They said they don't want to be in a plane that has potentially had an animal in it. They also said they have stopped flying VA and SQ to avoid being on a plane that has potentially had an animal in it.
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the logic.
All domestic aircraft have potentially had an animal in the cabin.
That fact is not change by grooming, or lack of grooming, of the animal. It is not changed by the training and behaviour. The fact that all aircraft have potentially had an animal in the cabin is absolutely not a denial of their allegy. Just saying that since they're most likely already sat in an aircraft after an animal has been in it, the allegy justification for their ban on VA/SQ isn't that convincing.
Perhaps you might look up the meaning of disingenuos. Personally, I have a view about being called dishonest based on two strawmen.
Additional, as far as the poster has stopped flying VA because of the risk of hair being left behind. I'd suggest virgin policy about carriage of animals in the cabin is relevant to your grooming strawman.
The crux of my post was an occasional perhaps
once a month carriage of a fully trained service animal is not in the same ballpark for allergy risk and exposure factor as up to 5 pets unfamiliar / untrained for the circumstance on every flight every day on certain sectors on VA.
