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.

"Because it's policy" and "the rules are the rules" are incredibly insipid defenses of a tedious dura lex, sed lex argument, by the way. Every single airline makes exceptions to policy literally every day, from refunding non-refundable tickets in the case of medical emergency to letting people in economy sit up in first class when the plane is under-booked.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 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'm not taking any moral high round, I'm just pointing out how silly it is to make sweeping and insulting statements based on a case neither of us knows much about. If you think simply disagreeing with you constitutes taking the moral high round then this is going to be a short discussion.

I wasn't referring to me when I said bashing, I was referring to the woman who may or may not have mental health problems who you referred to as an "entitled brat", an idiot and a "scumbag". Flushing a hamster clearly isn't the action of a sound mind, so I think some mental problems seem likely.

I'm not arguing, I'm having a discussion on a discussion board, I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to offer a counterpoint. Also, using white knight as an insult isn't going to help this discussion in any way so why use it? I'm just saying you could tone it down on the insults against a woman you have no information about. I'm sorry if that makes me a 'white knight'

Wait, how would you hold an airline accountable then? What recourse do you have to take them to account besides suing them? There it goes again, you insulting the family for no reason, this is exactly why I questioned your first comment.
First of all, flushing a pet doesn't have to be an existing risk, it could be the deterioration of her condition based on the circumstances which as others have pointed out also included medical problems. Just assuming someone with mental health problems needs contant supervision is pretty weird.
What would have happened if the woman got an anxiety attack or had a heart condition and died as a result of not having a hamster on the flight? What if not taking the hamster would have caused the plane to crash? Any other ridiculous circumstances you would like to submit?

Well, I guess the court will decide if there is a case here. If she does have mental health problems and the airline personnel did first say she could take the hamster and then made an offhanded comment about flushing it, it seems pretty clear that some of the fault might lie with the airline. Which would be something for the court to decided.

Again, I'm not forcing my opinion on you, I'm asking you to consider the fact that she might actually have mental problems, the possible consequences of that, and not throw around insults with that possibly being the case. But I will leave it, as this obviously serves no point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
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.

They sure did when they told her that, sadly there likely won't be any evidence of that conversation beyond he said she said.

Something I found interesting....

She wanted to fly from PA to FL with her hamster.
Couldn't do it....but bucked up and put on her brave face and flew later.

I am wondering.....can we assume that she has quite possibly flown from FL to TX to change schools? Again...without apparent support from an animal..? I realize the article isnt clear on this.

Something just really feels off to me about her whole situation/story.

 Ouze wrote:
"Because it's policy" and "the rules are the rules" are incredibly insipid defenses of a tedious dura lex, sed lex argument, by the way. Every single airline makes exceptions to policy literally every day, from refunding non-refundable tickets in the case of medical emergency to letting people in economy sit up in first class when the plane is under-booked.

Except that those policies exist for a reason. A major part of which is safely serving the needs of disabled people with service animals! Some of you guys are arguing from the perspective that any denial of anyone who says they need their animal with them for any reason is wrong because it's insensitive and mean and there could be absolutely no consequences. What if someone's untrained "emotional support" animal distracts or attacks a service animal that another patron depends on to live? That's not just a hypothetical situation I'm thinking up because I want to be a meanie, it's likely to happen, and it's possible that injury or death could really result!

Legally, there is no such thing as an "emotional support animal". It doesn't exist, at least not federally. Sometimes doctors or therapists will use comfort animals in a clinical setting, but no one's untrained house pet is prescribed to them by a medical professional. Anyone who says they must legally be allowed to bring an untrained animal with them because it's a support animal is stating a bald-faced lie. Not only that, they are capitalizing on the general lack of knowledge the public has about service animals, and using the willingness of the public to help the disabled in a manipulative way, in order to get something they want, not need. There are simply no two ways about that.

I wasn't going to play this card, but I am a disabled veteran. I know veterans who have service dogs, and others who train service dogs. I have been present for a fair amount of the training of one PTSD dog in particular. I have seen first hand how random people bringing random animals with them and deceptively claiming or implying protection under the law can negatively impact the disabled. This is not a hypothetical to me, and if I'm mean or callous or insensitive for calling out people who try to game the system at the detriment of those around them, including the people the system is meant to protect, then so be it.

I have also been in a position where I was required to ask those two questions from the ADA before allowing any animals to enter, for legitimate health and safety reasons. For every legitimately disabled person with a service animal there were multiple malingerers who claimed their animal was protected under the law, but clearly didn't know the law. You ask someone with a service animal those two questions and they know exactly what you are talking about and how to answer. You ask a malingerer, and they immediately make a scene and demand that you let them in with their "support animal" when the law has no such protection for support animals. They are lying to access the benefits and protections afforded to disabled people.

Now, maybe this is just something not a lot of people really know the nitty gritty of, but some of the responses here absolutely blow me away. If you think that ANY restriction placed on ANY animal, even when someone claims some kind of emotional distress, is wholly mean or unfair and has no higher purpose, then I just don't know what to say.

TIL that when a person with a mental illness does something that a mentally ill person might do when presented with a situation they are unprepared for, it's obviously due to some lack of moral fiber.

Dakka is always an informative place.

 Luciferian wrote:
Some of you guys are arguing from the perspective that any denial of anyone who says they need their animal with them for any reason is wrong because it's insensitive and mean and there could be absolutely no consequences. What if someone's untrained "emotional support" animal distracts or attacks a service animal that another patron depends on to live? That's not just a hypothetical situation I'm thinking up because I want to be a meanie, it's likely to happen, and it's possible that injury or death could really result!

Are some of us? Are some of us actually making that argument? Are you sure it wasn't... no one who made that argument?

 Luciferian wrote:
Now, maybe this is just something not a lot of people really know the nitty gritty of, but some of the responses here absolutely blow me away. If you think that ANY restriction placed on ANY animal, even when someone claims some kind of emotional distress, is wholly mean or unfair and has no higher purpose, then I just don't know what to say.

It's easy to stump yourself with crazy situations when you invent them in your head. Literally no one in this thread is making the arguments you are claiming they are making; and what started out as pretty weak sauce with the OP has been significantly diluted with these no-effort strawman arguments.

text removed.

Reds8n

Just because you might've had a lot of experience with one mental illness does not mean that all of them result in the same behaviors.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Something I found interesting....

She wanted to fly from PA to FL with her hamster.
Couldn't do it....but bucked up and put on her brave face and flew later.

I am wondering.....can we assume that she has quite possibly flown from FL to TX to change schools? Again...without apparent support from an animal..? I realize the article isnt clear on this.

Something just really feels off to me about her whole situation/story.

To be fair, without knowing the development history of a possible mental illness its just guesswork as to when the hamster needed to come into the picture for her. It might not have been so severe when she went to Texas.

ITT, someone who purportedly is mentally ill does something irrational and this is proof that this person is not mentally ill.

 daedalus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Just because you might've had a lot of experience with one mental illness does not mean that all of them result in the same behaviors.

Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

 daedalus wrote:
TIL that when a person with a mental illness does something that a mentally ill person might do when presented with a situation they are unprepared for, it's obviously due to some lack of moral fiber.

Dakka is always an informative place.

About this whole mental illness thing, is that your professional opinion? Because nowhere have I read that this person is suffering from mental illness, or that she's been diagnosed with a mental illness. Or is it just something you and everyone else who is using it as their central supposition are trying to impugn me with, personally?

Like I said, some of these responses are just mind blowing. I've laid out why I take exception to this kind of general behavior in moral and practical terms, but all of you just shoot straight past that into implying that me or people who agree with me are just insensitive hard-asses. Because there couldn't possibly be any legitimate reason to take issue, right? Unbelievable.

 daedalus wrote:
Just because you might've had a lot of experience with one mental illness does not mean that all of them result in the same behaviors.

MY experience is completely irrelevant.

I have had experience of different illnesses. I used to teach children with different illnesses but it doesn't matter. My point is that regardless of your illness, you do not decide that one moment a hamster is precious to you and the next minute it means nothing (so little as to be killed and flushed). This does not happen.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

You are seriously stretching if you're trying to tell me that this person had no idea that by flushing the hamster down a toilet it would not die. Seriously stretching.

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Must have not been a very effective "emotional support" animal if the individual in question is willing to drown it so they don't miss their flight. That sounds more like somebody who is self-centered and shallow, not to mention cruel as hell to the hamster (I used to have hamsters, and have a soft spot for the fuzzy little turds). She's a piece of in my book. You don't have to be inflicted with mental illness to be shallow, self-centered as hell, and cruel to animals. There are plenty of supposedly sane individuals who do far worse every day.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
My point is that regardless of your illness, you do not decide that one moment a hamster is precious to you and the next minute it means nothing (so little as to be killed and flushed). This does not happen.

Yeah, that would just be crazy. So she obviously isn't.

 Luciferian wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
TIL that when a person with a mental illness does something that a mentally ill person might do when presented with a situation they are unprepared for, it's obviously due to some lack of moral fiber.

Dakka is always an informative place.

About this whole mental illness thing, is that your professional opinion? Because nowhere have I read that this person is suffering from mental illness, or that she's been diagnosed with a mental illness. Or is it just something you and everyone else who is using it as their central supposition are trying to impugn me with, personally?

Like I said, some of these responses are just mind blowing. I've laid out why I take exception to this kind of general behavior in moral and practical terms, but all of you just shoot straight past that into implying that me or people who agree with me are just insensitive hard-asses. Because there couldn't possibly be any legitimate reason to take issue, right? Unbelievable.

Its more that those taking the mental illness route in my opinion are taking the innocent untill guilty route, while others have already decided she is guilty and a terrible person.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

You are seriously stretching if you're trying to tell me that this person had no idea that by flushing the hamster down a toilet it would not die. Seriously stretching.

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Yeah, its not like anyone ever with a mental illness ever hurt a person they love out of a misguided sense to protect them or somesuch as a result of said illness, nooo....

And as everyone gets diagnosed from birth and conditions never worsen nobody ever falls through the cracks! /sarcasm

 Ouze wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
My point is that regardless of your illness, you do not decide that one moment a hamster is precious to you and the next minute it means nothing (so little as to be killed and flushed). This does not happen.

Yeah, that would just be crazy. So she obviously isn't.

Guess what happens to people who are this 'crazy'?

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

You are seriously stretching if you're trying to tell me that this person had no idea that by flushing the hamster down a toilet it would not die. Seriously stretching.

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Yeah, its not like anyone ever with a mental illness ever hurt a person they love out of a misguided sense to protect them or somesuch as a result of said illness, nooo.... /sarcasm

Of course those people are able to go on flights and rock about unsupervised all the time as long as they have their emotional support hamster..../sarcasm (look I can do that too)

Yea they have, but those people have constant supervision. They do not go on flights alone.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And as everyone gets diagnosed from birth and conditions never worsen nobody ever falls through the cracks! /sarcasm

Yea of course she must have fallen through the cracks! It all makes sense! I'm sure it's nothing to do with the looming animal cruelty case because of her flushing her beloved hamster down a toilet and possibility of profiting from claiming it was the "airlines fault". Man thanks for opening my eyes! So wise.../sarcasm

 Ouze wrote:

Are some of us? Are some of us actually making that argument? Are you sure it wasn't... no one who made that argument?

Yes, you clearly are!. You want a straw man? How about ascribing a heretofore unmentioned mental illness to this person or anyone else who would engage in similar behavior, and repeatedly saying nonsense like "TIL people with mental illness something something." Literally implying that there is no legitimate complaint here except to bash on people with mental illness!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not to mention the fact that some forms of mental illness end up in the person physically hurting the people they love, and not out of malice. But this is a perfect example of the stigma mental illness faces, the expectation that those suffering from it (rationally) choose their own actions.

You are seriously stretching if you're trying to tell me that this person had no idea that by flushing the hamster down a toilet it would not die. Seriously stretching.

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

Yeah, its not like anyone ever with a mental illness ever hurt a person they love out of a misguided sense to protect them or somesuch as a result of said illness, nooo.... /sarcasm

Of course those people are able to go on flights and rock about unsupervised all the time as long as they have their emotional support hamster..../sarcasm (look I can do that too)

Yea they have, but those people have constant supervision. They do not go on flights alone.

Your insight and diagnosis of a woman over the internet is truly amazing, you clearly know all there is to know about mental illness and its consequences.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its more that those taking the mental illness route in my opinion are taking the innocent untill guilty route, while others have already decided she is guilty and a terrible person.

Yeah, that's where I am.

I dunno if she really is incapable of travelling without an emotional support animal. I never met her. I would have to suppose it's possible, and that someone who is unstable - to the point that they need an animal so they can travel without a breakdown - might in fact have a breakdown when told they must be seperated from said animal so they can get the medical treatment they themselves need - and do something a mentally disturbed person would do.

Or maybe she's a terrible person who doesn't actually need an emotional support animal, didn't care about the hamster, and flushed it so she couldn't be inconvenienced further. Maybe it was a pretext towards a frivolous lawsuit against the airline. That seems unlikely to me since lawsuits are expensive and the actual tort is nearly nonexistent, but who knows.

We're probably never going to know. My only real conclusion is that for some reason Spirit is somehow escaping their due opprobrium for manufacturing this situation by telling her she could bring the hamster and then changing their minds at the gate. They could have better accomodated the customer to rectify the situation they readily admit to manufacturing.

 Luciferian wrote:

About this whole mental illness thing, is that your professional opinion? Because nowhere have I read that this person is suffering from mental illness, or that she's been diagnosed with a mental illness. Or is it just something you and everyone else who is using it as their central supposition are trying to impugn me with, personally?

Like I said, some of these responses are just mind blowing. I've laid out why I take exception to this kind of general behavior in moral and practical terms, but all of you just shoot straight past that into implying that me or people who agree with me are just insensitive hard-asses. Because there couldn't possibly be any legitimate reason to take issue, right? Unbelievable.

No, it's not my professional opinion, because it has nothing to do with software, computers, or telecom. I can explain to you the steps I followed to arrive at that conclusion though.

I read in the article that she has ongoing health issues of an otherwise undisclosed nature. Fine. She's not on trial (in theory) and we have no right to her medical history. Cool.

So, the hamster is an "emotional support animal". I have no idea WTF that is. I'm not a medical professional. So I googled it. It looks like it's an animal (not a "pet" per some law) that provides therapeutic benefit to an individual with a mental or psychiatric disability. No, it's not recognized by the ADA unless its a dog that's trained to perform support tasks of a specific nature. Okay, cool, so if that's what it was, which I have no reason to believe it isn't, then maybe she DOES have a mental disorder.

So, she had no right to take it onboard, but someone supposedly indicated that she would be able to. She reacted poorly to the situation, and wound up killing it for the sake of being able to catch the flight to be able to make her medical appointment.

I can either presuppose ill faith on her part and put on my inquisition outfit and tear her apart for acting irrationally, or, I can come to the conclusion I did by taking far less leaps of faith and assumption.

And from an entirely unprofessional level, it kinda sounds like something I'd expect someone autistic to do.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Are some of us? Are some of us actually making that argument? Are you sure it wasn't... no one who made that argument?

Yes, you clearly are!. You want a straw man? How about

No, I'm sorry, you don't get to just move the goalposts when you got caught garbage posting.

 Luciferian wrote:
Some of you guys are arguing from the perspective that any denial of anyone who says they need their animal with them for any reason is wrong because it's insensitive and mean and there could be absolutely no consequences.

Who specifically said that? Quote them here.

 Luciferian wrote:
If you think that ANY restriction placed on ANY animal, even when someone claims some kind of emotional distress, is wholly mean or unfair and has no higher purpose, then I just don't know what to say.

Who specifically said that? Quote them here.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Of course those people are able to go on flights and rock about unsupervised all the time as long as they have their emotional support hamster..../sarcasm (look I can do that too)

I'm sorry that my argument that someone might be disturbed to the point they need a therapeutic animal to travel otherwise unaccompanied wasn't as plausible as the one you mentioned of someone traveling alone who would die if exposed to a few molecules of... whatever travelling through the air conditioning.

I'll try to pick more reasonable hypotheticals.

Man, this thread is a delicious jambalaya of emotional handwringing and outrage addiction. What a time to be alive!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Yeah, that would just be crazy. So she obviously isn't.
Guess what happens to people who are this 'crazy'?

If her illness was such, she would have constant support. Constant.

No sir. I believe that somewhere civilized, but this is the US. We promote our mentally ill to the highest level of power and authority, at least when we're not letting them stockpile emotional support weapons in hotel rooms above crowded conventions.

In another 14 years, I'd like to see her for president.

 Ouze wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its more that those taking the mental illness route in my opinion are taking the innocent untill guilty route, while others have already decided she is guilty and a terrible person.

Yeah, that's where I am.

I dunno if she really is incapable of travelling without an emotional support animal. I never met her. I would have to suppose it's possible, and that someone who is unstable - to the point that they need an animal so they can travel without a breakdown - might in fact have a breakdown when told they must be seperated from said animal so they can get the medical treatment they themselves need - and do something a mentally disturbed person would do.

Or maybe she's a terrible person who doesn't actually need an emotional support animal, didn't care about the hamster, and flushed it so she couldn't be inconvenienced further. Maybe it was a pretext towards a frivolous lawsuit against the airline. That seems unlikely to me since lawsuits are expensive and the actual tort is nearly nonexistent, but who knows.

We're probably never going to know. My only real conclusion is that for some reason Spirit is somehow escaping their due opprobrium for manufacturing this situation by telling her she could bring the hamster and then changing their minds at the gate. They could have better accomodated the customer to rectify the situation they readily admit to manufacturing.

The idea that someone would buy a hamster, call ahead to knowingly get the wrong answer and then to be certain to be refused at the gate so she can flush said hamster sounds like the most convoluted idea for a lawsuit I have ever heard. There must be easier ways to stiff your airline out of a couple bucks

Although as far as I'm aware she called ahead to check. In the Netherlands its pretty standard for those calls to be recorded and saved. Is that the case too in the US? If so and that tape still exists then some of the blame falls on the airline. I do wonder how the hamster was being transported, as that doesn't get reported, if it was in a cage why make such a big deal out of it in the first place?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Man, this thread is a delicious jambalaya of emotional handwringing and outrage addiction. What a time to be alive!

 Ouze wrote:
I'm sorry that my argument that someone might be disturbed to the point they need a therapeutic animal to travel otherwise unaccompanied wasn't as plausible as the one you mentioned of someone traveling alone who would die if exposed to a few molecules of... whatever travelling through the air conditioning.

I'll try to pick more reasonable hypotheticals.

I believe it's the hair that people are allergic to.

Or it could be the tiny animals they carry.

Or both.

You never met anyone allergic to an animal? Wow.

Edit - I should add that animal cruelty =/= mental illness. Legally. Also throughout history people have been incredibly cruel to animals and have never been considered mentally ill.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Although as far as I'm aware she called ahead to check. In the Netherlands its pretty standard for those calls to be recorded and saved. Is that the case too in the US? If so and that tape still exists then some of the blame falls on the airline. I do wonder how the hamster was being transported, as that doesn't get reported, if it was in a cage why make such a big deal out of it in the first place?

It's not in dispute that they said she could bring the hamster, so the recording of the call is irrelevant. It's what happened at the gate that's in dispute, and if there was a recording I would imagine Spirit would have released it already. Or maybe it makes Spirit look awful so they're not releasing it, who knows.

So far as how it was being transported, yeah that's the real question. It's not clear why they couldn't fix the situation they made. It would make more sense if it turned out she had it in a pocket or something which would be difficult to deal with but that seems like a good way to get bitten so seems unlikely.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm sorry that my argument that someone might be disturbed to the point they need a therapeutic animal to travel otherwise unaccompanied wasn't as plausible as the one you mentioned of someone traveling alone who would die if exposed to a few molecules of... whatever travelling through the air conditioning.

I'll try to pick more reasonable hypotheticals.

I believe it's the hair that people are allergic to.

Or it could be the tiny animals they carry.

Or both.

You never met anyone allergic to an animal? Wow.

Well, that's begging the question a bit, since I never claimed that I've never met anyone allergic to an animal. However I'll answer anyway: I've definitely never met anyone or heard or anyone or honestly believe in the existence of anyone who is so sensitive to animal dander that a few molecules of it would make them die. I imagine a person so sensitive, if they existed, and I bet they don't, would avoid public transportation.

You know, I read an article once by someone who was deathly allergic to lavender. Like, would have to go to the hospital with an anaphylactic reaction if she caught a whiff of it.

No one's ever suggested banning lavender from planes.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, that's begging the question a bit, since I never claimed that I've never met anyone allergic to an animal. However I'll answer anyway: I've definitely never met anyone or heard or anyone or honestly believe in the existence of anyone who is so sensitive to animal dander that a few molecules of it would make them die. I imagine a person so sensitive, if they existed, and I bet they don't, would avoid public transportation.

And if the animal escaped the woman's clutches and bit someone and that killed them? Or if it rubbed itself on them and they had a severe reaction and died?

It doesn't have to be a few hairs in the air con.

What about if the hamster escaped and gnawed through a critical cable that meant the plane didn't land correctly and everyone died?