Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Denies Man Boarding. Reason? "Too Disabled"  
User currently offlineN353SK From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 820 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7357 times:

Quote:
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A Jacksonville man who said he was grounded by an airline in June has flied a lawsuit against the company. He said workers wouldn't let him fly because he's disabled.

U.S. Airways originally issued a statement about the incident stating: "U.S. Airways personnel determined that he would not be able to assist in his own evacuation in the event of an emergency. We feel that our employees acted appropriately and followed both company and federal policy in this situation."

Basically, it sounds like US considered this man to be a "safety hazard" and denied him boarding. I have never heard of this before. Obviously this passenger would have had to be boarded via straightback, but I've never heard of a wheelchair passenger being denied boarding for safety reasons before.


Thoughts?



Source: http://www.news4jax.com/news/14136683/detail.html

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2576 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7334 times:

I'm confused here...doesn't the Americans with Disabilities Act come into play?

User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7304 times:

Wow, US Airways is going to pay big time on this one. I've been on a number of flights where severely disabled have also flown. Yes, there's no way they would be able to evacuate in an emergency. That's the risk they likely take. But for US to say they can't fly at all...well...they'll be writing a big check.

Though in fairness....and not politically correct....when a paraplegic or quadriplegic passenger is in an aisle or middle seat, aren't they indeed a safety hazard in an emergency?


User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3702 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7271 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Johnboy (Reply 1):
I'm confused here...doesn't the Americans with Disabilities Act come into play?

People need to remember that it is the Air Carrier Access Act that governs airlines, and not the ADA. Furthermore, if an airline decides doe deny a passenger with a disability due to a safety reason, then there is not much that the passenger can do. US could have required him to fly with an attendant who would have been responsible for his welfare while on board. If US had required an attendant, then they would have been obligated to provide complimentary transportation to said attendant. There are many cases like this that come up every year, and the airlines almost always come out on top. I myself have denied passengers for travel, and have even been the one to suggest an attendant for travel. On one occasion I acted as the attendant for an individual traveling from MKE to BWI. If you have a thorough knowledge of the A.C.A.A. then you will be able to avoid most of the heat that a passenger can give you. Some are even more impressed when you have a better knowledge of it than they do. Anyone who works for FL in FLL knows what I am talking about. We had a frequent traveler who would always scream about A.C.A.A. violations, but eventually the company called bullshit on him.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7271 times:

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 2):

Though in fairness....and not politically correct....when a paraplegic or quadriplegic passenger is in an aisle or middle seat, aren't they indeed a safety hazard in an emergency?

You may be right, although all things taken in balance, I think the (very small) risk of additional danger is greatly outweighed by the rights of those people who don't have the ability to walk. I think it a society that goes out of its way to provide for its disabled - even if it means a slight increase in risk - is a just society. I hope there isn't anyone here who would say "no, don't let him travel because he is an additional danger to ME"


User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7271 times:

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 2):
.when a paraplegic or quadriplegic passenger is in an aisle or middle seat, aren't they indeed a safety hazard in an emergency

But they aren't. I've seen people being flown on brancards on TP - three window seats taken up by it, and other than that the flight was as normal as it could be. You can't put them in exit rows and preferrably not in aisle seats, but that's all.

It's extremely common for people to be flown home after falling ill or having accidents abroad like that, so why can't disabled people? If they don't obstruct anybody else's evacuation path then it's up to them!



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7249 times:

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 3):
If you have a thorough knowledge of the A.C.A.A. then you will be able to avoid most of the heat that a passenger can give you.

A disabled passenger? You quote statute to justify not letting him on board the flight? "According to the ACAA we have the right to deny you boarding, etc..." That's pretty un-classy.

I think a more appropriate way to go about it would be to explain - in real terms - why is not possible for your carrier to let him on board. To me, quoting some regulation or statute sounds like your air carrier is hiding behind some law to let them off the hook.


User currently offlineAIR757200 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7209 times:

If a passenger can't transport themselves to/from their passenger seat, they should be required to travel with a nurse/travel assistant from which the assistant will lift/transport the passenger to their seat. It should not fall upon the employees of the airline.

It's amazing how we can't protect ourselves because of laws like the ACAA, and it's us airline employees that have to face wrist/arm/other injuries since we are "required" to lift them, no matter what they weigh, even after training.


User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3702 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Remcor (Reply 6):
A disabled passenger? You quote statute to justify not letting him on board the flight? "According to the ACAA we have the right to deny you boarding, etc..." That's pretty un-classy.

I think a more appropriate way to go about it would be to explain - in real terms - why is not possible for your carrier to let him on board. To me, quoting some regulation or statute sounds like your air carrier is hiding behind some law to let them off the hook.

You would be an idiot to directly quite the A.C.A.A. of course you would put it into "human terms" for them. It is a simple matter of explaining to them that in the event of an emergency there is no way that the crew would be able to evacuate them in a safe manner, which is why they are being denied boarding, or being required to have an attendant.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3702 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7192 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

§ 382.31 Refusal of transportation.

(d) Carrier personnel, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 44902, 14 CFR 91.8, or 14 CFR 121.533, may refuse to provide transportation to any passenger on the basis of safety, and may refuse to provide transportation to any passenger whose carriage would violate the Federal Aviation Regulations. In exercising this authority, carrier personnel shall not discriminate against any qualified individual with a disability on the basis of disability and their actions shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Part. In the event that such action is inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, the carrier shall be subject to remedies provided under § 382.65.

(e) When a carrier refuses to provide transportation to any person on a basis relating to the individual’s disability, the carrier shall specify in writing to the person the basis for the refusal, including, where applicable, the reasonable and specific basis for the carrier’s opinion that transporting the person would or might be inimical to the safety of the flight. This written explanation shall be provided within 10 calendar days of the refusal of transportation.

§ 382.35 Attendants

(b) A carrier may require that a qualified individual with a disability meeting any of the following criteria travel with an attendant as a condition of being provided air transportation, if the carrier determines that an attendant is essential for safety:

(1) A person traveling in a stretcher or incubator. The attendant for such a person must be capable of attending to the passenger’s in-flight medical needs;

(2) A person who, because of a mental disability, is unable to comprehend or respond appropriately to safety instructions from carrier personnel, including the safety briefing required by 14 CFR 121.571 (a) (3) and (a)(4) or 14 CFR 135.117(b);

(3) A person with a mobility impairment so severe that the person is unable to assist in his or her own evacuation of the aircraft;

(4) A person who has both severe hearing and severe vision impairments, if the person cannot establish some means of communication with carrier personnel, adequate to permit transmission of the safety briefing required by 14 CFR 121.571(a)(3) and (a)(4) or 14 CFR 135.117(b).

(c) If the carrier determines that a person meeting the criteria of paragraph (b)(2), (b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section must travel with an attendant, contrary to the individual’s self-assessment that he or she is capable of traveling independently, the carrier shall not charge for the transportation of the attendant
.
(d) If, because there is not a seat available on a flight for an attendant whom the carrier has determined to be necessary, a person with a disability who has a confirmed reservation is unable to travel on the flight, the person with a disability shall be eligible for denied boarding compensation under 14 CFR part 250.

(e) For purposes of determining whether a seat is available for an attendant, the attendant shall be deemed to have checked in at the same time as the person with a disability.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7157 times:

Quoting Johnboy (Reply 1):
I'm confused here...doesn't the Americans with Disabilities Act come into play?

As AirTran pointed out above, it doesn't. The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) is the only thing that governs the way airlines deal with disabilities. Interesting note is that it's also a few years older than ADA.

In this case 14 CFR 382.31(d)-(e) provides that (emphasis is mine):

Quote:
(d) Carrier personnel, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 1511, 14 CFR 91.8, or 14 CFR 121.533, may refuse to provide transportation to any passenger on the basis of safety, and may refuse to provide transportation to any
passenger whose carriage would violate the Federal Aviation Regulations.
[...]
(e) When a carrier refuses to provide transportation to any person on a basis relating to the individual's disability, the carrier shall specify in writing to the person the basis for the refusal, including, where applicable, the reasonable and specific basis for the carrier's opinion that transporting the person would or might be inimical to the safety of the flight. This written explanation shall be provided within 10 calendar days of the refusal of transportation.

Also note that he was required to provide at least 48 hours notice and check in at leat one hour prior to the flight if he required transportation of an electric wheelchair (14 CFR 382.33). Also note that 14 CFR 382.35(b)(3) allows an airline to require an attendant for a person who the airline dertermines has "...a mobility imparement so severe that the preson is unable to assist in his or her own evacuation of the aircraft" .

An interesting note is that 14 CFR 382.35(c) says that "If the carrier determines that a person [...] must travel with an attendant contrary to the individual's self-assessment that he or she is capable of traveling independently, the carrier shall not charge for the transportation of the attendant"

It's perfectly possible that the US agent was being a bit overly conservative by denying boarding, but it's unlikely that they violated any laws by doing so.

Lincoln
© 2007 Lincoln J. King-Cliby. All rights reserved. This post is licensed to airliners.net for display and distribution only and shall not be modified either in content or visual appearance.



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineD328 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7150 times:

I asked this question at work all the time to the supervisor's at USExpress at PIT, and I would say you put someone on a plane who cannot move at all themselves and the plane goes down but is survivable and that person cannot make it out at all and is kill. Can and will his/her family sue the airline for his/her death since it was survivable? Say the plane is on fire and everyone gets off and no was able or had the time to help the one disabled person.

Where do you draw the line, or is there fine print saying in the ticket if this happens they are not liable?

If someone cannot help themselves they need someone traveling with him/her. I think it is that simple. It's not fair to put others at risk because a person is disabled and has to count on others in case of an accident. What if him/her is obese? I don't see a little nice F/A lifting that person. People at Express in PIT were hurt every month or two trying to help people with needs. I cannot remember the times having to push people up jetways that were way bigger than me in a wheelchair.


User currently offlineKstatepilot From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7122 times:

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 5):
But they aren't. I've seen people being flown on brancards on TP - three window seats taken up by it, and other than that the flight was as normal as it could be. You can't put them in exit rows and preferrably not in aisle seats, but that's all.

Did Bicostal not say an aisle or middle seat? he didn't say window seat. Your example has the passenger in the window seat where it doesn't hamper the other passengers.

Quoting AIR757200 (Reply 7):
If a passenger can't transport themselves to/from their passenger seat, they should be required to travel with a nurse/travel assistant from which the assistant will lift/transport the passenger to their seat. It should not fall upon the employees of the airline.

I totally agree. As a crew member I will not leave until all my passengers are off the aircraft. By having a person unable to help himself get off the airplane could endanger the lives of the crew, and possibly other passengers trying to help. Now if the passenger has someone to "assist" then he shouldn't be denied boarding.

I do feel we aren't getting the whole story. US said they agree with what the employees did. This says to me that the employees tried to help him, possibly by letting a "care taker" fly with him for free.

If we only knew the whole story...


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13035 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7045 times:

Perhaps his choice of flight was relatively full limiting the ability of the f/a's from giving full attention, on a RJ or other like smaller a/c where even normal people would have difficulty escaping in an emergency. That he was able to travel unassisted in the past could be seen as a precedant, but his disability may have become worse since those previous flights to the degree that it put him and the airline at risk. That he was able to fly on another airline suggests some f/a was perhaps a little picky or lazy or had long duties hours that day. It will be interesting to see how his case goes and I suspect there may be a settlement.

User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6965 times:

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 12):
Did Bicostal not say an aisle or middle seat? he didn't say window seat. Your example has the passenger in the window seat where it doesn't hamper the other passengers.

That was the point I was trying to make. In situations like these, if you seat pax on window seats, at least the obstruction argument is gone. Whether you would then want the crew to endanger themselves to evacuate this person in an emergency, is a difficult question. But at least the safety of the other pax is then removed out of the equation, so to say.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineFreshlove1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6951 times:

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 2):
Wow, US Airways is going to pay big time on this one.

US is not going to have to pay anything. Safety first. Anyone can be denied boarding if they are a safety risk. It looks like this person is just trying to use his disability to gain some money for himself and probably blowing this situation way out of proportion. US Airways legal team against this guys lawyer, my $$$ is on US winning or the case being thrown out.


User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6587 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6934 times:

We have these rules as well and passengers will be classified as ambulatory or non-ambulatory. If they are unable to evacuate by themselves in an emergency then they MUST have a companion who takes responsibility for them.

Where you decide to sit them does not matter. By sitting them by a window are you claiming that although they will not obstruct an aisle, it is ok for them to be overlooked and left there by the crew as the fuselage is burning? Besides the practicality of getting someone like that to clamber over one or two other seats to get to the window seat is ridiculous.

Unfortunately we do not know the entire story and what words were spoken that day. Certainly there is a correct way to explain it to the passenger involved and a not so correct way. At the end of the day though, some passengers will get the same reaction, no matter how you break it to them.


User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6763 times:

I think US was just in their actions. While I had sympathy for the man, putting him on an aircraft could be very dangerous. When a plane is evacuated, every second is crucial. What if in an evacuation occured and he was blocking people in the aisle or in his seat? He would have to be carried off by other pax, jeopardizing themselves and the other pax who are trying to make it off the plane. Imagine if something like the CI fire happened. Everyone survived because the cabin crew got everyone off quickly. What if a disabled person was on board and was blocking the evacuation process? People could have been killed. It is the same reason why you can be too drunk to fly. the airlines are concerned about their civil liability but more importantly the life of this men and the lives of those around him.


"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1256 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6710 times:

There's actually surprisingly little caselaw on this type of issue (generally, denial of boarding under ACAA), and the decisions often conflict, ranging from summary judgment for the airline based on a lack of a private right of action under the statute to verdicts for the plaintiffs. One common thread here is that the cases seem to often be partially reversed and thus remanded by appellate courts, meaning that the litigation in this one could get REAL expensive. Looking at the caselaw very briefly, it seems this guy is unlikely to get anywhere near his million, as the sole case in which emotional damages were awarded were for a 14 year old girl who clearly was pretty profoundly emotionally affected by the experience. The main issue here is whether US can say they were reasonable in denying him boarding rather than trying to accommodate him; here again, the law is split.

This is actually a pretty interesting puzzle in legal terms, or as a normal person would call it "a total shit-show."


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13512 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kstatepilot (Reply 12):
US said they agree with what the employees did. This says to me that the employees tried to help him, possibly by letting a "care taker" fly with him for free.

And for what it's worth, airlines do not just arbitrarily elect to deny boarding. If the agent determines that safety requires a person to have an attendant, the airline's local Complaints Resolution Official (CRO) is always consulted to ensure the carrier is in compliance with the ACAA.

Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 16):
If they are unable to evacuate by themselves in an emergency then they MUST have a companion who takes responsibility for them

And the air carrier isn't required to have the attendant be a companion of the traveler's choosing, either. Most carriers will ask employee non-revenue travelers on the same flight to act as an attendant should the need arise, or ask for other customers on the same flight to volunteer to be an attendant. Keep in mind this person is only responsible for assisting in the evacuation of the disabled traveler should there be an emergency. Personal service duties are not expected or required.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6449 times:

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 2):
Wow, US Airways is going to pay big time on this one.

No I don't think so. If he is travelling alone and cannot walk, the crew is not required to carry the pax around the aircraft. There are limits of service also for disabled.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 9):

Thanks for posting this.  Smile


User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6141 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 17):
I think US was just in their actions. While I had sympathy for the man, putting him on an aircraft could be very dangerous. When a plane is evacuated, every second is crucial.

Why not deny wheelchair bound people from tall buildings? I mean when there's a fire you're not supposed to take an elevator, right? Try lugging a guy down 20 flights of stairs. What about putting them in a car? Safety belts aren't as functional, airbags probably won't work, getting out when the car is smashed could be a nightmare. It's a safety hazard.

They should all stay at home in fireproof houses where it's safe?

I think people who are confined to a wheelchair by in-large understand that there are going to be additional risks involved. But I think if you would ask any of them whether that additional risk should prevent them from gaining the mobility and freedom that others have and you'd surely get a resounding 'no'. Likewise, I would ask how many people here would be selfish enough to deny a wheelchair bound man or woman the ability to fly because they are afraid that if their plane crashes thing would be very slightly less safe for them?

Someone on another thread put it well: planes are made to fly, not crash. While safety is very important, we should not demand such high safety standards that it prevents many of our less fortunate citizens (who have the same rights as we do) from traveling.


User currently offlineSkyexramper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 3):

Well said in all of your posts!

For those who actually read the article, you would have read this line: "They said I was too disabled to fly alone."

Which as AT737 pointed out is when an airline can say no to the passenger. It's for the safety and comfort of all passengers on board including the person in question. It's not the F/As job to take care of passengers like this as harsh as that may sound. This guy's lawsuit will fall through in a heart beat.


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6021 times:

Quote:
This guy's lawsuit will fall through in a heart beat.

If it even gets filed at all. Presuming the facts are correct, a good attorney would probably see this as a losing case and not bother with it all.



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineWarowl40 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5665 times:

One would hope that in the event of an evacuation other passengers would assist in getting a disabled passenger to safety. The same way they would help an elderly person or a child, or for that matter, someone who might be injured or disabled as a result of whatever incidence has caused the evacuation. ...

25 N353SK : Good grab. I didn't even see this when I made the OP, but then I didn't know about the attendant policy either.
26 Cubsrule : I think the biggest problem for US with all of this is that they aren't uniformly enforcing the policy. I have a family member who also has a neurolog
27 Nzrich : Maybe turn this around also say your a crew member like i am ..The plane crashes and you have evacuated the lane all that is left is one person who c
28 SkyexRamper : And with this all said, if you the guy just booked online or had someone book his ticket, there is no way to know about his disability until he arriv
29 Cubsrule : You'd have an idea if the person requested assistance from the airline (my family member LOVED to connect at PIT in the hub days, as they'd drive him
30 N1120A : Are you quoting the CFR or the A.C.A.A. itself? It looks like you are quoting the CFR, which do not have the same weight as law as the US Code provis
31 Post contains links Aa757first : No one said he wasn't allowed to fly. They said he had to have an attendant. That's true. There is a section on their website ( http://www.usairways.
32 Cubsrule : But this guy had flown US in the past and knew that they had permitted to fly 'as is.' (I feel bad ascribing that term to a person, but it gets the m
33 Flighty : This is a little silly. Most airlines do not evacuate in a whole year. AA flies around 1,000,000 mainline flights per year. How many evacuated in 2006
34 IADCA : That's the CFR. Here's the code: 41705. Discrimination against handicapped individuals (a) In general.--In providing air transportation, an air carri
35 Avek00 : From what little has been presented, I'm of the belief that US would be victorious, using either a reasonable accomodation theory or a direct threat t
36 Scotland1979 : I think someone who thinks that disabled person should not be aboard flight, may be ignorant. Or lack knowledge of what to do with disabled person(s).
37 Nzrich : Yes we all know the odds are so low its not funny .. But its not the odds were talking about ..Say it does happen your unlucky to be on that one airc
38 IADCA : I tend to agree, but the courts are split over what accommodation is reasonable here.[Edited 2007-09-20 02:14:39]
39 Bloodyrascal : Honestly if you were in that situation and you were sitting next to a handicapped person how would they be able to move? trust me those odds maybe ve
40 Siege2L : Whoever is right, whoever is wrong, the problem is lack of consistency. I hope the pax involved had saved his previous boarding passes, receipts, FF s
41 Bok269 : Buildings also don't fly throught the air at Mach .80 7 miles above the earth with tons of kerosene aboard. Buildings also provide for larger egress
42 EA CO AS : What the CRO said and what the customer "heard" are likely two entirely different things. CROs are trained how to present this information, and "Sorr
43 Wukka : Just as much as his wheelchair evacuation blocks at least a quarter of the stairwells in a burning 20 story building trapping scores of people betwee
44 OHLHD : I wanted to add: Every airline has an Ground Services Manual in which it is clearly stated when a disabled passenger can traveled and under what circu
45 Cubsrule : Apparently, US doesn't always follow theirs.
46 L410Turbolet : Maybe not the disabled pax themselves, but the moment anything wrong happens to them the arline will have the disabled pax's relatives with an army o
47 Cubsrule : Let's leave aside what the law says, as it's conflicting (and my fellow attorneys and law students have posted most or all of what's relevant above).
48 OHLHD : Was this action against their GSM?
49 Flighty : No. And neither do most airlines. Paralyzed (waist-down) people fly all the time without attendants. There is nothing wrong with that. To play the "s
50 IADCA : Exactly. And in legal terms, let's look at it this way: most of the people here defending US basically are saying that their policy (which is agreed
51 Cubsrule : I have no idea, but their GSM either states that they should have let him fly unattended or they shouldn't have, and yet they did both. So at some po
52 EA CO AS : This wasn't a matter of a "USAirways regulation" - this was a denial based on provisions of the ACAA itself. The question here isn't whether or not y
53 Post contains images OHLHD : Thanks for that. Maybe a US agent can tell us. However I would not tell what our GSM says.
54 Mike89406 : I think this is the most important statement here. One minute the airlines are lax about enforcing rules, and later on they start going by the book a
55 Cubsrule : At this point, I'd say that, for US, this is far more about public relations than about potential liability.
56 IADCA : I don't disagree with that at all. What I was getting at was people who seemed to be hiding behind the US Airways regulation as if it had the same fo
57 Cubsrule : I'm not so sure that's a bad argument. US' transportation of him in the past created an expectation that they would again, presumably inducing him to
58 N1120A : Airlines can be sued pretty much anywhere in the US, but generally they are going to be sued where the alleged injury happened or in their HQ jurisdi
59 Nzrich : Do you know the figures on how many back injuries ar caused by lifting Paralyzed passengers .. Yes you are taught how to help them but in some cases
60 Bok269 : Last time I checked, most stairwells are wider than a 737 aisle. Also, just because a 737 has 8 exit doors, doesn't mean they will all be accessible
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airline Boarding Pass Prints Pax Name As "welcome" posted Fri Mar 2 2007 00:03:59 by Jimyvr
AC Fines Man For "deliberately" Delaying Flight. posted Wed Sep 20 2006 17:59:57 by SQuared
When Will US Airlines Return To The "black?" posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:16:44 by 7E72004
MAN's Responce To BBC "Whistleblower" posted Fri Sep 10 2004 17:42:29 by BMI701EGCC
Boarding In "Zones" posted Fri Feb 6 2004 12:08:05 by Dlx737200
Air Algérie At MAN... Off To A "Bad" Start posted Wed Nov 27 2002 18:07:26 by David_itl
"The United Airlines-US Airways Deal Is Dead." posted Mon Apr 2 2001 23:51:57 by Imkeww
Boeing Create "New" Runway At LHR! posted Sun Sep 16 2007 11:13:24 by Readytotaxi
First "major" Problems For DeHavilland/Bombardier? posted Fri Sep 14 2007 23:33:44 by Abletofly
E170 From Feb CLE Incident Gets New "Head" posted Mon Sep 10 2007 23:37:02 by Rampkontroler