Where does it say that it was an "emotional assistance" animal? There are many people with disabilities who use service animals for a lot more than just "emotional assistance". Alerting the owner of danger, detecting an oncoming epileptic fit, picking up things and giving them to the owner, and the classic guide dog for the blind. All perfectly legitimate to travel with.
I am less than enamoured with the concept of service animals which provide companionship and reassurance being treated in the same way. Especially if it is a goose... but that is the crazy world created by the DOT Disabilities rules.
Phx.. there is no evidence in the complaint that the complainant spoke rudely to the gate agent. Indeed, the FA subsequently apologised to the passenger for the behaviour of the gate agent. It is not automatically rude to tell an employee that you find their actions either unhelpful, unprofessional or inappropriate... and this gate agent clearly had a problem. Given the style and approach you take with posters on this website, accusing the OP of being rude is a bit "pot and kettle" don't you think?
Troy... why should agents not be accountable for their behaviour? Why not post the names of people who behave inappropriately? If the OP is lying it gives the agent a perfect remedy to sue in small claims. If it is truthful, it could have 3 benefits. One, it alerts the travelling public to beware of Dana McGrath. Two, it may alert Dana McGrath to the fact that her actions are noted and could have some "chilling" effect on her obnoxious behaviour AND three it could expose a pattern of behaviour where others come out of the woodwork and give their experiences.
The recent incident on AA when a passenger asked for an orange juice, not only exposed the abuse of power of the FA and her totally inappropriate actions, but in internet forums exposed her behaviour at other times. It was not a "one off" but a pattern of inappropriate behaviour was exposed. Without naming and shaming this would not happen.
|