REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION
REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION
REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION
REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION
EXHIBIT A 

to Letter of JetBlue Airways Corporation 

re Rulemaking 

(April 8, 2010) 

*This Exhibit Contains Confidential Information* 

































































EXHIBIT B 

to Letter of JetBlue Airways Corporation 

re Rulemaking 

(April 8, 2010) 
e 

r'-oj pr-y^, 

U.S. Department GENERAL COUNSEL 1200 New Jersey Ave.. S.E. 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20590 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Ms. Joanna L. Geraghty, Esq. ^^^ ^2. 2009 

Vice President and Associate General Counsel 

JetBlue Airways Corporation 

118-29 Queens Blvd. 

Forest Hills, NY 11375 

RE: Equivalent Alternative Determination 

Request concerning 14 CFR 382.123(c) 

Dear Ms. Geraghty: 

This letter is in response to your December 17, 2008, request submitted on behalf of JetBlue 

Airways (JetBlue) for an equivalent alternative determination concerning section 

382.123(c)' of the Department's (DOT's) revised disability rule, which became effective on 

May 13, 2009. We are denying JetBlue's equivalent alternative request for the reasons 

discussed below. However, we intend to conduct a future rulemaking to determine if section 

382.123(c) should be revised to take into account concerns such as those JetBlue raises or 

remain as written. 

JetBlue's request essentially states that the carrier wants to continue to use the seat-strapping 

method in perpetuity on a large number^ of new 150-seat Airbus A-320 and 100-seat 

Embraer El90 narrow-body aircraft. JetBlue's request concerns those aircraft that will be 

delivered between 2011 and 2016, and which are therefore subject to revised section 

382.123(c). Because neither of these aircraft types is currently designed with a closet or 

other stowage area large enough to accommodate a standard-sized folding wheelchair, the 

carrier states that if it is prohibited firom using the seat-strapping method on these planes, it 

will need to remove a row of three seats on the A-320 aircraft and two seats on the El 90 

aircraft in order to comply with the new rule. The carrier gives the following principal 

reasons for its request to continue the use of the seat-strapping method: 

1) The carrier states that, although the 2004 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

that led to the revised Part 382 asked for comment on whether DOT should codify 

the seat-strapping method which is currently permitted by DOT (on aircraft ordered 

on or before May 13, 2009, or delivered on or before May 13, 2011), it also stated, 

Section 382.123(c) prohibits the use of the "seat-strapping" method of stowing a passenger's personal folding 

wheelchair in the cabin (i.e., fastening a wheelchair across a row of seats) on planes ordered after May 13, 

2009, or delivered after May 13, 2011 (hereinafter simply referred to as "new planes."). Any such new plane 

must have the designated priority stowage space required by section 382.67. 

" At the carrier's request, the exact number of aircraft has been redacted in this reply and in its docketed filing 

for competitive reasons. 
"The Department proposes to continue to make this compliance option available 

under this proposed rule." JetBlue implies that it based its aircraft orders on that 

statement in the preamble to the NPRM and that it was surprised when, four years 

later when DOT issued its final rule, it harmed this stowage method on new planes 

subject to the in-cabin wheelchair stowage requirements in section 382.67 of the 

revised rule. 

2) JetBlue states that DOT failed to do a cost-benefit analysis on this aspect of the new 

rule. The carrier states that if it is forced to remove a row of three seats on the A-320 

aircraft and two seats on the El20 aircraft in question, it will lose significant revenue 

on such aircraft scheduled to be delivered between 2011 and 2016.^ JetBlue states 

that had the Department conducted such a cost-benefit analysis on this issue, it 

would have continued to permit carriers to use the method as a compliance option. 

3) JetBlue states that the only two rationales stated by DOT in the preamble to the final 

rule for eliminating the seat-strapping stowage method is that the method is a "more 

awkward" way of stowing a folding wheelchair than using a closet, and that it could 

reduce the seating capacity on a fiill flight where this technique is employed. The 

carrier disputes the former reason, saying that the seat-strapping method has not 

resulted in any consumer complaints. In that regard, the carrier has submitted 

several compliments fi-om passengers regarding its handling of in-cabin wheelchair 

stowage requests. 

JetBlue disputes the latter concern by saying that, even with higher load factors 

recently, it is rare that passengers are denied boarding because the carrier had to stow 

a folding wheelchair across a row of seats. The carrier states that based on a 

sampling of incidents covering the eight-month period prior to its request, it received 

47 requests for onboard stowage of passengers' wheelchairs and that not a single 

passenger was denied boarding because such a request was made. The carrier also 

states that, unlike most carriers, it does not overbook flights as a practice. JetBlue 

states that its policy of not overbooking flights, along with the fact that requests for 

in-cabin stowage of wheelchairs are quite rare, call into question DOT's assertion 

that the seat strapping method reduces seating capacity for passengers. The carrier 

states that DOT's position that the use of the seat-strapping method reduces seating 

capacity for other passenger is, "at best, overstated and unsupported." 

JetBlue also states that its Stations Operations Manual specifically states that at no 

time will its crew attempt to dissuade a passenger fi-om requesting the in-cabin 

stowage of a personal wheelchair. The carrier states that its policy, along with the 

fact that is has received no complaints in this area, seem to indicate that DOT'S 

concerns about any potential stigma or embarrassment to a passenger wishing to 

stow a wheelchair in the cabin are not justified. JetBlue also states that it is 

evaluating the possibility of allowing passengers to reserve its wheelchair stowage 

space in advance, which would totally eliminate any potential for the denied 

boarding of passengers. The carrier concludes its request by stating that its use of the 

^ At the carrier's request, the total estimated lost revenue has been redacted in this reply and in its docketed 

filing for competitive reasons. 
seat strapping method has been proven to be a successfiil alternative to the stowage 

of a folding wheelchair in a closet. 

We understand why, given these points made by JetBlue in its request, the carrier is seeking 

an equivalent alternative determination on the matter. However, it is not appropriate for the 

Department to treat as an equivalent alternative to a regulatory requirement something that 

was at issue in the rulemaking and that is explicitly prohibited in the final rule. 

Consequently, we are denying JetBlue's request for an equivalent alternative determination 

and maintaining the requirement that the seat-strapping method be phased out as stated in 

section 382.123(c) of the revised rule, as written. 

We nonetheless believe that the issues JetBlue has raised do merit fiirther consideration in 

an appropriate forum. Therefore, we intend to address this matter in a future rulemaking 

which will permit us to review the matter on an industry-wide basis and determine if any 

changes in the rule text are warranted. As you know, we are not only concerned that the 

"seat-strapping" method be safe and efficient. Among our primary concerns is ensuring that 

the use of this stowage method does not result in the embarrassment and stigmatization of 

passengers with disabilities and inconvenience to other passengers, particularly on fiall 

flights where use of the method could result in the carrier's inability to board up to three 

passengers who would otherwise have been able to fly if the aircraft had been equipped with 

a closet or other stowage area that did not involve the potential displacement of other 

passengers. A fiirther concern is whether the stowage method has resulted, or is likely to 

result, in any consumer dissatisfaction or complaints, by either wheelchair users or other 

passengers. Given the current state of the rule, these concerns are best addressed on an 

industry-wide basis through a rulemaking. We assure you we intend to do so as 

expeditiously as possible. 

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Mike Spollen of my staff, or me, 

at (202) 366-0342. You may also reach us by FAX at (202) 366-5944. 

Sincerely, 

Samuel Podberesky 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings