Handicapped Passengers: Who Is Ultimately Handicapped?

What do you do when the
rights of the handicapped
traveler potentially
endanger other
passengers?
My wife recently flew on an AirTran flight--she's a big AirTran fan--and was delighted to find herself in an aisle seat way forward, guaranteeing a quick exit. She's a carry-on-only pro, so that's important to her. (Susan recently spent a week aboard the Orient Express, where dinners are black-tie, and was the only passenger to do the entire trip with one carry-on bag.)
But more to the point, the AirTran cabin attendant asked for a front-of-the-cabin volunteer willing to switch to the only available seat, in a row at the very rear of the airplane, so that a handicapped passenger could board as easily as possible. The aisle-seat occupant behind Susan volunteered to do so in
exchange for a future-flight voucher from AirTran.
But here's what then happened:
The person who took the aisle seat directly behind Susan boarded with the help of forearm crutches and turned out to be handicapped in a manner that, as soon as he settled painfully into his seat, required him to manipulate his withered legs fully into the aisle, where he left them for the duration of the flight. (In fact, the attendants wheeling the drinks cart down the aisle had to persuade him to move his legs so they could get by, which with great trouble he did.)
Question: Since flight attendants won't even let us leave a handbag under our legs or fail to raise the tray table or seatback, all in aid of supposedly unimpeded access to the aisle in case of an emergency evacuation, what is the rationale for allowing an aisle-seat passenger to apparently block the evacuation of the two people sitting inboard of him? (If this person had been able to move at all in an emergency, it would only have been very slowly and awkwardly.)
Airbus recently demonstrated that its Flying Whale A380 double-decker can be fully evacuated of its nearly 900 max-capacity passengers in the mandated 90 seconds, using a cabinful of company employees and hired volunteers as guinea pigs. But were they representative of a typical load of passengers of all ages, sizes, and physical capabilities? I wonder.
FAA regulations stipulate that at least 40 percent of evacuation-test passengers be female and 35 percent over age 50, and that at least three must carry infant-size mannequins; European standards are similar. But I'll bet there wasn't a single barely mobile person who required crutches among the Airbus 380 swarm.
What is fair for the handicapped, and what's fair for those of us who aren't? What do you think?













A good and provocative topic for a post; I look forward to following the discussion.
The genesis of the problem is how tightly packed aircraft are, especially in steerage. You can add handicapped seating to other "public" modes of transit -- buses, commuter trains, even subways -- without unduly inconveniencing other passengers. (Access to stations is a different matter, of course.)
But aircraft are so tightly packed that anyone other than a 5'6" person who's slim (but tall enough to reach the overhead bin) is inconvenienced somehow.
I have a friend who's 6'8" and used to fly a LOT. Despite being fairly slim for his height, he suffered agonies because his company couldn't always pay the cost of a business class seat for him.
He'd request one every time, and sometimes he'd get a sympathetic gate agent who could give him a bulkhead or exit-row. But he too had to leave his legs in the aisle if stuffed into a 27" pitch seat.
And no one, including his firm, HAD to do anything about it 'cause height is clearly not a "handicap".
This thread could spill into "accommodations for non-standard people in general" ... thoughts?
Posted by: jvoelckercon | August 17, 2007 at 09:42 AM
I hate being stuck in economy. Why do they feel the need to cram so many people into such a small space. I think most people would gladly pay an extra $50-$100 or so if they could have a comfortable and un-claustrophobic seat. (But why would the airlines do that when they can charge you an exhorbitant amount for business and first?)
I can't imagine how typical flyers would manage to evacuate a plane in less than 90 seconds. Of almost every flight I've been on, I've seen someone who can't even walk through the airport, because they're elderly perhaps, and they arrive at the gate in a wheel chair. What about them? How can they be expected to evacuate a plane? And they very well could impede the people around them from evacuating as well, which isn't fair to anyone.
What I want to know is why we can send a man to the moon (and do all kinds of other technological feats) and we can't have better safety on airplanes. For example, what about fire-retardant foam that would cushion people if the plane crashed (think that movie Demolition Man when he crashes the car and the car is filled with foam). Or perhaps super strong, yet lightweight material that wouldn't allow the fuel tanks to rupture, hence preventing an explosion, which is the reason in fatal accidents that most people don't survive. Mythbusters proved it's not the impact that kills, it's the fire, explosion and smoke.
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/mythbusters_killer_brace_posit.html
Posted by: tracker1312 | August 17, 2007 at 10:31 AM
A related issue - on every recent Southwest flight I've noticed the increasing number of pre-boards, the people who are allowed to board prior to the A, B or C lines, presumably with handicaps, unaccompanied minors or parents with children under 4 years of age. The reality is that there were more than 30 pre-boards on recent flights, and excusing the family of 7 who had one 10 year old in an ankle cast, the majority are in wheelchairs. Fair enough, if you're legitimately supposed to be using one. The problem is that at least 4 on those persons on each flight leapt up and walked easily to disembark - from their front of the plane seats. They should be ashamed.
Posted by: BarrettJohnson | August 17, 2007 at 11:57 AM
In an emergency, I believe most people would be helping the handicapped person, not bitching about him "blocking" their way. If they wouldn't help, Shame on them!!
Posted by: omaha51 | August 17, 2007 at 04:29 PM
I think that when they chose those seats they were labelled as "handicapped." Or atleast they are on most airline seat charts when you chose where you sit. You chose to sit there, just as you mentioned that your wife chose to sit there so she could rush off the plane. If the seat is designated for the handicapped, and you are not happy with the fact that your egress is being blocked by the person with crutches, ask to be reseated! It is your choice. If you are not comfortable doing that then I am not sure what to tell you. Look at it from this perspective. I am sure that the handicapped person in your row is not comfortable having to be stuffed into a small airline seat with their disability and block your path. Before I get the spate of angry responses, yes I know that some flights are full, and there might not be any other seats available, but it never hurts to speak up to the attendant about your concerns. I am hadicapped as well, but not severely so. Most people cannot tell that there is anything wrong with me. However, I recently began walking with a cane from time to time. There has been a definite difference in attitude, and quite a bit of discrimination when I use it. And I have noticed this when I need to use it.
Posted by: nipperd | August 17, 2007 at 04:54 PM
omaha51, no offense, but I don't believe that "most" people would help a handicap person off the plane in an emergency. Studies show you have 90 seconds to get off before the fuel tanks ignite and blow the whole thing up.
Many people might *say* they'd help someone, but in a survival situation, I think it tends to be every man or woman for themselves, whether we would like to admit that or not. I'm sure that most people would definitely help their own kin off a plane, especially their children. I doubt seriously that "most" would help strangers at their own expense (i.e. risking their life).
Whether this idea is right, wrong, or indifferent, I feel we need safer planes as I said in my post above, to protect everyone, especially those who couldn't get off the plane quickly in an emergency.
Posted by: tracker1312 | August 17, 2007 at 05:14 PM
BarrettJohnson, I'm amused by your tale of spry & agile wheelchair users. At DisneyWorld years ago, I was startled to see several healthy looking middle-aged women pushed to the head of a long line in wheelchairs who then got up, took some fairly violent thrill rides, and walked away--abandoning the chairs.
Clearly the wheelchairs were used just to jump the line. When I asked a staffer about this, he just sighed and rolled his eyes--a clear "yes".
Thirty preboards, on a flight with (presumably) 200 or so seats, also scares me. Is there a cap on how many wheelchair users can be accommodated on a flight (which may not be legal under the ADA). I doubt handicapped passengers are required to ID themselves when booking, but I have to think that at *some* ratio, the number of mobility-limited people gets so high it imperils the ability of everyone else to exit quickly.
Or perhaps, as noted above, everyone saves only themselves and their family?
As Americans get progressively more obese, I'd love to see independent studies on evacuation of aircraft using truly representative populations--not healthy and highly motivated airline & aerospace employees ... CNT, are you listening?
Posted by: jvoelckercon | August 18, 2007 at 09:55 AM
Disabled passengers on a plane?
How in the world could anyone say no to this? What do you want to do? Tell the young mother she can't bring her baby on board? Of course, the kid will most likely provide more than the three-ounce limit of liquid in the course of the flight!
In my experience, it is not the people with crutches or wheelchairs that cause problems, but the most "able" passengers who impede the process, with their "overnight" steamer trunks they want to cram into the overhead bin and their backpacks they swing at people's head going down the aisle.
Maybe airlines should make better use of those of us who can actually provide some help -- the way they do with the exit-window seat people. Perhaps something changed a bit around 9/11, but it is obvious to me that many of my fellow passengers -- and myself -- are willing to make lots of accommodation for people who need it, and would happily do anything we can to expedite the trip and take care of other people's needs. Maybe we should identify ourselves to the cabin crew; it wouldn't hurt for that overburdened part of humanity to know there are people willing to help out.
My guess is that some things have to fall into place before we can really dio that. Maybe Concierge could start something??
Posted by: Tek | August 19, 2007 at 07:35 PM
a
Posted by: noone | August 20, 2007 at 12:15 PM
I guess at least we know now that there are still some people willing to help in an emergency, and your best hope is to stay calm. This is a partial transcript from the "Today Show" about the recent China Air fire:
PAMELA CARUSO, AIRLINE FIRE SURVIVOR: I was in the middle of the plane, just in front of the wing. We were getting ready to get off. We had our baggage in the aisle. And someone yelled that there was a fire. It was small. It seemed to have gone out. Everybody said, everything is OK. It has gone out. And then it flared.
The entire front of the plane?through every window, we could just see flames.
ANN CURRY, ?THE TODAY SHOW?: Interestingly, people did not rush for the exits. In fact, your husband stopped and helped a man with crutches get off the plane, which might explain why so many people survived. How you explain this, that people did not panic?
CARUSO: The front of the plan was very calm. I do not know why. We filed off very easily and everybody just jumped off and ran. I didn?t look back to see how high the flame was, but it kept exploding and exploding. We kept running.
Posted by: lorib | August 24, 2007 at 09:01 AM