Ari, thank you for your well written, thoughtful response.
You are quite correct that I should have read the consent order for more information. My computer had issues opening it, but today I was more persistent.
Frontier was fined for three things, none of which were the result of the pilot's ultimate decision to remove him from the flight:
None of what they were fined for was the result of the pilot's decision to remove him from the flight, but the complaint and thus the fines were probably the result of the decision to remove him from the flight. If someone had figured out a way to allow him to fly on that flight and still comply with the FAA's rules, I don't know that there would have been a complaint and investigation(though hopefully Frontier would have taken steps to fix their deficiencies).
Though reading the consent order, I might have complained anyway if I were him or his family. The 3rd party service vender that never showed(I wonder what Frontier has done about this), the delay in boarding and the defective aisle chairs all seem to indicate something needs to be fixed by Frontier.
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.
Yes and no. I like consistency in enforcement of policies, so it would be nice if they were consistent. But I don't know that the prior flights created enough of pattern(and Frontier disputes the use of the seat belt extenders for support in 2009 - though "do not recall" sounds weak). From the first flight 2 years before, rules have probably changed. Though maybe they change less often for disabilities than they do for TSA...
Also, I think the doctrine of reliance works by modifying implicit or explicit contracts. If by that reliance the modified contract would not comply with FAA rules, can you rely on it? Yes, it looks like the DOT believes so and that the 2009 flights contributed.
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:
Yes.
I think the pilot was correct in deciding what was "right" for that flight (though there probably was a better way to handle it) and that the other issues are something Frontier's management needs to deal with by maintenance of equipment, training of employees and having a contract with large penalties for the 3rd party wheelchair company(and get them to pay the part of the fine due to not preboarding.
I wonder if the flight attendants and pilots that allowed him to use the seat belt extenders previously have received special training now. Though it sounds like Frontier disputes the use of seat belt extenders for support in 2009.
I did notice that it's only if you need the wheelchair for boarding that 14 CFR 382.41(c) kicks in to inform you of their limitations. My mom only uses it to get through the airport, so they haven't needed to add anything special there.
$50k is a large fine for what seems like relatively minor violations, but the deterrence value cannot be underestimated.
Yes. Seeing all the other issues, it seems like Frontier needed a wake-up call that they need to address their issues.
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.
From what I've heard, yes. Or they are smart enough to know it...
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!
*laugh*
The question stands though of:
How would you handle a situation like this where others let him fly against the law and did not notify him like they were supposed to if you were the pilot?
If it was legal to let him fly with the seat belt extenders, then letting him fly, but providing him with notice (backed up with a letter by certified mail) letting him and his family know that he needs to bring restraints in the future would probably work.
If it's not legal to let him fly, then what would you do?