Pets in the Cabin - Coming soon on Virgin Australia

[Quickstatus]

Virgin is allowing dogs to fly, not just assistance animals.

Correct. I suspect part of the reason VA is allowing companion animal on board, is because of the Mulligan case which was 2015.

consultation was from over 20 years ago

But it forms the body of law that now describes what an assistance animal is - which basically is not much different to a companion animal.
It is still an evolving issue and therefore not off topic at all because the comments here are diverse - some are happy with VA's policy some are not - some say that only properly trained (by accredited organisations) animals should be allowed onboard and not untrained Emotional support/ companion / pet animals.

My point is that, legislatively, there is little difference between an Assistance animal and an Emotional support animal. In fact the term "emotional support animal" is not used at all legislatively.

 

[Chicken]

Correct. I suspect part of the reason VA is allowing companion animal on board

Actually, this thread is on Virgin allowing cats and dogs to fly for leisure purposes, so whether they are assist or not is not even relevant. I think this thread is being derailed by 'whataboutism'.

 

[Quickstatus]

Actually, Virgin is allowing cats and dogs to fly for leisure purposes, so whether they are assist or not is not even relevant anymore.

Thats what I said. But like all threads, there is an associated wider discussion.

 

[Chicken]

there is an associated wider discussion.

I don't agree with this specific observation.

The fact that we have gone from cats and dogs pets, to camels, and to guide dogs, is what 'whataboutism' is. Used by China and Russia for propaganda, and now used:

"Psychologists suggest that this view of arguments is prevalent in political debate because it is driven by partisan bias. When confronted by an opponent with a different political viewpoint, you are more likely to view what they say as an attack to be countered, rather than a point to be debated."

We must be careful and not fall into this trap.

How do we give people options to not sit next to a dog is a legit debate; what if I bring a camel or a duck is not (not to mention that Virgin already said cats and dogs only).

 

[Quickstatus]

whataboutism

That is why discussions often do. It is normal. With any policy, there are, for example, unintended consequences and they are worth exploring.
In the context of VA cats and dogs, some people see it as a slippery slope. that at the end, could involve a Peacock or a miniature horse (see my pic upthread.

 

[Chicken]

That is why discussions often do. It is normal.

It is not normal.

"More pernicious is when whataboutism is put to work as a misinformation tool."

Just look at this thread. How many 'what about' points are facts which could happen on a Virgin flight? Yet, what they do is give people the impression that those 'what about' scenarios are plausable. This is how misinformation starts.

I understand some people just don't like pets, hence I understand there should be debates on how to accomodate those passengers, like allowing them to swap seats.

But to turn those conversations into a blanket pets on planes, as if the pets could be sitting anywhere on the plane, and the plane is going to be full of dogs, is seeding mis-information.

unintended consequences and they are worth exploring

Totally agree. If Virgin won't let people swap seats and force them to sit with a dog, then I would be outraged!

 

[Quickstatus]

But to turn those conversations into a blanket pets on planes, as if the pets could be sitting anywhere on the plane, and the plane is going to be full of dogs, is seeding mis-information.

I dont think anyone is saying that VA cabin dogs and cats will mean the plane is going to be full of dogs.
However, passengers are concerned about how it would affect them