Originally Posted by
CreditMadeEZ
Ari, thank you for your well written, thoughtful response.
You are quite correct that I should have read the consent order for more information.
In fairness, it is pretty difficult to find unless you have a link to it.
Originally Posted by
CreditMadeEZ
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).
I agree and I doubt that a complaint would have been filed had he been allowed to fly on his originally-booked flight, notwithstanding the boarding/preboarding failures.
Originally Posted by
CreditMadeEZ
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.
It doesn't modify rules or laws, but by allowing Mr. M to fly those times, Frontier failed to notify him (as a technical matter) of what is actually required of him.
Originally Posted by
CreditMadeEZ
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?
You ask good questions, and I think the reason Frontier was fined for everything but the refusal to carry is a result of no one knowing how to answer that question properly. The DOT didn't like the way this looked, so they went for the low-hanging fruit-- the preboarding and the broken wheelchairs-- rather than addressing the elephant in the room-- the initial refusal to carry-- which seems like it might have been justified under FAA rules.
This is a comedy of errors of sort: Had they carried Mr. M on the flight, I doubt he would have filed a complaint notwithstanding the preboarding failure and the defective aisle chair; had Frontier not screwed up the boarding/deboarding/preboarding of Mr. M, they likely would not have been fined since they were not fined for the initial refusal to carry and that would be the only remaining basis for the complaint had they done everything else out.
I guess the here lesson is beware the quadriplegic scorned!