seats to put the cage down etc. I'm saying that IF peacocks would ever become accepted (but likely won't) a solution would have to be found. But while a peacock would be an incredible cumbersome service/emotional animal, I don't think anyone can argue that a hamster would be difficult.

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, the laws are clear! The ADA specifically states that animals which provide only companionship or emotional support are not considered service animals and do not fall under the protection of the law!

Any disabled person with a service animal knows exactly what the law says, what they can and can't do, and how to deal with people who give them trouble over it. Because they probably need that animal to cross the fething street!

This is where you have problems. Veterans often get service dogs for PTSD even when they are physically unimpaired. At first there were problems but it looked bad on the airlines. So cases for emotional support service animals are existent. At that point it becomes an issue of equality.

It's tricky. An emotional support animal needs to be registered somehow, and certified to weed out fake cases, and an understanding made that any travel enablement will only effect internal flights.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Again, the laws are clear! The ADA specifically states that animals which provide only companionship or emotional support are not considered service animals and do not fall under the protection of the law!

Any disabled person with a service animal knows exactly what the law says, what they can and can't do, and how to deal with people who give them trouble over it. Because they probably need that animal to cross the fething street!

This is where you have problems. Veterans often get service dogs for PTSD even when they are physically unimpaired. At first there were problems but it looked bad on the airlines. So cases for emotional support service animals are existent. At that point it becomes an issue of equality.

It's tricky. An emotional support animal needs to be registered somehow, and certified to weed out fake cases, and an understanding made that any travel enablement will only effect internal flights.

give someone say a card that states there right and fact they have a aprroved and certified animal and reason?
simple card you can fit in a wallet etc, or other forms that work for person.

it could even be issued by a suitible doctor who so? pretty easy and in extreme cases if a problem then the numver can be verified,

Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

This is why disability is classified on a yes/no basis with terms to certification.

However if you do this it becomes easier to cheat the system. Someone takes some prescribed pills and then decides they need a certificated rodent....or peacock.

I would be happy with emotional support hamsters on principal, so long as international travel is still understood to be a big no. Environmental and transportation of animals and live seeds laws trump service animal laws IMHO. Even guide dogs for the blind are heavily monitored and regulated.

 Orlanth wrote:
Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

This is why disability is classified on a yes/no basis with terms to certification.

However if you do this it becomes easier to cheat the system. Someone takes some prescribed pills and then decides they need a certificated rodent....or peacock.

I would be happy with emotional support hamsters on principal, so long as international travel is still understood to be a big no. Environmental and transportation of animals and live seeds laws trump service animal laws IMHO. Even guide dogs for the blind are heavily monitored and regulated.

I was thinking more for cases of alirlines, of travel options that more restricted and such to smooth over problems for approved service animals.
Means that both airlines and the users have some solid legal ground on what is, and is not required to have boarding permission, and which are up to the airlines discresion.

Maybe your right, i was just thinking in sense of it means theres somthing solid in law on what is allowed, is not, or whats up to airlines.

 Orlanth wrote:
Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

In the US you already need to have a handicapped placard or plate to use a handicapped parking spot. It doesn't indicate what your disability is. I don't think having a ID card that authorizes a person bringing a support animal into a place where animals aren't usually allowed is a huge deal, but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem. Much like people eating tide pods, it's just the news story of the moment.

Flushed? Oh dear ... and people thought the H in C.H.U.D. stood for humanoid...

 Ouze wrote:
but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem.

Not cool. Mental health is a big issue for those effected by it.
I knew someone with serious anxiety issues. Anxiety, whats the problem, just man up. But that is so easy to say, but so hard for some to do. His case was seen by the UK medical services as genuine for good reason. Anxiety meant he couldn't leave his flat unescorted. He could get out if there was a fire, but that was about it.

Well the situation seems clear; emotional support animals simply need a nation level of formal certification and training to be approved to quality to be except from regular standards that we adhere to animals. Until such standard is enacted and enforced people will continue to abuse the emotional support card to try and get out of having to pay for animals in the hold; or for carers to look after their pets.

As for the woman in question; it sounds like she simply tried to get the hamster on board; failed; didn't really care about the pet that much and flushed it so that she could continue with her holiday and then became convinced that she could sue. Anyone can sue for anything, so long as you've got the money you can start a court case. Of course something like this would be highly unlikely to succeed and many a case like this gets thrown out before it even properly makes it to the courts.

 sebster wrote:
Is there something about getting on a plane that acts as a trigger for people to meltdown? Because it seems like a really high number of plane flights have to deal with some lunatic or another. And I don't think it's just news bias, because I've been on three or four flights that were delayed because some looper argued something stupid with airline staff, and I haven't been on that many flights.

Flying is scary to a lot of people, plus the whole airport process can be intimidating and scary to people, especially if they are not used to it. Lots of people around, a situation totally out of your control; delays or issues that might well mean that connecting flights or other forms of transport (all prepaid) might get interrupted etc.... Couple that to invasion of privacy (pat downs) and people snooping through your luggage etc... It can all add up to put people not used to it on edge.
Once stressed people start to act differently to when they are relaxed or at least content and confident in their situation and surroundings.


In addition the nature of flights likely means that people who have significant mental issues are likely to be more apparent. The various interactions, prolonged procedure and suchlike likely starts to erode away mechanisms that they use to get by normally in day-to-day life.


And finally people do get scared of flying. Sure its a normal thing people do every day, but its still pretty scary to people to be thinking that very soon they'll be right up in the air going at very fast speeds with no chance of escape; and no control over their situation. That's why some people request seats away from the windows or take calming pills before a flight.


All that added together and you can start to appreciate that yes, flying and the whole airport atmosphere can put people on edge and tip those near the edge over into being stressed out and more hostile or antagonistic.

Birds shouldn't be support animals. They don't have anuses, they have cloacas. They can't control where they poo. They just poop. You can't train a bird to not poop.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem.

Not cool. Mental health is a big issue for those effected by it.
I knew someone with serious anxiety issues. Anxiety, whats the problem, just man up. But that is so easy to say, but so hard for some to do. His case was seen by the UK medical services as genuine for good reason. Anxiety meant he couldn't leave his flat unescorted. He could get out if there was a fire, but that was about it.

We have serious estigmas agaisnt mental health. And mental health will become the most common mental dissease for humans in the future. Nobody gives you crap if you have a medical problem and go to the doctor for it, but many people will see you with prejudice if you have mental problems.

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

In the US you already need to have a handicapped placard or plate to use a handicapped parking spot. It doesn't indicate what your disability is. I don't think having a ID card that authorizes a person bringing a support animal into a place where animals aren't usually allowed is a huge deal, but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem. Much like people eating tide pods, it's just the news story of the moment.

it would clear up some of the headaches of is it a service, is it a pet, is it a emotinal animal etc.
yes not always needed but if someone was say unsure, them the ID can be checked, confusion cleared and no need coe court cases. likewise if you try it on and someone asks for the card, no card, the airline is protected from lawsuot when they refuse someone for good reasons etc

I see service and support dogs in the airport all of the time. Never saw an unrulely one, and I have no problem with them. If people can also bring “purse dogs” onto a plane that clearly aren't support dogs, why not a hamster in a cage?

If it was a “free range” hamster, then feth that girl. Put it in a cage.

 War Drone wrote:
Flushed? Oh dear ... and people thought the H in C.H.U.D. stood for humanoid...

Someone remembered CHUD!

Good on you!

 Galas wrote:

We have serious estigmas agaisnt mental health. And mental health will become the most common mental dissease for humans in the future. Nobody gives you crap if you have a medical problem and go to the doctor for it, but many people will see you with prejudice if you have mental problems.

I remember watching a documentary done by Steven Fry on himself and his battle with depression. He said the problem is that people do not talk, nor are they encouraged to talk about mental health issues. As soon as its mentioned people want to shut down the communication - "oh you've got depression, right, er, so how's the weather."

Because its a hidden part of life people (esp adults) don't know how to react to it nor what they "should do". They've no real experience tackling it so it becomes a stigma very easily.

And then there's the fact that it is hidden; you can't see on a person many kinds of mental illness; but you can see if their foot is in a cast or their arm missing (even then most people often avoid that topic of conversation*)


*reminds me of a war veteran who had lost a limb in war who said that kids were better than adults with regard to it. Adults would try to avoid the whole topic of the missing leg; trying hard not to look at it or talk about it, as if its something to be embarrassed and hidden away. Most kids would, instead, be openly curious and often far more accepting and tolerant of the difference.

There already is a national code of conduct regulating the use and transport of service animals, pets, and emotional support animals.

If you need an emotional support animal, you have to get a note from your doctor.

The airline is not legally bound to carry it and can deny boarding if your animal is thought to pose a potential danger to the safe operation of the flight.

Then we get bogged down into the nitty-gritty particulars of individual cases.

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Not as simple as that. mental health issues as stigmatising, you are asking someone to carry a 'plaque' bearing their 'stigma'.

In the US you already need to have a handicapped placard or plate to use a handicapped parking spot. It doesn't indicate what your disability is. I don't think having a ID card that authorizes a person bringing a support animal into a place where animals aren't usually allowed is a huge deal, but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem. Much like people eating tide pods, it's just the news story of the moment.

It's been an issue long before the tide pods garbage.

One of the, in my opinion, biggest issues is that you are not required to have any paperwork or proof that the animal has successfully completed a service animal training course. It does restrict the types of animals significantly in this regard(some animals are easier to train than others)...but it also opens up abuse as people are allowed to say they 'trained the animal' personally.

One of the better things to come of the trend is that a lot of veteran and disability support groups are turning to animal shelters as a source of dogs to try to rehabilitate them as service dogs on the cheap for those who genuinely need them.

This was on the news this morning, but the way they were reporting it, it sounded like someone from the airline took the hamster and flushed it for her. I didn't really try to read more into it till now. Sad the poor hamster had to die.. I hate when people hurt pets.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
but I also wouldn't be in favor of it because I don't think it's a serious problem.

Not cool. Mental health is a big issue for those effected by it.
I knew someone with serious anxiety issues. Anxiety, whats the problem, just man up. But that is so easy to say, but so hard for some to do. His case was seen by the UK medical services as genuine for good reason. Anxiety meant he couldn't leave his flat unescorted. He could get out if there was a fire, but that was about it.

This is in no way what I meant and I have no idea how you managed to think that from the whole context of my post.

What I mean was, abusive use of service animals isn't a serious problem, it's just a hot news story (such as with that peacock the other day).

Still flabbergasted you thought I was essentially handwaving away mental illness.

It doesn't really sound like a mental health issue.

It sounds a lot like an entitled brat trying to make a quick buck by suing an airline company on dubious grounds because of recent news reports where someone sued an airline because they actually abused him.

Someone with mental health doesn't sue an airline because they "forced" her to flush a beloved pet down a toilet, that is the actions of someone who is an idiot, not a victim.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It doesn't really sound like a mental health issue.

It sounds a lot like an entitled brat trying to make a quick buck by suing an airline company on dubious grounds because of recent news reports where someone sued an airline because they actually abused him.

Someone with mental health doesn't sue an airline because they "forced" her to flush a beloved pet down a toilet, that is the actions of someone who is an idiot, not a victim.

Or or, and stay with me... her story might actually be true. An airline employee told her exactly that and she has mental health problems. Then the story is told to her family who convince her to sue. But then again, I don't have all the info to make the informed decision that she is just an "entitled brat trying to make a quick buck"

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Or or, and stay with me... her story might actually be true. An airline employee told her exactly that and she has mental health problems. Then the story is told to her family who convince her to sue. But then again, I don't have all the info to make the informed decision that she is just an "entitled brat trying to make a quick buck"

I suppose anything's possible, especially to white knights on the internet. I do wonder what is most likely though. An airline employee lies to someone about policy for an unknown reason and despite considerable risk to themselves/their job and that person just so happens to believe said employee because they have mental health issues. Then of course her family hear of the mistreatment and convince her to sue, instead of seek treatment or help. The family that was, until now, nowhere to be seen with this poor, mentally ill woman, who is left to travel alone and without any support at all (apart from a Hamster).

Either she has mental health issues, in which case her family are abusing her to make a quick buck and are scumbags, or she is a liar and is doing this herself to make a quick buck and is a scum bag. I don't see how anyone can blame an airline for someone choosing to flush their supposed pet down the toilet. What garbage.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Or or, and stay with me... her story might actually be true. An airline employee told her exactly that and she has mental health problems. Then the story is told to her family who convince her to sue. But then again, I don't have all the info to make the informed decision that she is just an "entitled brat trying to make a quick buck"

I suppose anything's possible, especially to white knights on the internet. I do wonder what is most likely though. An airline employee lies to someone about policy for an unknown reason and despite considerable risk to themselves/their job and that person just so happens to believe said employee because they have mental health issues. Then of course her family hear of the mistreatment and convince her to sue, instead of seek treatment or help. The family that was, until now, nowhere to be seen with this poor, mentally ill woman, who is left to travel alone and without any support at all (apart from a Hamster).

Either she has mental health issues, in which case her family are abusing her to make a quick buck and are scumbags, or she is a liar and is doing this herself to make a quick buck and is a scum bag. I don't see how anyone can blame an airline for someone choosing to flush their supposed pet down the toilet. What garbage.

If I'm a 'white knight' for presenting an opposing view in a situation we barely have info on, does that make you a 'black knight' for immediately going for the worst scenario, with some insults for the woman on top? I guess its easier to bash strangers on the internet for the lolz than to consider mental health problems. Also have you ever called an airline costumer service? I have had a couple of times when the people at the bag check make directly opposite statements to that of the costumer service rep (who obviously couldn't care less going by tone). That is the big question isn't it, what did they tell her over the phone? Then people making off handed comments or jokes about flushing it might have entirely different impressions to people. I guess not making it a stark black and white issue makes me a 'white knight'.

Also note that your assumption is strange to say the least. If she actually has mental health problems and it is the airlines fault, the family are still "scumbags" for trying to hold the airline responsible? Plus the assumption that she has to be herded around by her family because she has mental problems is just being ridiculous.

If she actually has mental health problems it might not be so simple as "choosing" what to do, its a severe misunderstanding/gross oversimplification of the complications of mental health issues, with zero insight about what was actually said to her.

 Luciferian wrote:
The ADA is crystal clear. If you have a disability, ANY disability that has been medically diagnosed, and an animal can be trained (pretty much dogs) to perform a medically necessary task for you in regards to that disability, you can take that animal where ever you go. Period.

Yeah, and thats fine. The wrinkle is that there is no burden of proof on someone to prove that their service animal is actually a service animal.

Businesses are explicitly NOT allowed to demand any sort of proof that a service animal is what a person claims it is. You are allowed to ask two questions. 1) Is the animal a service animal? 2) What is the task it performs? A person can then just lie and make up any answer on the spot and you must then let them it.

There is no ID card system that can be demanded as proof.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If I'm a 'white knight' for presenting an opposing view in a situation we barely have info on, does that make you a 'black knight' for immediately going for the worst scenario, with some insults for the woman on top? I guess its easier to bash strangers on the internet for the lolz than to consider mental health problems. Also have you ever called an airline costumer service? I have had a couple of times when the people at the bag check make directly opposite statements to that of the costumer service rep (who obviously couldn't care less going by tone). That is the big question isn't it, what did they tell her over the phone? Then people making off handed comments or jokes about flushing it might have entirely different impressions to people. I guess not making it a stark black and white issue makes me a 'white knight'.

Also note that your assumption is strange to say the least. If she actually has mental health problems and it is the airlines fault, the family are still "scumbags" for trying to hold the airline responsible? Plus the assumption that she has to be herded around by her family because she has mental problems is just being ridiculous.

If she actually has mental health problems it might not be so simple as "choosing" what to do, its a severe misunderstanding/gross oversimplification of the complications of mental health issues, with zero insight about what was actually said to her.

You're a white knight for trying to take the moral high ground where there is none to take.

Not sure who I'm bashing on the internet? You offended? Additionally there are no mental health problems here to consider, as you said earlier, neither you (or the article) has access to enough information to make a determination of this.

I don't know why you feel the need to argue with me. I said what I thought. I didn't say it was fact, merely my opinion. I actually said it "sounds like" and "seems like" it isn't a mental health issue. I don't need to patronised by a white knight thanks. I have my opinion and you're not going to change it unless you present more facts, which you seem incapable of doing.

And yes, when a family tries to sue an airline, they aren't trying to hold it accountable, they are trying to make money. They are scum bags.
If her condition is such that she is at risk of flushing her pets because she was told to (or not), then suffering a ton of distress from the act, then yes I think she might need some support when boarding a plane. I think if she actually had a condition she would have this support.

An airline isn't going to provide exceptions to the rules for one person, regardless of their sad story. The rules are the rules and they exist for a reason. What would happen if the lady had been allowed on the flight with her hamster and someone allergic had died because the microscopic particles had traveled throughout with the air conditioning?

There is no case here. The woman is either an idiot, an entitled scum bag or genuinely has mental health issues, neither of which is the fault or responsibility of the airline. If the "best case" is that she genuinely has a mental health problem, the responsibility should lie with her carers or family to provide the appropriate level of support when she is boarding a plane.

As I said - it all seems a little convenient to me. This is my opinion and you can share it or not, but don't try to force yours on me because it is different to your own.

I also don't think there's enough information to know what actually happened in terms of how the hamster came to be flushed, but I'd like to point out if nothing else, Spirit sure screwed up when they told her she could bring the hamster on the flight and then decided once she was at the gate with the hamster that she couldn't have it after all. I can't help but think perhaps they could have just given her a box to put it in.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

And yes, when a family tries to sue an airline, they aren't trying to hold it accountable, they are trying to make money. They are scum bags.

An airline isn't going to provide exceptions to the rules for one person, regardless of their sad story.

On this first bit. . .let's hypothetically say that a person is flying on an Airline's plane, when this aircraft successfully makes an "emergency water landing" in the atlantic. Now, the people on the flight are being forced to use their seat cushions as a flotation device. In this hypothetical, let's say that this passenger was unable to float due to some fault in the seat cushion. In this case, I would tentatively agree to the idea that this person's family is holding the airline accountable because they've said for years that you can use their seat cushions to float if they survive a crash in the water.

This case isn't like my hypothetical though.


On this second point, I agree. . . However, as I mentioned above, based on a number of FB comments that I've seen from people claiming airline employment, there is an exception to policy, but ONLY when the person asking for the exception has proof of their need (ie, a doctor's note)