Here is a link again to the pictures
It looks like there are usually two shoulder straps and a lap belt.
I think, given the commentary from other people who’ve used these chairs who’ve commented in the thread, you might want to consider the possibility that you’re being relatively oversensitive to it.
Nope. But you can’t go to the bathroom on an airplane by yourself, either.
I work in healthcare, so I know lots of folks who diaper up. And oddly enough, not one of them complain about it.
No.
I have control of my bladder and I am ambulatory.
mmm
I won’t ban you yet, but we don’t allow this kind of thing here. If you need to insult someone, post in the BBQ Pit. If you’re in another forum, control yourself and attack the argument, not the poster.
“Nope. But you can’t go to the bathroom on an airplane by yourself, either”.
Um, right. That’s what I’m after. And I DO have bladder control.
But many of the posts here contain no argument, they are simply derrogatory comments.
Here is one possible solution.
As far as I can tell, your solutions require either the airlines go to significant extra expense (which I guess could be offset if you agree to play triple or quadruple the regular ticket price) or the option to drag yourself along the aisle’s floor. The solutions we’re recommending would be far less costly and problematic.
LMAO! That’s a good visualization of how it feels. LOL
Wow. I’m surprised at myself I didn’t see this thread earlier. It’s taken me the better part of an hour to read it through.
jamiemcgarry, you’re new here. The folks here have given you considerable leeway in making and defending your case. Even the mods have been quite constrained (bravo to them!) since the vitriolic nature of some of the language used here by some, should have resulted in more warnings than already issued. Newbies don’t always get that luxury, and that’s an indication that the discussion itself is more than worthy of pushing the board rules envelope, so to speak. Good on ya, mods.
Others have offered specific legal cites to base your argument, citing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), and those disability buzzwords including reasonable accommodation and undue burden. Your strength in pursuing any honest solution is based on the law and those buzzwords. They do work. They work quite well. I know this because part of my job (I’m a fed) involves managing a disability area governed under several laws related to disability and accommodation. Your specific complaint about the airlines is outside of expertise area but the general concepts still apply.
You would do yourself well to read up on the specific requirements that airlines are required to provide to disabled travelers, on the ground and in the air. You would do even better if you read up on your obligations under the law when it comes to you notifying an airline before you fly that you are disabled. While a failure to notify an airline before you fly (there are time deadlines for notification) does not absolve the airline of its legal obligations to you, your failure to meet your obligations under the law could weaken your complaint considerably, even if you are still in the right. While your perception of illegal discrimination may be valid, you still have to play by the rules to effect any honest accommodation.
Your complaint with public toilet facilities (ground) is misguided. The installation and maintenance for disability toilets is required under ADA. However, the use of those toilets enjoys no legal protections under ADA. Perceived preference to accessing disability toilet facilities is left to social convention and society norms, otherwise known as courtesy and common sense. Demanding exclusive access to a disabled toilet won’t win you any favors or support, even from those who may understand your frustration, even anger.
I think you have a golden moment to raise your issue with the feds. The EEOC is getting the support it needs where the previous administration attempted to kill off. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has really clarified and strengthened the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with more significant changes on the way. Granted, ADA is not the legal basis for any claim you may make (see ACAA above). However, the DOJs renewed emphasis on ADA, along with OMB (Office of Management & Budget) and the White House on disability issues, in general, combine to create this golden moment. I suspect the shine will begin to wear off early next year when the election cycle kicks in to a higher gear.
Someone suggested you seek the assistance of your Member of Congress and/or Senators. Before you go that route I suggest you do the research on them and determine their actual social support policy agendas. Or to put it more bluntly, generally speaking, one political party on the Hill really doesn’t give a crap on social issues, including disability issues.
There are quite a few people participating in this thread who really do support you. I’m not just talking mere sympathy and lip service. There are legal beagles here and airline folks, including pilots with considerable experience, including commercial aviation. They do understand the realities of the disabled when flying. And, of course, many here may not have the formal credibility on the subject matter but their “street cred” is highly valued here. So as a simple suggestion don’t push away these folks. Something about vinegar vs honey when it comes to drawing flies is apropos here.
Thank you for this well-thought out and informative post. I intend to follow your advice. One note on the bathroom (ground) issue: I never, ever, demanded exclusive access for the disabled. That keeps getting (sometimes I almost think willfully) confused. ALL i’m saying is that it should be considered a toilet of “last-resort” for the able-bodied, or non-disabled. If all other, perfectly usable options are not available, by all means, any and everybody has the right to use whatever toilet is available (including the handicap-accessible one). I simply CANNOT fathom how anyone can argue with this? It’s simple fairness. We (those w/access-compromising disabilities) have only one option at all times. All we ask is that the able bodied use the options that they have available to them. And, luckily enough, if the other options AREN’T available, hey, you’ve got an out-the handicap stall. But the handicap stall should be viewed as a stall of necessity. By everyone, disabled and non-disabled. Do you disagree with this?
This may be tl;dr - it’s kind of written at random, with various ideas/points popping into mind as I went. Sorry if it’s hard to follow!
FWIW the airlines really can’t do anything about having a different type of seating. If there isn’t a new/better/other “aisle chair” (or other solution) on the market, then they can’t possibly use it. Airlines don’t invent the technology - they only buy components that fit their needs and budgets and use them. The airframe is selected, and then the interior is chosen, usually from an option of 2-3 types that really only vary in what percentage of seats are first/business/economy class and what colour fabrics to use (which is also limited, since not all dyes and fabrics can pass flammability testing). The interior design is either “owned” (in the sense of the approval certificate) either by the aircraft manufacturer or a third party Interiors provider which has obtained a Supplementary Type Certificate to install interiors on aircraft. These interior providers and owners of STCs are also pretty much limited by existing regulations and by available products on the market. Seats, panels, entertainment systems, etc are all made available by third party providers.
So to potentially solve this problem, you have to talk to companies that manufacture interior components, such as a seats manufacturer. Convince them this is something they can do, provide design ideas, and see where it goes.
Thing is, you need to bring the solution to them, not just tell them to fix it. Oh, and most companies are hesitant to take design suggestions from the general public for copyright/trademark/intellectual property liability reasons. So you’d have to come up with a solution, design it, and sell the solution to a company that can market it. Or do it yourself.
Problems with having a “regular” seat be detachable:
-
it wouldn’t fit down the aisle anyways, so would have to be really narrow and uncomfortable. Not something that could be changed.
-
seat must be designed to withstand the same inertial loads/have the same safety features as a regular seat…this would be a challenge with the detachment point, given how many bolts are needed to hold regular seats in place. This may add weight to the aircraft, which is another thing airlines don’t like and which actually takes a stupid amount of paperwork to get approved. Not necessarily insurmountable.
-
rows of seats are attached to long rails in the aircraft floor. Modification to these rails, which are structural, would have to be done and would be an extensive modification to the aircraft
-
Having a seat move out of position and down the aisles means that the passengers in the seats behind and beside it is put at risk as the seat is manoeuvred around - bumps to feet, knees, etc. These are all reportable events per ICAO and looks bad for the airline when a passenger gets hurt
-
having the seat move out of position means the passenger behind it loses his/her tray (what if you have to go during a meal?), seatback pocket (including the Safety Features of This Aircraft pamphlet, which the passenger must have access to by law) and the inflight entertainment system that is usually installed in the headrest. Moving this seat would require electrical connections being detachable, which would mean modifications to the wiring system of an aircraft. Not trivial.
-
the passenger would still have to be strapped in, either with one or two straps. All passengers should be belted whenever they are sitting, for safety reasons (air safety people want this to be mandatory). This is no different from the existing aisle chair, other than, perhaps, the number of straps needed.
-
the seat still couldn’t be independently moved, so the passenger would still have to have someone push him/her, just as in the aisle chair.
I’m sure there are other things I haven’t thought about that would need to be considered. It just seems to me that you are back to what is essentially an existing aisle chair, with even more complicated problems with strapping it down to the plane. Easier to just keep the existing seats and use the aisle chairs, no?
So the problem comes down to the number of straps, and doing it themselves. I don’t really see why someone can’t do it themselves - it’s easily and quickly observable and if they have trouble the flight attendants can help. Although if the flight attendant decides the passenger isn’t doing it correctly and the passenger gets belligerent, that’s a serious problem, which might be why there’s a blanket “flight attendants do it all” policy.
As for number of straps, the OP also seems to be assuming that the aircraft will be level at all times, which isn’t necessarily true in an emergency. The full set of straps in an aisle chair ensures that the passenger+chair combo remains more or less the same even if tipped over (as opposed to a passenger half fallen out of the chair - who may now be injured) thereby making it easier to place the passenger upright again and move him/her out of the aircraft in an evacuation. More able passengers can help themselves, but more severely disabled passengers might not be able to, and need help. Flight attendants are trained in assisting passengers in an aisle chair during an evacuation in such a way as to be compliant with safety standards, such as the amount of time required to complete a full evacuation. Adding variations to this - some aisle chair passengers with one belt, some with all of them - adds complications in the event of emergency and may delay evacuation, putting the attendant, the passenger and other passengers and crew at risk.
Most airline regulations are in place in order to handle the worst case scenario. In the case of moving passengers with variable levels of disability between their seats and the lavatory, the simplest solution is to consider the case of a passenger that requires all the features of the aisle chair, and make that the standard. Airlines and regulations won’t allow passengers to sign away their rights, especially because most passengers are only thinking about how much they need to pee, and not about all the things that could go wrong with the aircraft in the meantime.
I guess, while I feel for the OP and the frustrations he feels, I just don’t really see an alternative. There may be one, and perhaps we just aren’t creative enough to come up with it, but in the meantime I feel the existing system is reasonable in light of the design and safety considerations.
Though I keep mulling this over, and perhaps I’ll have a stroke of genius and make millions solving this problem.
Now see, while you are expressing the same sentiment shared by many here, you’ve done it in a much more humane fashion. I really appreciate that. 
But do you accept what mnemosyne wrote?
Do you now see the problems involved in what you ask for, and do you see how the airlines are limited in what they can do? Do you see why the attendants have to have a standard policy when it comes to transporting the handicapped down the aisle?
#1) This seems to be a pic of what the seat actually looks like. http://www.disabledandproductive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/aisle-chair-2.jpg
A) It’s not a “stool” by any definiiton and
B) Despite the crazy claims of the chair being some sort of bondage-fetishist gear with all this “excessive” strapping in, it looks like there’s one X shaped seatbelt for the chest like a race-car driver has and another smaller one for the legs. 2 or maybe 3 buckles.
#2) The page it’s connected to is by a guy who’s talking about how to fly less uncomfortably if you’re disabled. In part he says:
Note that he wants extra straps for very understandable reasons. I
I haven’t read the rest of the page, but it looks pretty interesting.
Since the OP’s main issue with the current policy seems to be one of perception, what if the flight attendant were required to make an pre-flight announcement, such as:
“Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Icarus Airlines. We’re fortunate to have a special guest flying with us today… there he is! Mr. McGarry is a prizewinning competitive bodybuilder, who is required by law to use this airline-provided aisle chair when he makes his trips to the bathroom, which you may notice is happening quite often, because of his need to hydrate. Now, don’t be fooled: Mr. McGarry is more than capable of dragging himself to the bathroom under his own power, and in fact is blessed with more upper body strength than probably anyone else on this plane… so don’t try to steal his peanuts! Heh heh… only kidding. We hope you all have a pleasant flight. After our flight lands in Los Angeles, Mr. MrGarry will provide a brief demonstration of his physical prowess, performing several amazing FEATS OF STRENGTH in the baggage claim area, lastly through a hogshead of REAL FIRE. All passengers are invited to attend…”
I once worked with a public interest law clinic that represented a lot of disabled people who had been unfairly treated by airlines. Almost all of them had been barred from boarding because the pilot (who always has final say regarding who is allowed to board) did not believe that in the case of an emergency, the person in question would (1) either be able to understand instructions from the crew (one of our clients was deaf, blind, and had difficulty speaking) or (2) would be physically unable to follow such instructions, either autonomously or with assistance. I seem to recall that in one case, the airline said they would allow the person to board only if she agreed that once she was in her seat that should would not need to get up for any reason until the flight was over.
In those cases, we would make many arguments about the types of accommodations that were available, that our clients had demonstrated their ability to communicate with the crew and follow instructions, etc.
I think, faced with the OP’s complaint, our clinic wouldn’t have touched his case. He’s being allowed to fly. He’s being accommodated. He’s being given assistance to get up and use the toilet. His complaint about having to be strapped into an aisle chair designed for safety and then pushed is so petty compared to actual discrimination, it’s flabbergasting.
Again, I ask the OP to consider, how is it reasonable to expect that airlines should have to make separate accommodations for an entire range of disabilities when it’s obvious that a single solution actually works for them all?
I’m going to post a message from an employee of a major airline who helped implement the on-board wheelchairs (and still does). I sent her your OP complaints (and no other posts by you) and this is what she said:
I haven’t read this entire thread, but it’s obviously a width problem as most people have noted.
Also, not all on-board wheelchairs are the same for every airline (as implied above). Some airline employees are better trained/more sensitive to their passengers. What airline, specifically, are you having a problem with? All in general?
If you’re problem was all the straps, that’s for safety and I’m sure it’s done the same regardless of the degree of disability (I don’t know though). However, if you don’t think you need it, you could try and arrange to opt-out or sign a letter waiving all your rights/causes of actions in case of an accident (i.e., consent to not being strapped in as much/required and the consequences that go with that). However, I honestly don’t think that would work.
I’m kind of thinking out loud, but I’m picturing a roller coaster and how those work. Maybe there could make some sort of “roller coaster bar” (the bar comes up from your feet and presses into your waist.) It could do that, or if this bar stopped and acted like a bar you could hold onto to support your upper half, then maybe they could do without all the upper strapping for people with a lesser degree of disability. Again though, aisle width would likely prevent this.
What about when you are going down the aisle on your own, the plain hits turbulence, and you fall over onto a 9 year old girl? The legal disclaimer-waiver you signed isn’t going to make any difference.
This incident reminded me strongly of the attitude of the OP.