[abutterfinger25]

You make a good point there JR and I will give you the morality point on prostitution. But not the others. I'll leave the whole hemp discussion for another thread.

The ADA and ACAA are not morality driven laws, in such that they were not drafted and written to provide a helping hand to those with impairments. They were drafted to give those people equal access to those without impairments. They are eqality laws just like anti-discrimination laws. My morality analogy was directed towards those who know the existing laws and use them to their own advantage knowing that they are not entitled to those protections.

I think these are the people that "got your goat" and you are so adamently against. And I agree with you, these people should not get any benefits from the regulations and carriers should not have to shell out money to provide those services. However, your solution would deprive those people that the ACAA was designed to protect in order to prevent those (for lack of a better term) scumballs from milking the system.

The only people that truly know the level of assistance need is the passenger himself. By putting the decision in the hands of the carrier, you run the risk of a passenger who truly needs assistance, but his appearance says otherwise, is denied assistance by an agent based solely on the perception that the passenger does not need any help or even an attendant who is just lazy and does not want to do his/her job. (I am sure Jim would agree that there are such carrier personnel out there). So in short, you are going to have the same problems that exist now, but flipped. I hope you would agree that it is better to provide assistance to someone who does not need it, than to deny assistance to one who does.

[Putting back on the DOT hat for a second]

In Jim's example, a carrier would be within its right to say that the passenger can not complete his trip safely and would need to travel with attendant. (thus the whole attendant rule I alluded to earlier).

Now we would hope that the carrier would make the suggestion that Sabena did, and we would make that suggestion if we got involved before the travel dates.

Note: I am only refering to flights operated to, from or between 2 US airports. I do not want to comment on any other nations laws on this subject.

[Taking off the DOT hat for continued discussion]

[JR in Orlando]

JimWorc: That is a moral judgment on your part. There is a substantial difference between excluding black people from the lunch counter at Woolworths and people with disabilities. The rationale regarding black people is that other than the fact they are black, they are the same as every other person. Significantly, the color of their skin does not effect their abilities or what they need from others. In contrast, by definition a disabled person has something wrong with them, be it physical or mental. They do not have the abilities of a normal person or they would not be "disabled."

People with disabilities are seeking "special assistance" outside of what is provided normal people. While one can debate whether society should provide that to them, the reality is that they cannot do what normal people can, and need special assistance. Its not that they simply want the same opportunity as the normal people, they want addition help or assistance because without it, they cannot do what the normal person does. They and you should accept that the providing of such assistance is "special treatment." If one seeks assistance from others, the sad truth is that people are going to judge you and your contribution to your conditions, e.g. smoker w/ cancer - he smoked his whole life. That is why the government has stepped in and required the assistance of the airlines. (Didn't I just read a 26 year old man in England died from liver problems without medical help because he was an alcoholic? Isn't that a moral judgment.)

The whole 'there but for the grace of God" statement seeks to impose guilt on the healthy person, i.e. I should feel bad and therefore help the disabled. I don't know God's plans, but I know it is beyond my understanding.

[JR in Orlando]

Mr. AButterfinger25: I would just observe that even the concept of equality in America is based on morality. Slavery was legal everywhere and for about forever, until the British churchs and government set to overthrow that institution and rightfully so. The concept of equality is based on the moral belief that all men are created equal. The laws have changed to reflect what we now believe equality to mean. To say that ADA and ACAA are not morality driven ignores the underlying moral values in the concept of equality.

I agree that the passenger is in the best position to tell whether they need assistance. If everyone was honest, there would be no problem. In the absence of everyone being honest, however, I just believe there should be some gatekeeper to such services, even if it is just requiring a doctor's certification. As you discussed, it depends on where we think the system should error.

Its a lot like criminal justice: Is it better to have a criminal justice system which lets the guilty go to protect an innocent person from being convicted, or have a system which occassionally convicts the innocent in order to make sure the guilty are punished. Do we provide assistance to everyone so no disabled person gets left behind, or do we have stricter limits even though occassionally a disabled person may not get the assistance they need. There are moral and financial basis for either decision.

[pattis]

I have not posted on here in quite awhile but I thought I would join in this conversation. What needs to be remembered is that we are "customer service reps" that is what we provide...customer service. If someone requests a wheelchair then they should be provided one. Sure there are people that abuse this like anything else. However like someelse in this post mentioned (do not recall who) if requested and not provided it is opening ones self up for a lawsuit. I had a woman a few weeks back that wanted a wheelchair because she had a sprained wrist. (that's ridiculous) however after speaking with her for a bit she really needed assistance with her carryons when boarding the plane. I told her I would be happy to get her one, or if she would prefer I could carry her luggage down to the plane. She said she would like that. So she ended up happy and no problems arose out of it. The issue that I do have however are people that are very large and need to be pushed in a wheelchair. It is very difficult for a 120 lb woman to push a 300 lb person up a ramp. I know what you will say...get some strong guy to do it. I work at a small airport and a very small crew. That day we could spare no one else to come to gate and I don't think it would have been any easier for anyone else to do it. My back was out of whack for a while after that. So where does one draw the line...maybe someone that large should travel with a companion to assist them. I am not trying to sound prejudice of ovrweight people...I am not. However I do not want to become disabled because someone chose that lifestyle.

[jimworcs]

Originally Posted by JR in Orlando

Its a lot like criminal justice: Is it better to have a criminal justice system which lets the guilty go to protect an innocent person from being convicted, or have a system which occassionally convicts the innocent in order to make sure the guilty are punished. Do we provide assistance to everyone so no disabled person gets left behind, or do we have stricter limits even though occassionally a disabled person may not get the assistance they need. There are moral and financial basis for either decision.

Well I would argue it is better to have a system in which the guilty go free than the power of the state is used to deprive the innocent of their freedom. However, this is not such a good analogy. The consequences of someone asking for a wheelchair who doesn't need it are relatively trivial and I strongly suspect it is far less prevalent that you think it is. Asking for a wheelchair in airport is a hassle and significantly slows down your journey, particularly on landing. You seem to have merged the abuse of parking slots and SSI (very prevalent) with the abuse of wheelchairs at airports. You identified the OP as someone who didn't need a wheelchair in the first place. I would strongly disagree with your analysis, but this highlights just how unsatisfactory it is to attempt to draw the line. Even your suggested Doctors Letter is unsatisfactory, because someone can shop around doctors until they find one who is willing to sign. There is a thread on this forum where someone had a doctors note for a "companion" goose and took the goose on a plane.

The reason I have engaged in such detail on this thread is because this is a very significant issue and will increasingly become one. There is a very slippy slope here... and I don't shy away from the idea that there is a moral and values issue which underpins this debate. All people need to be valued and respected, and where possible, we should try to ensure that our society is as inclusive as possible. It is deeply offensive to suggest that exclusion of people who don't match a preconceived notion of perfection should be excluded because there is a cost consideration or that the inclusion is in effect a special privilege.

Airports are part of the built environment. It is not the fault of people with mobility problems that they face such barriers when trying to access a routine public amenity. All the more so when there are few alternatives. Driving and trains are not a particularly viable option for NY to LA trips for example. The law should require that public services such as airports should be fully accessible to those with impaired mobility, or support should be provided to overcome the barriers which have been built into the system.

JR, you have conducted this debate in a very straightforward manner and there is no intent by me to suggest that you are any less moral than me. My comment about there but for the grace of God relates to the fact that we are none of us in a position to know what will happen to us, but we do know that people are surviving catastrophic injuries that previously would have killed them and we are all living longer. These alone will result in ever growing numbers of people who have such impairments.

There is also the economic cost of excluding people. The number of people with a disability who are in full time paid competitive employment is 4 times greater than it was in the 1960s. The exclusion of these people from basic public services would have a massive economic cost to every one.

Finally, just to close on a point of fact. During the debate in the US relating to healthcare, the reporting of the NHS in the UK and how it works has been completely mis-represented. The 26 year old man was not denied a liver transplant. All people who have abused alcohol must have been off alcohol for a period of six months before they can be given a transplant. This is for clinical reasons. The man in question was approved to go on the list, but he had so severly abused alcohol that he was now terminally ill, and was asking to be pushed to the front of the queue for a transplant because he may not live six months. That is a very different issue.

The basic point is, airports and the air transport system is part of the infrastructure system in the US and benefits from significant public investment. This includes the taxes of many of those elderly and disabled people who require assistance. Many of these people became disabled whilst fighting in wars for the very freedoms they would be denied access too. These facilities must be accessible to all.. and if there is a cost to this, it must be paid. Just as there is a cost to build the infrastructure in the first place, which also came from public funds.

[JR in Orlando]

Jimworcs: I too have enjoyed this discussion and as I said earlier, on some points we have to just agree to disagree. It is thought provoking, however, to have these good discussions without rancor or personal attack. I wish only the best for you (and other posters) and for all of your disabled patients. Just in their everday life, they certainly face far greater difficulties than whether they get a wheelchair at the airport.

You are right that as medicine advances and life span increases, it becomes more and more likely that many if not most people will reach the point of limited physical abilities before they die. Hopefully the medical science that increase life span, will also make that life more liveable. It has in many ways, such as hip replacements. As I tell people, it is not that I want to live forever, I just want to live everyday I am alive.