Flying with Miniature Horses

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/travel/mini-horse-service-plane.html

by aaronbrethorst • 7 years ago

62 97 7 years ago

nytimes.com

tedunangst2• 7 years ago

Did the article ask and then mostly dodge the question, How do you fit a horse in front of your seat?

tptacek2• 7 years ago

No, it spends several paragraphs on this question.

reaperducer• 7 years ago

Did the article ask and then mostly dodge the question, How do you fit a horse in front of your seat?

It didn't dodge the question at all. There's a photo, and the article talks about the photo extensively.

"Airlines that have engaged with miniature horses before typically put Ms. Ramouni and Cali in the bulkhead row, which has more legroom and no seats in front. Throughout the flight Cali stands at Ms. Ramouni’s feet."

tedunangst2• 7 years ago

But if that's not available? (Typically? What happens atypically?) The paragraphs after that question seemed to be mostly about making sure the horse didn't pee on anybody, not how it physically fit. Also, it looked like the horse is longer than a single seat wide. Does she always travel with a companion?

Unfortunately the times seems to have decided I'm only allowed to read this article once and now it won't load.

IIAOPSW• 7 years ago

Fun fact: there is exactly one situation in the United States in which you are required to fly with non-TSA approved locks on your luggage. That situation is when there's a gun in your checked in bags. The easiest way to meet that requirement is with a flare gun. Some perfectly reasonable people that are concerned about theft and privacy will travel with a flare gun for no reason other than it lets them lock their luggage.

The rules around flying are weird and full of perverse incentives that are easily hacked.

hprotagonist• 7 years ago

A flare gun, a burly lock, and a pelican case is a well known trio for travel for people like national geographic photographers.

$40k worth of camera optics is worth it.

neilv• 7 years ago

Flying with a declared flare gun in your checked baggage photography gear cases was a trick I heard some professional photographers use.

Reportedly, that activates some chain of custody-like procedures, including that it's unlikely to be lost, and that the case isn't opened at potentially arbitrary points of time by unknown workers in between (damage, theft).

krapht• 7 years ago

The very first Google hit on this says it is a poor idea.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34042190

kevin_thibedeau• 7 years ago

I've traveled with a sword and tried to get a security screen but TSA wouldn't do it for me. I'm curious if a rifle bolt would be enough to get the added security.

i_am_proteus3• 7 years ago

Can confirm that this works with a real firearm. You need to put non-TSA locks on the case, and it's kept in custody of the airline at baggage claim (does not go on the carousel). You must provide ID to retrieve the case.

I use a cheap 1911 frame. This is a 48.5-state solution; don't try it in Illinois or NYC.

dpifke• 7 years ago

I'm pretty sure they closed this loophole, and banned them altogether:

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...

Also, with regular firearms, they have to be in case specially designed for the firearm. You can't just lock it in your regular suitcase.

yorwba• 7 years ago

The guidelines for traveling with firearms only mention a "hard-sided container", so if your regular suitcase is sufficiently hard it should qualify. For ammunition, they do require a box specifically designed to carry it.

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunit...

fortran77• 7 years ago

Yes...but. Be prepared to spend up to an hour extra at the airport to try to find the one person at the TSA who actually knows the rules and will OK everything. It took several hours for some folks to get out of McCarran (LAS) airport at DEFCON just last week.

This isn't always the case, sometimes it's only a few minutes. But it does add some "unpredictability" to air travel.

dboreham• 7 years ago

Did the NYT acquire The Onion?

Eyes• 7 years ago

As someone over 6ft, all I would like to know is what airline has enough legroom for a horse to go in front of you.

bradleyjg4• 7 years ago

There's a thing we do as a society which I think is unfortunate. We decide the someone ought to get help, that part is totally reasonable. But then instead of providing that help out of our collective resources we instead pass a law requiring random third parties to provide it.

So in this case we decide that disabled people ought to be able to take their assistance animals on planes. Fine. But then we the people should be paying the airlines to carry the disabled person and their service animal without depriving other passengers of the flight experience that they bought and paid for. We've collectively decided to help and we should collectively bear the cost.

cortic• 7 years ago

Or just pass another law forbidding the 'depriving [any] passengers of the flight experience that they bought and paid for'. I see no compelling reason for taxes to subsidize companies just to help them follow the law, i get no subsidies to help me not steal things or to obey traffic lights. And I'm not posting millions in profits.

rayiner2• 7 years ago

There is a huge difference between laws that require you not to do something, and ones that require you to spend limited resources providing affirmative benefits to people.

PaulAJ• 7 years ago

From the politician's point of view there is a very important difference. If you raise taxes and then use that money to pay for something then you are responsible for a tax increase. Opposition politicians can point to your tax increase and complain that this is costing the average taxpayer $N per year.

However if you make a regulation which does the same thing then the cost does not cross the government's books, so nobody can say that you are costing anybody anything in particular. Its much better politics, regardless of the economics.

wisty• 7 years ago

There's a difference between getting help, and getting enabled.

People with mental illness often make terrible decisions, but there's a trend to say we have to tolerate these terrible decisions because that's helping them, when it might do the opposite.

OK, so service animals might be effective. But for a non-permanent disability, couldn't travelling without one be a milestone to work towards, rather than an unalienable right? Obviously it depends on individual circumstances, but who should make the call?

lazyasciiart• 7 years ago

It's unlikely to be a goal for people with a service animal. It takes years and a lot of money to train a service animal - it's not a quick fix.

geofft2• 7 years ago

Probably a doctor and not an airline should make the call? It seems like a useful principle that airlines should not be in charge of medical decisions, which would imply that airlines should never question traveling with a horse (besides checking the doctor's authorization) - if we think that someone is being overprescribed a horse, we-as-society should follow up with the prescribing doctor and perhaps medical licensing boards, but we-as-society shouldn't put indirect pressure on the doctor via the patient themselves via a flight attendant.

rayiner2• 7 years ago

People are more willing to spend other peoples’ money than their own. News at 11.

Buge2• 7 years ago

By forcing airlines to allow horses, that means the airlines have to expend effort for that. That means they have to raise prices. That means all airline fliers are paying for it. I don't see a reason why all US citizens should pay for it instead of all US fliers paying for it.

As far as depriving other passengers, it's up to the airlines how to do that. They are incentivized to provide a good experience to fliers in order to keep people willing to fly with them.

morpheuskafka• 7 years ago

The set of all US citizens, not the subset of US fliers, is the set that democratically elected the reps that enacted this law. They should be willing to pay for it.

Too many laws are enacted on the basis that they will be popular only because a majority of people will not have to pay for them and thus see no downsides.

schappim• 7 years ago

Yes, but how else will you be able to pull out your phone and start a video call with: “I’m on an aeroplane. Look down. I’m on a horse.”

whalesalad2• 7 years ago

Flying with 2 dogs in the same row in a few weeks for the first time and I know I am going to get some stern looks from others on the plane. They have their ESA documentation and everything is set to go, we're in first class at the bulkhead (yay points), and they are extremely well behaved.

I cannot even fathom trying to get a horse onto a plane since I am already playing mental gymnastics with my two dogs.

watertom• 7 years ago

How do you honestly function day to day if you need to have two dogs with you at all times? Do you work from home? How can you drive without being an emotional wreck?

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I see your post and it causes my brain to short circuit. I don't want you confined to your house, but if you are so fragile psychological and emotionally that you can't function for a few hours without your two dogs at your side should you really be flying?

Camillo2• 7 years ago

What are you talking about? Surely you've seen people who keep dogs as pets. They lead entirely normal lives, for the most part. And you must have also seen people who have not just one dog, but two or more, and they still have a normal life. If you understand that, is it that big of a leap to imagine that some of those people may also have $50 to certify their pets as ESAs?

whalesalad2• 7 years ago

One is mine, one is my wife's. We both suffer from anxiety and depression.

I'm not trying to be a dick [...] if you are so fragile psychological and emotionally that you can't function for a few hours without your two dogs at your side should you really be flying?

heh

objectivetruth• 7 years ago

I'm not the parent, and I'm guilty of being exasperated at people calling their purse dogs "support animals" to get them on planes, BUT...

1) The obvious answer to your first questions: lots of people do work from home, and/or work in dog-friendly locations. Also, lots of people take their dog with them on all car trips including local errands.

2) Re: "can't function for a few hours without your two dogs" -- the FLIGHT is a few hours but unless the dogs are beaming there via transporter, they still need the dogs at the destination!

uberman• 7 years ago

Unless I missed something, the "completely reasonable reason" appears to be that horses live a lot longer than dogs.

tptacek2• 7 years ago

They're apparently calmer, require less social contact, and cause fewer allergy problems, in addition to the lifespan benefit, which is considerable. And, as the article mentions, if you need mobility/stability assistance, a horse can be more helpful than a dog.

Really, once you learn that there people who could reasonably prefer mini-horses to dogs, the article has answered the question it sets out to.

cujo2• 7 years ago

cause fewer allergy problems

I have a very hard time believing that. Do you have a source? It's all anecdotal, but the few people I know with dog allergies, seem to be very mild cases. While horse allergies seem to be fairly common and much more severe.

hn_throwaway_99• 7 years ago

This may sound dickish, but as someone who always has to pay extra for more legroom because the length of my thighs is longer than the standard seat pitch, when is being tall going to be declared a disability?

liability4• 7 years ago

I'm pretty average height so I can't personally relate to this experience, but it does logically seem like you have a point. After all, it's not your fault you're so lanky; you were born that way (well.. you know what I mean.) Isn't that equally deserving of accommodation?

I wish whoever downvoted you could explain themselves to help me understand why they think tall people shouldn't be reasonably accommodated.

bradleyjg4• 7 years ago

(1) Disability

The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

...

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

coldcode• 7 years ago

I cannot even sit in a normal plane due to my height, and yet people fly with a horse???? I really want to find some way to fly with a Pygmy Hippo. Or how about a friendly Caiman?

TylerE• 7 years ago

RTFA

These are no bigger than a medium size dog.

mkl• 7 years ago

These look a lot bigger than a medium sized dog. Their bodies seem way bulkier. I'm only slightly taller than average, but couldn't fit a chihuahua in front of my knees in a plane, let alone a medium sized dog or miniature horse.

cscurmudgeon• 7 years ago

Nice to see NYT engaging in clickbait headlines.

kqr2• 7 years ago

More info on guide horses, including advantages:

http://guide-horse.org/

jessaustin5• 7 years ago

Airport officials will sometimes ask for Cali’s official “horse ID,” Ms. Ramouni said. Unaware of any organization that offers such a thing, she and a friend eventually made a card themselves.

OK, that's awesome. We should all make our own ID cards.

Cali is used to going for long stretches without urinating...

This is typical of horses, especially females like this one featured in TFA. They like to really stretch out their legs while urinating (I guess they don't like splashes?) and are only comfortable doing so in particular situations. Whereas they will defecate anywhere, so it's impressive that this animal has been trained not to do that.

scotty792• 7 years ago

OK, that's awesome. We should all make our own ID cards.

If you are asking for ID even though you don't know what ID should be provided or even if any is required then FU, you get the one written in crayons.

ebg13• 7 years ago

Someone I know relayed a story to me once wherein, at the passport gate into England she, a Canadian citizen, was held up by the passport control agent for not having a visa document. "Where's your visa?" "I don't need a visa, I'm a Canadian citizen. Your queen is my queen." "So you don't have one?" "Yes, because I don't need one."

u801e• 7 years ago

How do airlines accommodate passengers who have allergies to these animals? Do they let them know before the board that there will be an animal they're allergic to on board? Do they have to wait for the next flight, or does the passenger with the animal have to wait?

Flying with Miniature Horses

Related Stories