News: Dragonair removed blind passenger for sitting in aisle seat
 

Avraham Rabby, a retired US Foreign Service Officer, was physically removed from a Dragonair flight because he declined to take a window seat rather than an aisle seat. This is not your usual airplane seat dispute; according to Dragonair, blind passengers must sit in window seats. Mr. Rabby, originally assigned a window seat, had swapped seats with another passenger.

Beneblog has an account of the incident, complete with photos: Dragonair Hauls Rami off the Plane

Dragonair's seating policy, as outlined on the corporate website: Seat Allocation for Passengers with Disability

I tried to find the "safety requirements of the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department" cited by the airline, but had no luck. If you find them, let me know.

More about Mr. Rabby, the first (only?) visually impaired FSO: A U.S. Diplomat With an Extraordinary Global View

Scott Rains at Rolling Rains provides an list of similar incidents: A Rocket Scientist Witnesses a Blind Man Being "Launched" from a Dragonair Flight

I can only hope I have the courage of someone like Jim Ruchterman should I ever have the misfortune to witness something like what happened to Avraham Rabby.

Seems to me to be a clear case of the airline completely misunderstanding the real guidelines in place (i.e. Exit Rows). And that's worrying in itself.

Personally, I'd feel privileged to have my way to the aisle 'impeded' by a blind person, I can't think who would be better qualified to make it out of a plane in an emergency. My understanding is that the pressure changes and other phenomena resulting from an emergency scenario potentially make visibility a problem for everybody... except for those who are blind, naturally (I always count the number of rows between me and an exit door, both behind and in front of me, assuming I won't see a thing in the event of a crisis)

And what an awful list of other incidences, makes dispiriting reading. The comments made by the MAN based Air France staff member (2004) are particularly despicable.

I don't think the Dragonair crew did get it wrong, according to their company rules.

The blind pax in the aisle seat comes under the 'or otherwise hinder an evactuation' - which they may well do for the passenger sitting at the window.

Edited to say I have just read the benelog article (link above) and agree with the actions of the Dragonair crew and the police.

Dragonair policy is that visually impaired passengers are required to sit in window seats. The passenger in question did not sit in his originally assigned seat, and refused to comply with numerous crew instructions. The refusal to comply with a lawful crew instruction would violate aviation laws of most nations and fair enough the passenger was removed.

The crew were doing their job according to what they had been taught. The passenger should have realised this. The passenger's gripe is with Dragonair company policy, not the crew. Did he expect the crew to lose their jobs by going against company policy? A very difficult position to place the crew in (and fairly thoughtless).

Regards

lme ff

I would agree with LapLap.

How would a blind person impede the evacuation? He's not in Grand Central Station and trying to figure out which way is North. He's in an Aircraft with a "narrow" aisle going in only two directions, and he/she could jump on a slide as well as a sighted person.

I, a wheelchair use and deaf, once sat next to a deaf-blind passenger in the aisle seat. He was helping me and I was helping him to communicate. Would they throw us both off of the plane?

Agreed - Dragonair's policy needs to change. How fortunate that a veteran disability rights activist like Rabby was there to begin influencing that change.

:td: change at any cost? To humiliate the crew?

If he wanted to make a point to airline management, why not get off the flight and cause the company financial damage by making them offload the bags (that is, cause delay).

Why involve the crew, that's what I don't get.

Regards

lme ff

Why involve anyone who is just doing his/her job?

Why did Rosa Parks involve the bus driver? Surely it had nothing to do with him - it was the bus company's policies that needed to change.

Why have sit-ins at lunch counters? Nothing to do with the white people who just wanted their lunches, or the counter people who were paid to serve them.

Why involve those poor poll workers who were just enforcing the law by not allowing people to vote?

Why did the women's suffrage hunger strikers involve prison staff in their protests? It must have been humiliating for the prison workers to have to tie women down and force feed them.

I can see the point trying to be made... but the scenarios are a bit different to the current situation.

Race has nothing to do with evacuating an aircraft. Being blind quite possibly does. How does a blind person see the white-lights-which-become-red-lights which indicate an (overwing) exit? How can a blind person properly assess the hazardous conditions which may exist in the aisle, or at an exit?

The traveller in this case was allocated a window seat at check-in. The traveller still decided to board the aircraft, then decided to make a scene. Why not make the scene at the check-in counter? The passerger deliberately waited to board the aircraft and make the scene.

The traveller was also not asked to travel in any sub-standard accommodation. 'Blind' seats were not in an inferior part of the aircraft, segregated from other people. Any window seat would have been fine, just not an aisle (or exit). in a 2+4+2 configuration the window seat in economy is not that bad in terms of having to get out to the aisle.

regards

lme ff

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. This airline has chosen to discriminate against a particular population by denying 1/3 of the seats on the plane to them. The evacuation argument is a straw man.

What about the man with emphysema sitting two rows ahead of the blind passenger, in an aisle seat? What about the woman with a panic disorder? The woman with two small children? The airline cannot look at every passenger and decide whether he/she will be in the way in the event of an evacuation.

Fitness to assist with evacuation, or the opposite, is a continuum - it is not binary. And in my opinion, it's morally repugnant to sacrifice the perceived "disabled" passengers in favor of the perceived "able-bodied" passengers.

Just to clarify that I did mean the airline, the company, in this case - and their unique interpretation of the rules that guide all other airlines - which I what I found particularly troubling as to me it indicates their not understanding why these guidelines are in place.

Rabby didn't understand why the airline were interpreting the guidelines in this unique way, and neither do I. Even the stated policy published on the Dragonair website does not clearly indicate to me that a blind person must not sit in an aisle row as, in my view, a blind person sitting there does not hinder aircraft evacuation or obstruct access to equipment.

I'm also sure the crew were doing their job just as they were supposed to. It would not be their jobs worth to get involved in challenging their airline's policies.


Can I just ask if you'd consider an obese passenger seated between yourself and the aisle as potentially 'hindering evacuation' in an emergency?

If the passenger is mobile, and able to evacuate the aircraft in such a manner that does not impede or endanger others, then I would have no problem. This would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. If I thought it was going to be a problem I would ask to move.

Obviously if the person had to be lifted into the seat by one of those chair lifts I would have a problem with it.

The important thing is that different airlines have different interpretation of safety rules.

Some airlines are pedantic about the window blinds being up during a daytime landing, or the cabin lights being dimmed during a night-time landing. Others are not. Some airlines allow you to turn on mobile/cell phones as soon as the aircraft has turned off the active runway. Others make you wait until you have stopped at the terminal building.

Just because you don't believe you should have to wait until the aircraft stops at the terminal building to turn on your mobile does that mean the airline has got it wrong?

It seems Air France crew on one flight (see another thread here on FT) thought you must speak french in order to sit at an exit row. The passenger protested with no luck. Just about every other airline in the world says you must be able to speak english. Does that mean Air France got it wrong? Does that mean you can refuse to move if they ask you? No.

Dragonair has determined that visially impaired passengers are best seated away from the exits, AND, they should also be seated at a window. There is no 'right or wrong' interpretation of the safety rules in this case.

Regards

lme ff

That is fast becoming the argument to negate following anti-discrimination laws. Why should one airline get to interpret this differently than most of the others? If every aitrline gets to interpret things this way then we who are disabled might as well stay home. We are not wanted in public. We're just impediments to get around. Better not to upset anyone and just stay home. That's the message I see from this kind of thinking.

DeafFlyer

Please don't take my defense of the Dragonair cabin crew as being and indication that I feel this way about disabled flyers.

There are two arguments running here. The first is that Dragonair 'got the rules wrong'. My answer to that is that the rules are open to interpretation. Remember that Dragonair is not a US based carrier. Nor does it fly to the US. It is not bound by the same rules as apply in the US.

The second argument from me is that the flyer chose to make a scene and put the cabin crew in an extremely embarrassing situation. This is uncool :td:. Make a point yes, but not in this way. Make the point at the check-in counter rather than involve the crew. Would it have made the flyer happy to see the crew members punished for breaking the rules? Remember, this is not a US airline, the crew are not protected by US laws. So, one guy gets his way, the crew member is sacked. Nice deal.

Remember, the gripe should be with Dragonair company policy. I would take the argument up with management if you wanted their interpretation of the rules changed.

Regards

lme ff

I do agree that Dragonair's policy is wrong. I think that that was the thinking I was referring to.