Read the Consent Order:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0002-0016
Frontier was fined for three things, none of which were the result of the pilot's ultimate decision to remove him from the flight:
2. We find that Frontier Airlines, Inc., violated 14 CFR 382.41(c) by failing to provide information regarding any aircraft-related, service-related or other limitations on its ability to accommodate a passenger with a disability;
3. We find that Frontier Airlines, Inc., violated 14 CFR 382.93 by failing to offer pre-boarding to a passenger with a disability who self-identified as needing additional time or assistance to board the aircraft and to be seated;
4. We find that Frontier Airlines, Inc., violated 14 CFR 382.95 by failing to provide prompt and adequate assistance requested by a passenger with a disability in enplaning and deplaning;
Originally Posted by
CreditMadeEZ
Interesting that the flight where they were following the law is probably what caused him to file the complaint. The 3 prior flights where they didn't follow the law (and thus left him in danger of injury?), he didn't have a problem with.
Here is the DOT's analysis of that:
After investigating the incident, the Enforcement Office determined that Frontier violated section 382.41(c) by failing to inform Mr. M, on at least three occasions, of the carrier’s limitations in accommodating his disability. In June 2009, Frontier allowed Mr. M to use the seatbelt extender strapping method to secure his body in an upright position. Then, later that same month and again on June 17, 2011, Frontier’s crew permitted Mr. M to use this same method to secure himself despite this method not being approved by the FAA. As a result of Frontier’s accommodation of Mr. M’s disability on prior flights, particularly the outbound flight on June 17, 2011, Mr. M was unprepared with an alternative restraint method when, on June 19, 2011, Frontier disapproved the restraint method that he was allowed to use on previous flights, including his outbound flight, resulting in his embarrassment and eventual removal from flight 227.
It seems that made the denial this time worse in the DOT's eyes-- sort of a doctrine of reliance. This finding actually makes a lot of sense Here's a guy who is disabled and has traveled without issue on this carrier restraining himself one way. He shows up one day and gets kicked off the plane because it turns out that might not be acceptable after all. It seems fair to hold the airline responsible for creating such a situation as a result of their inconsistency.
Originally Posted by
CreditMadeEZ
And from the DOT's press release, it sounds like Frontier was supposed to do something more once they were told he required a wheelchair. I've never had any airline ask something more when I tell them my mom needs a wheelchair. Are they even allowed to ask anything more than "what type of assistance do you need?"
Here are the DOT's findings on that issue:
Mr. M has severe mobility impairments that substantially limit major life activities such as walking and sitting upright without support. Frontier received multiple advance notices of Mr. M’s status as a qualified person with a disability and his need for assistance prior to his June 19, 2011, flight. Frontier entered records in its reservation system noting that Mr. M requires “Meet And Assist” service including assistance in lifting him out of his personal wheelchair and into his aircraft seat. Frontier was informed again of Mr. M’s specific requirements by his mother over the telephone, at the airport check-in counter, and at the gate area.
So they were on notice as to all his needs from the get-go.
Originally Posted by
CreditMadeEZ
I find the comments about how the pilot should be fired amazing. Seems like he was the one following the law (relying on the DOT release "Federal Aviation Administration requirements prohibit seatbelt extenders as restraint devices for his upper body").
Perhaps this pilot followed the law, but it is the air carrier's failures before and after the pilot's decision, not the pilot's decision itself, that drove the fine:
Frontier also violated sections 382.93 and 382.95 by failing to provide pre-boarding and adequate enplaning assistance to Mr. M on June 19, 2011. Mr. M’s numerous requests to pre-board were unsuccessful, and Mr. M was forced to wait until virtually all of the other passengers had boarded. It appears that Frontier’s failure to pre-board Mr. M was a result of its wheelchair assistance vendor failing to respond to Frontier’s call for service. Pursuant to 14 CFR 382.15, Frontier is responsible for ensuring that its contractors providing services to the public meet the requirements of Part 382. Frontier was ultimately able to obtain two of its own disability-trained employees (one of whom was working at baggage handling that day) to assist Mr. M but that assistance, the Enforcement Office found, was inadequate as evidenced by the fact that individuals traveling with Mr. M had to be asked to participate in the lifting of Mr. M to ensure the safety of the transfer. Furthermore, by providing enplaning and deplaning assistance to Mr. M with malfunctioning aisle chairs, Frontier also violated section 382.95. The first aisle chair that Frontier used to enplane Mr. M had its left shoulder strap completely detached from the chair. The second aisle chair that Frontier used to deplane Mr. M also had multiple straps missing. Due to the lack of proper restraint on the chair, Mr. M fell onto another passenger and was subject to further embarrassment and endangerment.
$50k is a large fine for what seems like relatively minor violations, but the deterrence value cannot be underestimated.
RyanAir is lucky to operate in a jurisdiction the where they probably only get fined for half the things they would get fined for if they operated in the USA.
Originally Posted by
CreditMadeEZ
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/1228298-f9-pilot-calls-police-force-removal-quadriplegic-passenger.html
To the credit of the police, they told the pilot to solve his own problem-- that this was not a law enforcement issue-- and left, as I recall.
But they did say they would come back if the passenger got unruly and started kicking or punching other passengers!
