THE NEXT STEP IN THE AIRLINE BATTLE by Kenneth Jernigan For almost twenty years the National Federation of the Blind has been working to try to get the nation's airlines to treat blind passengers like first-class citizens. We have called attention through article after article in the Braille Monitor to the increasing tendency of airline personnel to treat the blind like wards or small children. We have warned that arrogance and tyranny unresisted feed upon themselves and lead to complete subjugation. Although the patterns of discrimination and second- class treatment have been painfully obvious, there have been some who have said that we are overdramatizing and giving too much prominence to the airline issue--that we are giving it too much priority and making of it more than it is. In this connection the two letters which follow are instructive. Here they are: San Antonio, Texas August 2, 1991 Mr. Harold Snider Deputy Executive Director National Council on Disability Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Snider: It was a pleasure meeting you at the July 17 meeting at the Air Transport Association. One purpose of this letter is to thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions during that meeting. A second purpose is to seek your assistance and recommendations for gathering more information needed to construct the aircraft evacuation (AIREVAC) model. In our effort, we are seeking information on a variety of topics from a variety of sources. You and your colleagues at the National Council on Disability are an excellent source of expertise to help guide us in some of these areas. Following are some questions for which you might be able to provide answers or help by directing us to the best source(s). Please provide us information, data, references and thoughts on any of the following questions. We need to determine the incidence of air travel by disabled individuals. Specifically, we need to determine the probability that an airline passenger falls into one or more disabled categories. The disabled categories that we are currently using are those offered by an FAA report by Blethrow, Garner, Lowrey, Busby, & Chandler (1977): Neurological: Blindness, Deafness, Mental Deficiency Neuromuscular: Cerebral Palsy, Old Age, Paraplegia and Quadriplegia, Hemiplegia, Muscular Dystrophy, Multiple Sclerosis, and Polio Orthopedic: Arthritis, Arm Cast, Lower-Leg Cast and Amputee, Congenital Birth Defects Other: Obesity 1. There are two questions here. First, do you have any data that would provide us an estimate of the probability that a passenger would fall into each of the above categories. 2. The second question is whether the categories above are adequate, suitable, and comprehensive enough to use in our project. 3. As you know, the ability of other passengers to recognize a disabled individual as one who might need assistance in an emergency is considered to be an important variable. Do you have any information or insights about how this variable might be quantified and measured for different disability categories? 4. Do you have any information about the probability that a disabled individual falling into one of the above categories would be traveling with a personal attendant, relative, or friend who would assist him/her in an emergency? 5. Do you have any information on what disabled individuals expect to happen in an emergency situation. For example, does a physically immobile person expect someone to come and assist him/her in an evacuation situation? 6. What educational materials are available for disabled travelers to better prepare them for emergency evacuations and does the disabled population know about and use these materials? Once again, we greatly appreciate any information you can provide. Letters also are being sent to the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Air Transport Association to request related information for the model. Thank you for your time and support, James E. Schroeder Applied Human Factors, Inc. (Consultant to Southwest Research Institute) ____________________ Washington, D.C. November 8, 1991 Mr. Horace Deets Executive Director American Association of Retired Persons Washington, D.C. Dear Horace: As you may know, the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 ("the Act") was intended by Congress to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in air travel. My own experience with air carriers since the passage of the Act suggests that compliance has been half hearted, at best. In fact, thanks to the airlines, air travel has been the only troublesome part of my job as Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment opportunity Commission. It has come to my attention recently that the Air Transport Association (ATA), supported by many segments of the airline industry, is making efforts to chip away at various provisions of the Act, at least one of which should be of considerable interest to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). I have learned that the ATA has commissioned a $200,000 study to demonstrate that it would be unsafe to allow more than a certain number of people with disabilities (the number is as yet unspecified) to fly on the same flight. In order to make their point, I believe that the ATA will have to make an argument based upon function, rather than upon specific, named disabilities, since the ATA is going to contend that it is the functional limitations of certain people which will make them a danger to themselves and to other passengers in the event of an emergency. Evidence of this line of thinking is contained in a letter from a consultant to the Southwest Research Institute, who have been commissioned to do the study, to Harold Snider of the National Council on Disability (see attached copy). You will note that the letter includes "old age" as a category of people who might be excluded from air travel. Obesity is also mentioned. I think that, before they are finished, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will have to include parents who are travelling with small children as well. It is my understanding that the ATA intends to propose a rule to the FAA once the study is completed. The rule would limit the number of people who are members of the various categories named who would be allowed to fly on the same flight. I recall a study that indicated that almost half of all older Americans have a functional limitation of some sort. Thus, an elderly person who might have some difficulty moving about rapidly might arrive at an airport with a valid ticket and be told that he or she could not board the flight because the allotted number of places had already been taken up by other elderly people, or by people with disabilities, people who are overweight, or parents travelling with small children. I hope you agree with me that this sort of nonsense should be stopped. I find it particularly offensive when I think of all the other safety precautions that might be taken which the FAA refuses to require of airlines. For example, even though most European airlines have widened exit rows to make it easier for passengers to disembark in an emergency, the FAA refuses to promulgate a rule that would require American carriers to widen exit rows, almost certainly because the carriers would object that they would lose money. Similarly, the FAA will not require U.S. carriers to use flame-retardant materials throughout airplane cabins, flame-retardant fuel, etc. The list is long.... I hope all is well with you. We should get together for lunch soon. Sincerely, Evan J. Kemp, Jr., Chairman Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ____________________ These letters speak for themselves. Let those who think we have overdramatized and given too much prominence to this issue consider the chilling possibilities. If the airlines and the FAA can successfully join forces to make rules limiting the number of so-called disabled passengers who may ride on the same plane, even this may not be the end of it. The next step will be still further custody, control, and exclusion. Despite the passage of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (passed only a few months ago), the trend is ominous. It must be recognized, publicized, and resisted--and the counterattacks must come now. It is always more difficult to reverse a bad decision than to prevent it in the first place. No, we have not given too much prominence to the airline issue, and we have certainly not overdramatized it. It is a major threat to our quest for first-class treatment and equal status in society, a substantial barrier to our march to freedom. We were right in passing the resolution at our 1991 National Convention declaring the airline issue to be one of our top priorities, and we would be acting irresponsibly if we were to fail to pursue it with vigor and determination. We join with the chairman of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and all of the rest who oppose the unreasonable and discriminatory behavior of the airline industry in its treatment of the blind and those with other disabilities. And make no mistake! We intend to prevail. We do not seek strife or confrontation, but we will do what we have to do. We are simply no longer willing to be second-class citizens. That day is gone forever. We will win by reason and persuasion if we can, by stronger measures if we must. But in any event we intend to win. This issue is too important to permit it to be otherwise.