                         THE NEXT STEP IN THE AIRLINE BATTLE
                                 by Kenneth Jernigan

     For almost twenty years the National Federation of the Blind has been working to
try to get the nation's airlines to treat blind passengers like first-class citizens.
We have called attention through article after article in the Braille Monitor to the
increasing tendency of airline personnel to treat the blind like wards or small
children. We have warned that arrogance and tyranny unresisted feed upon themselves
and lead to complete subjugation. Although the patterns of discrimination and second-
class treatment have been painfully obvious, there have been some who have said that
we are overdramatizing and giving too much prominence to the airline issue--that we
are giving it too much priority and making of it more than it is.
     In this connection the two letters which follow are instructive. Here they are:

                                                                   San Antonio, Texas
                                                                       August 2, 1991

Mr. Harold Snider
Deputy Executive Director
National Council on Disability
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Snider:
     It was a pleasure meeting you at the July 17 meeting at the Air Transport
Association. One purpose of this letter is to thank you for your insightful comments
and suggestions during that meeting. A second purpose is to seek your assistance and
recommendations for gathering more information needed to construct the aircraft
evacuation (AIREVAC) model.
     In our effort, we are seeking information on a variety of topics from a variety
of sources. You and your colleagues at the National Council on Disability are an
excellent source of expertise to help guide us in some of these areas. Following are
some questions for which you might be able to provide answers or help by directing us
to the best source(s). Please provide us information, data, references and thoughts
on any of the following questions.
     We need to determine the incidence of air travel by disabled individuals.
Specifically, we need to determine the probability that an airline passenger falls
into one or more disabled categories. The disabled categories that we are currently
using are those offered by an FAA report by Blethrow, Garner, Lowrey, Busby, &
Chandler (1977):
     Neurological: Blindness, Deafness, Mental Deficiency
     Neuromuscular: Cerebral Palsy, Old Age, Paraplegia and Quadriplegia, Hemiplegia,
Muscular Dystrophy, Multiple Sclerosis, and Polio
     Orthopedic: Arthritis, Arm Cast, Lower-Leg Cast and Amputee, Congenital Birth
Defects
     Other: Obesity
     1. There are two questions here. First, do you have any data that would provide
us an estimate of the probability that a passenger would fall into each of the above
categories.
     2. The second question is whether the categories above are adequate, suitable,
and comprehensive enough to use in our project.
     3. As you know, the ability of other passengers to recognize a disabled
individual as one who might need assistance in an emergency is considered to be an
important variable. Do you have any information or insights about how this variable
might be quantified and measured for different disability categories?
     4. Do you have any information about the probability that a disabled individual
falling into one of the above categories would be traveling with a personal
attendant, relative, or friend who would assist him/her in an emergency?
     5. Do you have any information on what disabled individuals expect to happen in
an emergency situation. For example, does a physically immobile person expect someone
to come and assist him/her in an evacuation situation?
     6. What educational materials are available for disabled travelers to better
prepare them for emergency evacuations and does the disabled population know about
and use these materials?
     Once again, we greatly appreciate any information you can provide. Letters also
are being sent to the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute, the National Transportation
Safety Board, and the Air Transport Association to request related information for
the model.
     Thank you for your time and support,

                                                                   James E. Schroeder
                                                          Applied Human Factors, Inc.
                                         (Consultant to Southwest Research Institute)
                                ____________________
                                                                     Washington, D.C.
                                                                     November 8, 1991

Mr. Horace Deets
Executive Director
American Association of Retired Persons
Washington, D.C.

Dear Horace:
     As you may know, the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 ("the Act") was intended by
Congress to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in air travel. 
My own experience with air carriers since the passage of the Act suggests that
compliance has been half hearted, at best.  In fact, thanks to the airlines, air
travel has been the only troublesome part of my job as Chairman of the U.S. Equal
Employment opportunity Commission.  It has come to my attention recently that the Air
Transport Association (ATA), supported by many segments of the airline industry, is
making efforts to chip away at various provisions of the Act, at least one of which
should be of considerable interest to the American Association of Retired Persons
(AARP).
     I have learned that the ATA has commissioned a $200,000 study to demonstrate
that it would be unsafe to allow more than a certain number of people with
disabilities (the number is as yet unspecified) to fly on the same flight.  In order
to make their point, I believe that the ATA will have to make an argument based upon
function, rather than upon specific, named disabilities, since the ATA is going to
contend that it is the functional limitations of certain people which will make them
a danger to themselves and to other passengers in the event of an emergency.
     Evidence of this line of thinking is contained in a letter from a consultant to
the Southwest Research Institute, who have been commissioned to do the study, to
Harold Snider of the National Council on Disability (see attached copy).  You will
note that the letter includes "old age" as a category of people who might be excluded
from air travel. Obesity is also mentioned.  I think that, before they are finished,
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will have to include parents who are
travelling with small children as well.
     It is my understanding that the ATA intends to propose a rule to the FAA once
the study is completed.  The rule would limit the number of people who are members of
the various categories named who would be allowed to fly on the same flight.
     I recall a study that indicated that almost half of all older Americans have a
functional limitation of some sort. Thus, an elderly person who might have some
difficulty moving about rapidly might arrive at an airport with a valid ticket and be
told that he or she could not board the flight because the allotted number of places
had already been taken up by other elderly people, or by people with disabilities,
people who are overweight, or parents travelling with small children.
     I hope you agree with me that this sort of nonsense should be stopped.  I find
it particularly offensive when I think of all the other safety precautions that might
be taken which the FAA refuses to require of airlines. For example, even though most
European airlines have widened exit rows to make it easier for passengers to
disembark in an emergency, the FAA refuses to promulgate a rule that would require
American carriers to widen exit rows, almost certainly because the carriers would
object that they would lose money.  Similarly, the FAA will not require U.S. carriers
to use flame-retardant materials throughout airplane cabins, flame-retardant fuel,
etc.  The list is long....
     I hope all is well with you.  We should get together for lunch soon.

                                                                           Sincerely,
                                                          Evan J. Kemp, Jr., Chairman
                                              Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                ____________________
     These letters speak for themselves. Let those who think we have overdramatized
and given too much prominence to this issue consider the chilling possibilities. If
the airlines and the FAA can successfully join forces to make rules limiting the
number of so-called disabled passengers who may ride on the same plane, even this may
not be the end of it. The next step will be still further custody, control, and
exclusion. Despite the passage of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (passed only a few months ago), the trend is ominous.
It must be recognized, publicized, and resisted--and the counterattacks must come
now. It is always more difficult to reverse a bad decision than to prevent it in the
first place.
     No, we have not given too much prominence to the airline issue, and we have
certainly not overdramatized it. It is a major threat to our quest for first-class
treatment and equal status in society, a substantial barrier to our march to freedom.
We were right in passing the resolution at our 1991 National Convention declaring the
airline issue to be one of our top priorities, and we would be acting irresponsibly
if we were to fail to pursue it with vigor and determination. We join with the
chairman of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Paralyzed
Veterans of America, and all of the rest who oppose the unreasonable and
discriminatory behavior of the airline industry in its treatment of the blind and
those with other disabilities.
     And make no mistake! We intend to prevail. We do not seek strife or
confrontation, but we will do what we have to do. We are simply no longer willing to
be second-class citizens. That day is gone forever. We will win by reason and
persuasion if we can, by stronger measures if we must. But in any event we intend to
win. This issue is too important to permit it to be otherwise.
