[abutterfinger25]

Originally Posted by WONTFLYDELTAEVERAGAIN

Delta/Northwest, finally answered my complaint. Only took them 3-weeks, but its obvious that they really don't care about customers, so this came as not suprise.

They did admit they made a mistake and offered me a $100 credit. I've written to them to "Shove" the credit and kiss my business good bye.

The fact that "I HAD TO WALK" to my connection has been twisted by you ignorant morans to suite your own needs and keep this discussion going.

I STRUGGLED WITH NO HELP to my connection, which thankfully wasn't too far away. I spent the next two days recovering because of this assinine "mistake" by Delta.

As state, I WILL NEVER FLY DELTA AGAIN.

I thank those of you who have offered factual information, and I have filed a complaint with the DOT.

On a personal note, I think its Atlanta. This is the most shabbily run airport I have ever witnessed. Disorganized, dirty, and rude, seems to be the Standard Operating Proceedure for this bunch. Honestly never seen such an unprofessional bunch of people, who get paychecks, for doing a job. I will avoid Delta and Atlanta at all costs in the future.

For those who offered help, Thank you!

For those of you who made excuses, defended the Delta people who admitted that screwed up, UP YOURS! I truly wish on you, a disability, and then run into people like yourselves, and see how you handle it!

To the folks who run this forum, thanks for providing a way for someone who is disabled to air a complaint and get some help!

Delta is one shabby airlines, and people with disabilities should avoid it and Atlanta airport at all costs.

I wish I got in on this thread at the start. I will try to answer some of the questions I saw in one reply.

First, to the original poster. A carrier has 30 business days to reply to a written complaint claiming a violation of the Air Carrier Access Act. A reply of 3 weeks is normal.

Butch - the "Severe mobility impariments" is in regards to enplaining assistance for smaller aircraft when there is not level entry boarding. If there is no jetbridge, carriers must enplane passengers with a lift or other device. There are some aircraft types where using a lift could damage the aircraft. Therefore, if the passenger can not climb the stairs to get in, then they just can't travel in those aircraft types since carrier personnel are not allowed to hand carry a passenger into or out of the aircraft, except during an emergency evacuation.

Getoutthere - It does not matter that the wheelchair service is a third party. The carrier's contract that service out and are responsible for the actions of their contractors. (thanks to Jim, Judge and Jetliner for making this statement)

Jr - A passenger with a disability is considered anyone with an impairment that limits one or more life functions. Walking is a life function. Therfore, even if the passenger can walk, the fact that they still needed assistance protects them under the rule.

Jetliner - There is no set "15 minute rule" written into the reg-text. It just says carriers must provide timely assitance. DOT has taken the position, that a wait of 15 minutes or more would be considered untimely. However, this is normally for ad hoc requests where the carrier has no prior request or the passenger is just arriving at the terminal for the first time. It does not apply for passengers on incoming aircraft. For those passengers, the wheelchair needs to be there as soon as the passengers is able to exit the aircrft. The carrier knows when the plane arrives and the carrier knows the passenger is arriving. They need to have a wheelchair present.

Gromit - If all the chairs on in use, the carrier is "screwed". We may be a little understanding if it happens once. But if there is a continued pattern of running out of chairs, then the first words out of any of our enforcement staff would be "then get more chairs."

It is allowed if not required by some federal agency (Butterfinger can help me on this) that 1 (one) wheelchair will be allowed on the aircraft to be stored in the forward closet. So taking your wheelchair and not gate-checking it could be an option.

Yes, carriers are required to have space on the aircraft for at least 1 standard sized folding wheelchair. If that space happens to be the closest, than the wheelchair gets priority over any other passenger AND CREW items places in the closes. Provided that the passenger requests to pre-board the aircraft. If the passenger elects to board with the general public, then the closet is first come first serve. [I don't agree but that is how the rule is written]. Also, if the closet is being used by carry-on items from people who boarded on a previous leg and are continuing, than the wheelchair passenger is again SOL. [Again, I don't agree] DOT does have demensions for what we consider a "standard sized" wheelchair but off hand, I can't quite recall what they are.

[WONTFLYDELTAEVERAGAIN]

I was very nice to everyone in Atlanta, they weren't nice to me, and yes I do hope people like you end up disabled so you can stew in your own mess.

People like you make assumptions, based on your own personal prejudices.

The first three letters of assumption pretty much sum you up!

Clearly, you are a moron, a BIG MORON.

[Gromit801]

Originally Posted by abutterfinger25

Gromit - If all the chairs on in use, the carrier is "screwed". We may be a little understanding if it happens once. But if there is a continued pattern of running out of chairs, then the first words out of any of our enforcement staff would be "then get more chairs."

The thing is, who gets the penalty? When I flew last week, I asked one of the CSA,s who is responsible for the wheelchairs. She told me the airport owns the wheelchairs, and they have to put in a request (usually just a phone or radio call) to the airport porters for a wheelchair.

So if there aren't enough to go around, who gets in trouble? The carrier or the airport?

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by WONTFLYDELTAEVERAGAIN

I was very nice to everyone in Atlanta, they weren't nice to me, and yes I do hope people like you end up disabled so you can stew in your own mess.

People like you make assumptions, based on your own personal prejudices.

The first three letters of assumption pretty much sum you up!

Clearly, you are a moron, a BIG MORON.

How many people in Atlanta did you call a moron that day? Clearly you have issues and the sooner those are resolved the easier your life will be. I feel sorry for you. Very pathetic indeed.

[JR in Orlando]

I am sorry for any negative feelings you had reading the replies. Our questions do not come from personal prejudice, but from the commonly observed situation where people claim to be disabled in order to get an advantage, e.g. parking place. I know people who have disable parking stickers (for those unable to walk more than 200 feet), yet who go camping or go walking through the malls. [We won't even go into exagerated disability claims to get SSI benefits.]

When someone says they waited for a wheelchair, but then walked, the question naturally arises could they have walked in the first place? If you would first blame all the obese, older, or healthy people who have wrongfully claimed to be disabled, then you would find far greater acceptance and help for those truly disabled.

[jimworcs]

Yeah, we hear this all the time about how you "know" people abuse this. The problem is.. your assumptions are often based on prejudice. There are many people who have "hidden disabilities", which are not readily apparent to the casual observer, but no less real for all that. The issue is that the DOT requires you to meet the needs of any passenger who states that they require assistance due to a disability. It is not for airline employees to play "guess the disability" or to put their own value judgements on what they feel is acceptable. We are far too judgemental... for example, I had a patient who had serious asthma problems and she also developed polycystic disease in her kidney's. Her sedentary lifestyle, combined with depression caused her to gain a significant amount of weight. She had her disability sticker long before she was overweight, due to her asthma. However, once she became fat, all of God's Judges appeared. Comments were regularly made which suggested perhaps she wouldn't be so breathless if she wasn't so obese, or implying that her disability was self inflicted. Well, perhaps if these employee's, who are paid to provide the service, and which is mandated by federal regulation; could find a little compassion and do their jobs, without the editorial, the passengers like the OP would have a slightly better travel experience. The only problem is what will we do with all the spare high horses.

[abutterfinger25]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

There are many people who have "hidden disabilities", which are not readily apparent to the casual observer, but no less real for all that. The issue is that the DOT requires you to meet the needs of any passenger who states that they require assistance due to a disability. It is not for airline employees to play "guess the disability" or to put their own value judgements on what they feel is acceptable.

Well said Jim.

To the OP... Have you filed a complaint with my office? Jetliner gave the link in an earlier post, but here it is again. Based on what I read of your post and the fact that the carrier seems to concede that they messed up I would think that the analyst who handles the file would find a violation.

However, we do not normally take enforcement action on a single complaint. It is just not cost effective (that is an argument/discussion for another day). But when we do seek a civil penalty, all past complaints and violations are use to come up with a monetary penalty. Also, some people have used our findings to seek compensation in the court system.

[jimworcs]

Did you miss out the link?

[JR in Orlando]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Her sedentary lifestyle, combined with depression caused her to gain a significant amount of weight. She had her disability sticker long before she was overweight, due to her asthma. However, once she became fat, all of God's Judges appeared. Comments were regularly made which suggested perhaps she wouldn't be so breathless if she wasn't so obese, or implying that her disability was self inflicted.

Your patient ate the food. Your patient lead a sedentary lifestyle. No one forced to her to do so, or caused her obesity but her. With whatever medical background you have, do you deny that "she wouldn't be so breathless if she wasn't so obese? Anyone who said that to her was in fact correct; as was any implication that her voluntary obesity contributed to her mobility/medical problems. One need only look on the internet to see that obesity is a major contributor to many medical problems.

I believe with the aging and physical decline of the American population, we need to tighten the air line rules to define a disability for these purposes as what traditionally has been defined as disabled, e.g. paralyzed. We need to do so, in order to avoid the time when a large percentage of flyers claim to be disabled simply because they have chosen not to exercise and to eat instead. Why should we have more compassion for obese people then we do for smokers, each of whom by their personal actions have contributed to their problems.

[jimworcs]

JR, I have compassion for all people with a disability regardless of the cause. If a smoker has COPD or lung cancer they should still be treated with dignity and compassion, regardless of whether it was self inflicted or not. So many things are self inflicted.. if you engage in car racing or dangerous sports and become injured are you entitled to be regarded with compassion, or are their injuries "self inflicted"? I linked the obesity to her depression... did you miss that deliberately or are people with mental health problems "not deserving" in your opinion. This is a very dangerous road to travel... because first they go for the smokers, then the obese, then those with mental health problems, then those with alcohol and drug problems, then those who were speeding, then those who do dangerous sports, then those who didn't eat a healthy diet, then those..etc etc.. where would it all end. Did Christopher Reeves deserve compassion.. after all if he didn't go horse riding that wouldn't have happened. It is just a minefield and sooner or later JR.. they will get to you. When they do, suddenly you will find you'd like a bit of compassion.

[JR in Orlando]

I believe everyone should be treated with dignity. I also believe in compassion on an individual basis. However, actions mandated by law are not and never will constitute compassion. They are nothing more than the hand of government controlling our lives. An individual should be allowed to act as they want, but they should also bear the consequences of their decisions. While we as a society should require the airlines to provide for those who truly cannot walk, e.g. paralyzed, the airlines should not be required to provide for those who have limited their ability to walk or have chosen not to walk through lack of exercise, smoking, or obesity. This assistance is not free for the airlines. Why should mobile passengers pay for those who have chosen to not to walk? Where is the morality in that, anymore than making working people pay to support those who can, but chose not to work.

The airlines should provide assistance to those truly disabled, but not for those who by their own actions have limited their mobility. That would simply be the consequence of their actions. Allowing people to face the consequence of their actions, is not a lack of compassion.

If the op herein could not walk, that would be one thing. But the op obviously could walk, because he finally did so. If he walked more often, maybe it would be easier and better for him. Why should it be the duty of the airlines to assist someone who can walk, but doesn't want to because his former decisions have made walking difficult for him. I submit the airline rules should be changed to limit the requirement to provide assistant to something more than just some person saying they are disabled and asking for it. The person should be truly disabled. This needs to be addressed before the demand for assistance overwelms the system.

[jimworcs]

Wow... have you considered invading Poland JR?

[abutterfinger25]

Originally Posted by JR in Orlando

The airlines should provide assistance to those truly disabled, but not for those who by their own actions have limited their mobility. That would simply be the consequence of their actions. Allowing people to face the consequence of their actions, is not a lack of compassion.

Please remember this statement the next time you break an apendage engaging in some activity. After all, you will not be "truly disabled" only temporarily disabled, so therefore, under your own arguments, you should not recieve any assistance.

Originally Posted by JR in Orlando

This assistance is not free for the airlines. Why should mobile passengers pay for those who have chosen to not to walk? Where is the morality in that, anymore than making working people pay to support those who can, but chose not to work.

Just wondering... are you one who complains about the newly instituted checked bag fee? Afterall, this is the same logic that the carriers followed when they instituted that fee. After all, why should the business travels who carry on their bags pay to support those who check bags.

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Did you miss out the link?

Opps. http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/problems.htm

[JR in Orlando]

The difficulty with these discussions is that there is a sliding scale between those who everyone would agree is disabled to those who have become obese or physical limited due to their own actions, not associated with any medical condition. The question is where should the cut-off be with regard to REQUIRED assistance by the airlines. I believe it should be near the end of scale for those truly disabled at the moment. Obviously, if one breaks their leg snowboarding, they are at that moment disabled. I believe the rules should be modified to make REQUIRED assistance be limited to those who are nearer that end of the scale. It should not be that one can simply request a wheelchair and by doing so, be deemed disabled and entitiled to assistance.

I don't have any objection to the baggage fee, even though I check baggage. I won't start to complain until they put a credit card swiper next to the emergency oxagen masks.

I have eaten a lot of polish sausage, does that count?

[The_Judge]

If someone requests a wheelchair, they are entitled to it. End of subject. This is simple and clear cut. To deny their request brings possible legal action. I equate it to all those cop shows on tv. Once a suspect requests a lawyer, all the talking is over. He gets his/her lawyer. Same with a w/c. Probably a bad comparison but it's the best I can think of at the moment.

[jimworcs]

I don't get it JR...

If you break your leg snowboarding, surely that is self inflicted, like smoking and obesity. How would they qualify? Or do you place a value judgement on what is "self inflicted" and what isn't. Those who are injured in a way you approve of are ok, and those you don't are not.

Actually, your system is far worse for the airlines and gate agents. It puts discretion into the system. This is highly subjective.. as illustrated by your distinction earlier relating to the woman who needed a wheelchair before she got fat. Under your system, she qualified when the cause was asthma, but when she got fat, which may have exacerbated her condition, she stopped qualifying.

It is nonsensical and puts gate agents and airline employees in an invidious position, which would likely create far more problems than it would ever solve.

The current rule is potentially open to abuse without a doubt.... but your proposed solution is guaranteed to be abusive. Especially if people with your somewhat extreme judgementalism were given the power to decide..

[JR in Orlando]

Breaking your leg snowboarding is a quick result, but usually is not the result of one's intentional actions, since if one skied as intended then one would not end up breaking one's leg. Smoking and obesity are a long term activities in which the people know they will be hurt by their INTENDED actions, e.g. smoking, eating. These are more like standing on a railroad track for hours, until a train comes along. Yet, people continue to do them.

Just because people become obese, does not mean that they are not disabled, as with asthma. My position is that people who can walk, should walk: e.g. in Florida, a handicap parking sticker is only given to persons who cannot walk "200 feet" without resting because of certain medical conditions. F.S. 320.0848. This requires certification from a doctor.

The "200 feet" requirement may need to be greater for airline travel, but the current rule could be modified with requirement of a doctor certification, as with "emotional support" animals. Wouldn't this solve the problem of discretion?

The open ended nature of the current system a) reduces the service to those truly disabled because they are lost among those who simply don't want to walk, and b) cost airlines unnecessary monies which are passed on to us. How is it extreme judgementalism to say that the airlines should not be FORCED to do something, which the individual flyer may and could do for himself.

[abutterfinger25]

Originally Posted by JR in Orlando

Just because people become obese, does not mean that they are not disabled, as with asthma. My position is that people who can walk, should walk: e.g. in Florida, a handicap parking sticker is only given to persons who cannot walk "200 feet" without resting because of certain medical conditions. F.S. 320.0848. This requires certification from a doctor.

I may not live in Florida but I am 100% positive that if someone who is obese, be it because of a medical condition (seen or unseen) or because they ate themselve into their situation, can get a medical certification from a doctor stating that they can not walk 200 feet without resting. And thus obtaining their handicap parking sticker.


But to get back on the topic of the original post. Almost any passenger who has some mobility will try and make their way to the departure gate in order to make a connection if the carrier fails to provide a timely wheelchair. In no way does this minimize their need for assistance.

[abutterfinger25]

Just out of curiosity, where do you place pregnant woman in your world? In the majority of the cases, their own actions led to their current conditions.

[JR in Orlando]

In Florida, I'm sure many people game the system and get handicap parking stickers from their friendly doctor, even if they could walk a mile. I understand your position that if there is no wheelchair, people will try to walk to their next gate. You say that it does not minimize their need for assistance. I say that it just shows they did not need the REQUIRED assistance to start with and the rules need to change.

I don't think at this point, any of us are going to be convinced one way or the other from our original beliefs. That is frequently the way it is with issues such as what is a disability and to what extent should government require companies to spend money and modify their behavior. Maybe we can just agree to disagree. I enjoyed the discussion and the input has given me things to think about.

[JR in Orlando]

A quick response: I think that few women claim to be pregnant in order to get the benefits thereof. In fact, pregnancy benefits society and should be given the assistance needed. The local Public grocery store had a parking space up front for pregnant women with a picture of a stork on it. I thought was great. Unfortunately, so many other people parked in it that it was taken out.

In contrast, many people, believe, claim a disability in order to get SSI, a parking space, and other benefits and that results in reducing what the truly disabled people can receive. There is no societal downside to making such a claim, and thus by law rule, or regulations the government must prevent such people from gaming the system. Maybe another very disabled persons would have received their wheelchair quicker, if the original poster had simply walked which he was capable of doing. Certainly I have seen people who park in the handicap space and walk around the mall, while someone in a wheelchair has to come from far out because all the handicap spaces were taken by such people. Pregnancy is not the type of condition one would normally expect to be falsely claimed.

[jimworcs]

We are making progress JR..

Not everyone who smokes gets lung disease or cancer.. and not everybody who snowboards breaks a leg, but both outcomes are self inflicted. The person who smokes isn't deliberately trying to get cancer, but understands the risk, the person who snowboards is not trying to break a leg, but understands the risk..

However, you appear to have shifted your position on my obese patient who had asthma ... originally you went after her because she gained weight and it was self inflicted.. you appear now to have accepted her disability on reflection.. but doesn't this just prove the point.

The original poster was abandoned by Delta and dragged herself to the gate... this becomes proof that she didn't need the wheelchair in the first place. This is extreme judgementalism I am afraid. I work with people with complex disabilities. I have plenty of clients who could drag themselves more than 200 metres, but they would pay a heavy price the rest of the day and why should they? There are other disabilities which could require assistance, but which don't meet your criteria.

What do you make of this example? I once had a patient who was travelling to through Brussels on the late, but not lamented, Sabena. He had a brain injury, and had significant problems with disorientation. We asked Sabena to help him to make his connection in Brussels. Their suggestion? They put a request for a wheelchair in the system. This meant someone would meet him and take him to his next gate and make sure he got on the plane. Seems a legitimate and sensible solution to me.. but not allowed under your scheme on the grounds that he can walk 200 yards...

[abutterfinger25]

Originally Posted by JR in Orlando

... That is frequently the way it is with issues such as what is a disability...

Actually, there is no debate on that. The ADA and the Air Carrier Access Act defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment (permanent or temporary) that limits one or more major life functions.

While the dictionary just deines it as a disabled condition, incapacity, handicap, legal incapacity or disqualification.

None of these make a difference between how the impairment occured.

Oh, and by the way; pregnancy, in and of itself, does not guarantee a woman the services required under any US disability laws. She is covered only if her pregnancy condition limits one or more life functions.

__

Now onto your subject of folks using their disability, or appearance of a disability, to game the system. The will always be unmoral and unscruptuous people who will try to milk the system.

* Folks will claim their pets are service animals to avoid paying pet charges
* Perons will falsify their records for SSI payments and that all important parking space.

But it also works in reverse as well. There are disabled passengers who will try to use their disability to get services that they are not entitled to. A better seat assignenment, for example.

I even had one case where a quadriplgic who was using the attendant rule to have his buddy fly on vacation for free.

It is not the goverment's job to regulate morality. The rules are in place to help those who need help.

__
disclaimer - the opinions expressed in this post, and most of the other posts in this thread, are those of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions and policies of the US Department of Transportation.

[JR in Orlando]

The law may be clear, but that does not mean that the interpretation of the law or the need to change the law is not debatable. Otherwise, why would there be lawsuits and administrative hearings as to what regulations say, should say, and should mean. I understand the law as now written states these people should have assistance. I believe the law and the accompanying regulations should be changed to more clearly define and limit "who needs help."

p.s. By its very nature, government regulates morality in various ways, e.g. no prostitution, no cannabis, etc. Even the ADA law and the Air Carrier Access law in effect regulates morality because those able to lobby the government wanted to make everyone "more compassionate" with regard to diabled persons. For years business acted as compassionate or non-compassionate as they chose. The law changed, requiring them to meet someone else's concept of compassion for the disabled as set forth in the law. Its one thing for a company to be accomodating as did Sabrina with the disabled passenger in JimWorcs example. Its quite another to use the power of law to make them do so. By definition, the passage of such laws seeks to regulate and control people's morality and action for some '"higher good" as that higher good is perceived by someone.

[jimworcs]

JR,
This is an issue of civil rights. It is just as unacceptable to exclude people with a disability from public services as it was to exclude black people from the lunch counter at Woolworths.

The built environment was created by people... and they built it in such as way it excludes many of the citizens of the country from accessing it. The ADA and other similar legislation around the world is civil rights legislation aimed at reducing this exclusion. It is not even particularly onerous.

To argue that people with a disability should be denied their civil rights because some people try to defraud the system by claiming SSI is illogical and immoral.

I don't know what makes you think that people able bodied people should have more rights than people with a disability. There should be no distinctions between those we think are the "deserving" disabled (in your vernacular, the paralysed) and those you clearly don't think are deserving, those with mental health problems, obesity or smoking relating illnesses. It is just utterly unenforceable and it is iniquitous.

Can we also dispel the idea that disabled people are seeking "special treatment" or "priviledges" by asking for assistance from airlines. They are simply seeking to have access to the same public services that everyone else have. Wheelchair users are perceived to get special treatment, as they often board first. What everyone forgets is that they often disembark last and are left languishing in chairs sitting around waiting for people to assist them. If you are changing planes in Chicago or Atlanta, the distances involved are often overwhelming and the are simply asking that the playing field be levelled so that they can access the same public services as everyone else, without being judged.

After all... there but for the grace of god....