Unequal Protection Under Law: An Independent

Assessment

of Federal Enforcement of the Air Carrier Access Act

ENFORCING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF 

AIR TRAVELERS WITH

DISABILITIES:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

AND CONGRESS

 

 

 

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

February 26, 1999
National Council on Disability

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004-1107

Enforcing the Civil Rights of Air Travelers with Disabilities:

Recommendations for the Department of Transportation and Congress

This report is also available in braille and large print, on diskette and audiocassette, and on the

Internet at the National Council on Disability’s award-winning website (www.ncd.gov).

Publication date: February 26, 1999

202-272-2004 Voice

202-272-2074 TTY

202-272-2022 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the administration, as this

document has not been subjected to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

February 26, 1999

The President

The White House

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit a report entitled Enforcing the Civil

Rights of Air Travelers with Disabilities: Recommendations for the Department of Transportation and Congress. 

This report is the first in a series on enforcement of federal laws protecting the civil rights of children and adults

with disabilities. Title IV of the Rehabilitation Act requires NCD to gather information about the implementation,

effectiveness, and impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), among other duties. NCD was encouraged

to monitor and evaluate federal enforcement efforts of ADA and other civil rights laws when we convened a diverse

group of more than 300 leaders from the disability community for a policy summit in 1996. In response, we

initiated the Disability Civil Rights Monitoring Project. In addition to this study of enforcement of the Air Carrier

Access Act (ACAA), NCD will in the coming months issue reports evaluating enforcement of the Americans with

Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

As you know, air travel is an essential component of many jobs in the global economy. For people with disabilities

to be part of that economy, participate in the world community, and compete effectively for jobs requiring air travel,

air carriers and federal oversight officials must ensure that their right to travel with appropriate accommodations is

taken seriously and honored. Unfortunately, NCD has found that although things have improved since ACAA was

passed in 1986, people with disabilities continue to encounter frequent, significant violations of the statute and

regulations. When they complain, they encounter an enforcement effort that is both inconsistent and limited in

scope.

NCD stands ready to work with you and stakeholders outside the government to address the problems identified in

this report and to advance the civil rights of all Americans with disabilities and their families.

Sincerely,

Marca Bristo

Chairperson

(This same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the

House of Representatives.)

iii

National Council on Disability

 Members and Staff

Members

Marca Bristo, Chairperson

Kate Pew Wolters, First Vice Chairperson

Hughey Walker, Second Vice Chairperson

Yerker Andersson, Ph.D.

Dave N. Brown

John D. Kemp

Audrey McCrimon

Gina McDonald

Bonnie O’Day, Ph.D.

Lilliam Rangel-Diaz

Debra Robinson

Shirley W. Ryan

Michael B. Unhjem

Rae E. Unzicker

Ela Yazzie-King

Staff

Ethel D. Briggs, Executive Director

Andrew J. Imparato, General Counsel and Director of Policy

Mark S. Quigley, Public Affairs Specialist

Jamal Mazrui, Program Specialist

Kathleen A. Blank, Attorney/Program Specialist

Lois T. Keck, Research Specialist

Janice Mack, Administrative Officer

Brenda Bratton, Executive Secretary

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

v

PREFACE

This report on federal enforcement of the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) is the first in a

series on enforcement of federal laws protecting the civil rights of children and adults with

disabilities. When the National Council on Disability (NCD) brought together a diverse group of

disability community leaders from around the country in 1996, one of the strongest themes to

emerge from three days of policy development in 11 different areas was the need for stronger and

more consistent enforcement of federal civil rights laws for people with disabilities. In fact, the

first overarching recommendation from the summit was that existing civil rights laws should be

more vigorously enforced. In its role as an independent federal agency, NCD was encouraged by

disability community leaders to monitor and evaluate federal enforcement efforts. Moreover,

NCD is required by Title IV of the Rehabilitation Act to gather information on the

implementation, effectiveness and impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

After NCD published the recommendations that emerged from the 1996 Disability Policy

Summit in Achieving Independence, it began to study four key civil rights statutes for people

with disabilities as part of the Disability Civil Rights Monitoring Project. The statutes selected

were ACAA, Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ADA, and the

Fair Housing Act. This report is the first in a series of four that will evaluate the effectiveness of

federal enforcement of disability civil rights laws.

Next year, the United States will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the passage of ADA and

the 25th anniversary of the passage of IDEA. These milestones present an opportunity to retool

and reinvigorate federal enforcement of disability civil rights laws so that more Americans with

disabilities and their families can enjoy equal access to the American dream. Too many children

and adults with disabilities and their families are unaware of their right under federal law to be

free from discrimination and are often unable to enforce that right. The Disability Civil Rights

Monitoring Project will assess federal civil rights enforcement in the past and evaluate how these

important laws can be translated into real equality of opportunity for all Americans.

This report focuses on federal enforcement of ACAA. As the economy becomes

increasingly global, the ability of employees with disabilities to travel by air is critical to their

success and upward mobility. As the President has recognized, the employment rate of working-
vi

age adults with disabilities is approximately 30 percent, and this is unacceptable. NCD

commends the President for creating a Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with

Disabilities to bring together cabinet leaders and agency heads to work on improving

employment outcomes for this population. NCD supports the work of the task force and sees this

report on ACAA implementation as an important call to action for members of the task force,

including the secretary of transportation.

This report, like the others that will follow, is grounded in the real world experiences of

people with disabilities who have endured countless violations of their rights as air travelers

under ACAA. More accommodations are available for air travelers with disabilities today than

ever before, but the availability of accommodations is inconsistent, and discriminatory treatment

continues. It is important to recognize that the negative experiences of disabled travelers go

beyond the typical hassles to which frequent travelers are accustomed. Notwithstanding the fact

that ACAA has been the law for more than 12 years, people who use wheelchairs continue to

encounter regular problems, from not being given a bulkhead seat to being mishandled and

occasionally dropped by poorly trained or insensitive staff. Flight crews continue to refuse to

stow adaptive equipment such as walkers and folding wheelchairs in the aircraft cabin. Travelers

with disabilities who are accompanied by able-bodied friends, colleagues, or relatives often find

that airline personnel have a tendency to direct questions and instructions to their travel partners

rather than address them directly. In short, air travelers with disabilities frequently find air travel

unnecessarily humiliating and upsetting. Many problems stem from the unwillingness of some

airline staff to recognize that a request for an accommodation in air travel invokes civil rights

protections. ACAA is a rights law, but it has been largely implemented with the consistency of a

customer service policy. 

NCD urges the President, Congress, the federal enforcement agencies, and covered

entities to work together to address the inadequacies described in this report and the three reports

to follow. For laws like ACAA to achieve the desired effect, they must be taken seriously and

owned by government and industry. The ultimate test of any civil rights law is the extent to

which people in the protected class can count on the law for real protection. 
vii

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... xv

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of this Report ........................................................................................................ 1

Scope of the Report ............................................................................................................ 2

Research Approach ............................................................................................................ 2

Research Activities ............................................................................................................ 2

Report Structure ................................................................................................................. 3

PART I. THE LAW, THE REGULATION, AND THE CONTEXT .................................. 5

1.0 The Law: The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 ................................................................. 5

1.1 Why the Air Carrier Access Act? .......................................................................... 5

1.2 ACAA Impact: Progress but Persistent Problems ................................................. 6

1.3 Background on the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 .............................................. 9

2.0 The Implementing Regulation: 14 CFR Part 382&Nondiscrimination 

on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel ........................................................................... 12

2.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................ 12

2.1.1 Who is an "Individual with a Disability"? ............................................... 12

2.1.2 Who is a "Qualified Individual with a Disability"? ................................. 12

2.1.3 Nondiscrimination: What It Means ......................................................... 13

2.2 Implementation Requirements ............................................................................. 13

2.2.1 Implementation Issues ............................................................................. 13

2.2.2 Airline Administrative Responsibilities ................................................... 17

2.2.3 Department of Transportation Administrative Responsibilities .............. 20

3.0 Recently Approved Changes to the Regulation and Proposed Changes to the Law ....... 20

3.1 Final Rule Amending Part 382, Issued March 4, 1998 ........................................ 20

3.1.1 Clarification of the Definition of Nondiscrimination .............................. 20

3.1.2 Procedures for Providing Seating Accommodations ............................... 21

3.1.3 In-Cabin Stowage of Collapsible Electric Wheelchairs ........................... 21

3.1.4 Issues Not Addressed by the Final Rule .................................................. 22

3.2 Proposed Amendments to the Air Carrier Access Act ......................................... 22
viii

3.2.1 Draft Miller Amendment ......................................................................... 22

3.2.2 Inclusion of Code-Sharing Foreign Carriers ............................................ 23

PART II. THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION (DOT) .............................................................................. 25

4.0 Background on DOT Enforcement Philosophy and Operations ...................................... 25

4.1 Regulation of the Aviation Industry and Consumer Protection ........................... 25

4.2 The Transition to Industry Deregulation .............................................................. 25

4.3 Impact on the DOT Organization ......................................................................... 27

4.4 Consumer Protection in a Postregulation Environment ....................................... 27

4.5 Civil Rights Enforcement as a Function of Consumer Protection ....................... 28

5.0 DOT Organizational Components Involved in ACAA Enforcement .............................. 29

5.1 Office of General Counsel ................................................................................... 29

5.2 Regulation and Enforcement ................................................................................ 29

5.3 Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings ............................................................... 29

5.4 Office of Environment, Energy, and Safety ......................................................... 34

5.5 Departmental Office of Civil Rights .................................................................... 34

5.6 Analysis and Recommendations .......................................................................... 35

6.0 Implementation and Enforcement Functions ................................................................... 36

6.1 Consumer Information Explaining the Law ........................................................ 36

6.1.1 Public Information: Print Material .......................................................... 36

6.1.2 Website Information ................................................................................ 37

6.1.3 Available Formats .................................................................................... 37

6.1.4 Methods of Dissemination ....................................................................... 37

6.1.5 Analysis and Recommendations .............................................................. 38

6.2 General Guidance to the Aviation Industry ......................................................... 40

6.2.1 Letters to the Airline Industry .................................................................. 40

6.2.2 Consumer Complaint Review Meetings .................................................. 42

6.2.3 General Compliance Review Meetings .................................................... 43

6.2.4 DOT Presentations at Industrywide Conferences .................................... 44

6.2.5 Analysis and Recommendations .............................................................. 44

6.3 Technical Assistance to the Aviation Industry .................................................... 48

6.3.1 Aircraft Accessibility Federal Advisory Committee ............................... 49
ix

6.3.2 Analysis and Recommendations .............................................................. 50

6.4 Informal Complaints Alleging Potential Violations of 

14 CFR Part 382 .................................................................................................. 51

6.4.1 The Informal Consumer Complaint Process ............................................ 51

6.4.2 Characteristics of Informal Complaints Received by DOT ..................... 53

6.4.3 Complaint Data from the Airlines: A Different Picture ........................... 55

6.4.4 Analysis and Recommendations .............................................................. 64

6.5 Formal Complaints and Enforcement Actions ..................................................... 70

6.5.1 Filing a Formal Complaint ....................................................................... 70

6.5.2 The Formal Complaint Process ................................................................ 71

6.5.3 Informal Enforcement Strategy ................................................................ 72

6.5.4 Enforcement Orders ................................................................................. 73

6.5.5 Formal Enforcement Proceedings ............................................................ 74

6.5.6 Amicus Briefs .......................................................................................... 79

6.5.7 Analysis and Recommendations .............................................................. 80

6.6 Compliance Monitoring ....................................................................................... 82

6.6.1 Review of Airline Compliance and Personnel Training Plans ................ 82

6.6.2 Analysis and Recommendations .............................................................. 83

6.7 ACAA Rulemaking&14 CFR Part 382 and Modifications ................................. 84

6.7.1 The Rulemaking Process .......................................................................... 85

6.7.2 Analysis and Recommendations .............................................................. 87

6.7.3 The Regulatory Negotiation Process ....................................................... 87

6.7.4 Analysis and Recommendations .............................................................. 88

6.8 Monitoring the Law ............................................................................................. 89

PART III. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON ACAA ENFORCEMENT ....................................... 91

7.0 Aviation Industry Perspectives ........................................................................................ 91

8.0 Perspectives of Air Travelers with Disabilities ................................................................ 92

8.1 Accessibility of Air Travel&A Customer Perspective ......................................... 92

8.2 Industry Compliance with ACAA and DOT Enforcement of ACAA: 

A Sample of Customer Complaints ..................................................................... 93
x

8.3 Analysis ................................................................................................................ 97

PART IV. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 99

9.0 Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................................... 99

9.1 Recommendations for Organizational Changes ................................................... 99

9.2 Recommendations for Process Changes ............................................................ 100

9.3 Recommendations for Statutory Changes and Increased

Appropriations ................................................................................................... 101

ENDNOTES .............................................................................................................................. 103

APPENDICES

Appendix A 14 CFR Part 382 Requirements Summary ......................................................... A-1

Appendix B Summaries of Complaints Filed Directly with a Major Air Carrier .................... B-1

Appendix C Summarized Selected Complaints from the Consumer 

 Protection Division ............................................................................................ C-1

Appendix D Glossary of Acronyms ........................................................................................ D-1

Appendix E 14 CFR 302.3 Filing of Documents ..................................................................... E-1

Appendix F List of Interviews and Consultations .................................................................. F-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 U.S. Department of Transportation Air Carrier Access Act

Implementation and Enforcement Functions ....................................................... 30

Figure 2 U.S. Department Of Transportation Organizational Chart .................................. 32

Table 1 Summary of ACAA Informal Consumer Complaints&

April 5, 1990%October 23, 1997 .......................................................................... 58

Table 2 ACAA Informal Complaints against Major U.S. Carriers Received 

by DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division ................................................ 59

Table 3 Informal ACAA Complaints: Disability Categories ........................................... 60

Table 4 ACAA Informal Complaints: Types of Disability Complaints Received .......... 61
xi

Table 5 Complaints Filed Directly with a Major Air Carrier&

January 1993%November 1996 ............................................................................ 62

Table 6 Complaints Filed Directly with a Major Air Carrier&

January 1993%through November 1996&Rank 

Ordering of Recurring Complaints ...................................................................... 63
xii
xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

All research, data collection, and analysis for this study were conducted under contract

for the National Council on Disability’s (NCD) Disability Civil Rights Monitoring Project by the

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF). Kathleen Blank, J.D., was the

principal researcher and lead author for this report before she joined the NCD staff in the spring

of 1998. Nancy Mudrick, Ph.D., senior data and methodological consultant; Mary Lou Breslin,

project director; and Jane West, Ph.D., research director, were co-authors. Statistical analysis of

complaint data was performed under the direction of Nancy Mudrick. Jennifer Thau and Anne

Marie Sullivan, social work graduate students at Syracuse University, provided research

assistance.

 We wish to acknowledge the many individuals, including members of the support staff, at

the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) who helped the researchers with this study. With

few exceptions, DOT staff cooperated fully in providing information, recommending valuable

alternative sources of information and facilitating internal access to key DOT personnel. We

particularly appreciate the candor of the DOT interviewees and the opportunity to speak candidly

with them about the Air Carriers Access Act (ACAA) enforcement from a disability community

perspective. The thorough review and valuable comments on the final draft provided by the

Office of General Counsel contributed significantly to the quality of this report.

Finally, we wish to thank the many stakeholder group representatives, from both the

aviation industry and the disability community, who generously gave their time and expertise to

provide information to our researchers. Their input helped to clarify where change is most

critically needed and alternative strategies for achieving enforcement goals. In particular, we

acknowledge the many members and representatives of the disability community who shared

their firsthand knowledge and experience of ACAA implementation and enforcement. Their

observations added a real-world perspective to our research.
xiv
xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) became law in 1986, prohibiting discrimination

against passengers with disabilities by air carriers in providing air transportation services.1

Congress charged the Secretary of Transportation with promulgating the implementing

regulations within 120 days of the statute’s enactment. Following deadlocked regulatory

negotiations and a notice of proposed rulemaking that produced more than 300 stakeholder

comments, 14 CFR Part 382 went into effect on April 5, 1990, with many issues still

unresolved.2 These unresolved issues, coupled with a regulatory environment dating back to the

Reagan administration that encourages voluntary compliance and minimizes federal oversight,

have contributed to an enforcement effort that is both inconsistent and limited in scope.

The findings of this study show that the Department of Transportation (DOT) model for

ACAA enforcement relies heavily on monitoring of complaints and voluntary compliance by air

carriers. This approach does not emphasize traditional investigation and prosecution of

complaints similar to other federal civil rights enforcement agencies. Accordingly, the National

Council on Disability (NCD) believes that DOT’s approach is critically lacking in the key areas

of compliance monitoring, complaint handling, and leadership by the Department of

Transportation. Despite DOT’s stated commitment to ACAA enforcement, there is no regular

monitoring program to ensure compliance in day-to-day airline operations. DOT’s informal

complaint-handling process serves more as a tool for monitoring general compliance across the

industry than as a system for resolving individual discrimination claims. Even the formal

complaint process focuses only on issues of broad public interest, so that individual complainants

have no reliable administrative means to obtain satisfaction unless the airline voluntarily

cooperates. Research data show that a long-standing lack of resources has substantially limited 

DOT’s leadership in addressing difficult compliance problems (i.e., providing lifts and other

boarding devices, providing regular training of airline personnel, and ensuring that new aircraft

meet accessibility standards).

The problems of ACAA enforcement arise from inadequacies not only in DOT’s

enforcement mechanism but in the law itself. Unlike some other civil rights laws, the ACAA
xvi

does not establish a private right of action and contains no provisions for attorneys’ fees and

damages. Neither does the law extend the nondiscrimination mandate to foreign air carriers

operating in the United States, including code-sharing partners of domestic airlines. The law’s

general language invites contradictory interpretations. In lieu of an adequate budget and specific

enforcement provisions in the law, DOT has adopted a minimalist approach that has delayed full

compliance and consistent implementation across the industry.

Although the regulations mandate clear requirements for services such as boarding

assistance, teletypes in airports, and other accommodations to make air travel accessible for

passengers with disabilities, widespread implementation and compliance problems persist 12

years after ACAA became law. Obtaining service accommodations continues to be a major

challenge at airports, ticketing offices, and travel services across the nation. When they fly,

people with disabilities still face uncertainty about whether air carriers will provide

accommodations such as effective communication of flight information, accessible seats,

appropriate boarding assistance, and careful handling and stowage of their wheelchairs and other

assistive devices. 

This study examines federal ACAA enforcement efforts and the impact of these efforts on

the civil rights of persons with disabilities.

Key Findings

The key findings indicate that ACAA implementation and enforcement efforts over the

past 12 years have been so lacking in several essential areas as to constitute nonenforcement. A

significant part of the problem is an extreme lack of resources that has affected DOT’s capacity

to develop and maintain a credible enforcement program or to adequately support ACAA

implementation.

• DOT’s budget and staff for ACAA enforcement are drastically inadequate.
xvii

The impact of changing political and fiscal priorities on ACAA enforcement cannot be

underestimated. Since the 1970s, Congress has steadily cut the budget of the Office of

the Secretary within DOT. As a result, the staff required for a credible ACAA

enforcement program is simply not there. The Consumer Protection Division, where

most ACAA-related activity originates, has less than one full-time equivalent assigned to

ACAA enforcement.

• Most informal ACAA complaints are not individually investigated as are

discrimination complaints filed with other federal agencies.

• DOT enforcement of ACAA is not within the purview of a civil rights office. 

The Office for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings and the Aviation Consumer

Protection Division are primarily responsible for ACAA enforcement, using an approach

that combines customer service, consumer protection, and civil rights enforcement

perspectives. Informal ACAA complaints are classified as "Category C"

(Reservations/Ticketing/Boarding) consumer complaints and are reported monthly in

DOT’s Air Travel Consumer Report as an aggregate figure. Although ACAA complaints

are subject to a higher standard of review (based on Part 382) than other consumer

complaints, the vast majority are not individually investigated, like discrimination

complaints filed with most other federal agencies.

• DOT has taken little initiative to educate the public in general, and people with

disabilities in particular, about their rights under the law.

Most of the ACAA public information materials provided during October 1997 were

sparse, giving only a general overview of ACAA provisions. New Horizons, the most

detailed DOT consumer publication on ACAA, was still awaiting incorporation of new

information resulting from the November 1996 amendment to Part 382. DOT staff

reported that New Horizons was usually sent only on request and not routinely to ACAA

complainants with their acknowledgment letters. Now it is available on DOT’s website. 

On the other hand, DOT publishes and disseminates its monthly Air Travel Consumer

Report to many aviation industry and consumer constituencies. The report provides

performance rating information (i.e., on-time flights and consumer complaint statistics)

for each of the major and national air carriers. Disability-related complaints, however,

are reported in a single aggregate figure, precluding any comparisons among carriers.

• DOT’s informal complaint-handling system functions primarily to track, not

investigate, complaints. 

Between April 1990 and October 1997, DOT received 1,831 disability-related

complaints. DOT did not investigate the majority of these complaints, even though Part

382 directs complainants to contact DOT for assistance. The recorded message on DOT’s
xviii

customer assistance line tells callers that DOT is not staffed to return phone calls or

mediate individual complaints but will register their complaints in the database and send

an acknowledgment letter for any complaints made in writing. In addition, DOT sends a

letter of notification to the airline(s) cited in the written complaint instructing them to

respond to the complainant and forward a copy of their response to DOT within thirty

days. DOT personnel record the airline response in the complaint record, and followup

with the airline if no response has been made within the 30-day time frame. However,

DOT follow-up does not always occur, and a response by the airline does not mean that

any resolution was reached from the complainant’s point of view. Once the airline

response is recorded in the complaint record, the complaint is typically closed, regardless

of the result. Only complaints determined to involve an airline’s established policy or

procedure that is out of compliance with the ACAA receive additional follow-up. The

majority of complaints are determined not to be matters of established policy or

procedure.

• DOT rarely evaluates the ACAA complaints passengers send directly to airlines.

Under Part 382, passengers alleging an ACAA violation are first required to seek

resolution directly with the airlines involved. Airlines are then required to take the

necessary steps to correct the problem and inform complainants about their right to

elevate their complaints to DOT. Our research showed conclusively that DOT receives

only a fraction of the ACAA complaints actually registered with airlines. Despite its

authority under the law to request any reports it requires to enforce DOT regulations,3

DOT does not request even summary data on the complaints received directly by an

airline, unless investigating in connection with a potential enforcement action. An

independent analysis of one major airline’s complaint data conducted by our researchers

showed a ratio of 36 to 1 for airline v. DOT complaints. By DOT’s own account, an

airline receives about 100 ACAA complaints for every 1 DOT receives. Furthermore, the

yearly number of ACAA complaints received for the past eight years has either increased

or remained constant each year. From a consumer perspective, these numbers would

indicate marginal improvement in compliance.

• The ACAA provides no private remedy for individuals alleging civil rights

violations.

The ACAA statute does not provide a private right of action, but Part 382 directs any

consumer wishing to file a formal complaint to do so in accordance with 14 CFR Part

302. Part 302 sets forth an administrative enforcement process adopted during the 1950s

for complaints alleging violations of federal aviation statutes and DOT rules or orders. 

Like the administrative enforcement mechanisms for adjudicating complaints brought

under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and

other disability civil rights laws, DOT cannot assess damages on behalf of successful

complainants. DOT can only require air carriers to take prompt action to change policies
xix

and procedures not in compliance with ACAA and assess civil penalties. The private

right of action established through ACAA case law should be codified to ensure the

individual plaintiff’s right of redress. 

• DOT has yet to file a single amicus brief on an ACAA case.

DOT is not authorized under ACAA to file amicus briefs in cases alleging ACAA

violations but can petition the Department of Justice (DOJ) for permission to do so. DOT

also reports that it has been asked only once to participate as an amicus. In this case,

DOT intervened through private correspondence with both the plaintiff and defendant,

resulting in the defendant agreeing to modify its policies and procedures to comply with

the rule. DOT chose not to petition DOJ to file an amicus brief after the defendant failed

to appeal the court’s verdict of liability. 

It should be noted that agencies with responsibility for enforcing civil rights statutes

routinely request permission to file amicus briefs, and DOJ typically approves these

requests. By not filing amicus briefs, DOT takes no initiative to influence the

development of case law as it applies to ACAA enforcement. DOT’s failure to take a

position on the litigated issues has slowed the development of a positive and consistent

body of case law.

• DOT’s ACAA compliance monitoring is infrequent, inconsistent, and largely

ineffective.

Under Part 382, DOT was required to review the ACAA compliance programs and

training plans by December 1990. By 1992, DOT had reviewed the compliance and

training plans of between 30 and 40 air carriers, and had required changes to any plans

found out of compliance with Part 382. Since then, DOT has conducted no regular

monitoring to ensure airline implementation of their ACAA compliance and training

plans. 

Part 382 requires airlines to train all new personnel and conduct periodic refresher

training for all personnel with job duties affected by ACAA requirements. Initially,

researchers were told that DOT typically does not review ACAA training programs or

records, the complaint handling process, or complaint records when conducting routine

on-site reviews with airlines, unless complaints received by DOT indicate a problem. 

Later, researchers were told that these on-site visits did include such reviews. Despite the

request of researchers for reports documenting the scope and findings of these on-site

reviews, none were provided.

• DOT has not satisfactorily addressed significant gaps in the application of ACAA.
xx

Foreign air carriers operating in the United States are presently not bound either by the

ACAA or by U.S. aviation safety laws and regulations. Although a general

nondiscrimination provision of the Federal Aviation (FA) Act has applied to foreign

carriers since the 1950s,4

 DOT has generally invoked it in connection with rate or fare

issues. As of the date of this report, DOT has based only two formal enforcement actions

on this provision for discrimination on the basis of disability.5 Although consumers

generally benefit from the competition resulting from the globalization of air travel

networks, Americans with disabilities continue to encounter discrimination during

international air travel. As the executive agency primarily responsible for international

air transportation policy, DOT negotiates the terms of international agreements under

which foreign carriers must operate in the United States. Foreign air carriers enjoying

access to the U.S. airport facilities and air travel market, especially through code-sharing

arrangements with U.S. carriers, must conform to the requirements of the same civil

rights laws that bind U.S. carriers.

• Part 382 lacks provisions requiring DOT to undertake implementation activities

such as public education and to engage in enforcement activities regularly such as

compliance monitoring and investigation of informal complaints.

Other than the provisions to review airline compliance programs and training plans and

ensure that they conform to the requirements of the regulation, Part 382 has no provisions

requiring DOT to engage in implementation and regular compliance-monitoring activities

to ensure airline follow-through. Without authorizing DOT to engage in proactive

monitoring of airline compliance, the mandate to enforce ACAA carries little substance. 

Below are key recommendations addressing organizational, process, and statutory

changes needed to address and correct the deficiencies in ACAA enforcement.

Key Recommendations

DOT must make substantive organizational and process changes if ACAA enforcement is

to become effective. It must

• Establish a discrete unit for ACAA civil rights enforcement that is independent of the

Consumer Protection Division, within either the Departmental Office on Civil Rights or

the Office of General Counsel.

• Request that Congress appropriate the funds necessary for adequate staff and resources to

effectively run an enforcement office, including a line item for an aggressive public

education initiative.
xxi

• Develop and carry out strategic ACAA education campaigns geared to persons with

disabilities and to the general public.

• Further articulate and consistently apply the assessment criteria for determining when an

ACAA violation has occurred and when enforcement action is appropriate.

• As for other civil rights laws, any ACAA complaint alleging a prima facie violation,

including an informal complaint, should have standing. DOT should investigate all prima

facie violations to determine whether a violation has likely occurred and take appropriate

corrective action.

• Expand enforcement action for ACAA complaints beyond the Part 302 administrative

process to allow remedies for individual plaintiffs. Administrative action under Part 302

was never intended as a means for redressing individual civil rights complaints.

• Redesign DOT’s database dedicated to complaint processing and compliance monitoring

to maintain the data necessary for an accurate picture of ACAA compliance.

• Require air carriers to submit to DOT at regular intervals their Part 382 complaint data in

a standardized summary format that tracks and compares the numbers and types of

complaints, as well as trends in their complaint data. Publish the results of the

summarized complaint data for all major airlines in the DOT Air Travel Consumer

Report.

• Undertake more extensive investigation and analyses of the causes of Part 382

noncompliance among air carriers and airports.

• Expand compliance monitoring and enforcement activities and commit more resources

(both staff and funds) to them. Regularly analyze the summaries prepared by air carriers

of their Part 382 complaint data to identify noncompliance areas and to monitor potential

"pattern and practice" trends.

• Review noncompliance areas identified in the airline complaint data summaries with

airline representatives at quarterly intervals and require airlines to submit correction

plans, including objective measures of success and a time frame for achieving

compliance.

• Provide more training and targeted technical assistance to the aviation industry in all

aspects of ACAA implementation and compliance.

• Exercise leadership in facilitating resolution of the remaining technical issues impeding

ACAA compliance as well as ongoing disagreements concerning appropriate

accommodations.
xxii

The weaknesses of Part 382 and DOT’s current enforcement mechanism make an

effective private right of action especially important. DOT’s efforts to create the necessary

incentives for ACAA compliance have been grossly inadequate. If ACAA’s nondiscrimination

mandate is to be realized, the disability community will have to use private right of action to

create effective incentives. For this reason, a private right of action must be made more

accessible through the same statutory right to attorneys’ fees and damages as plaintiffs under

Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Such statutory rights have a common goal: to

minimize the cost of litigation to plaintiffs and maximize the incentive of potential defendants to

stop discriminatory policies and practices.

In light of the above, we recommend that Congress

• Amend the ACAA to establish

ù a statutory private right of action;

ù the award of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees; and

ù the award of compensatory and punitive damages to successful litigants.

• Amend the ACAA to authorize the Access Board to develop standards in consultation

with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for accessible cabin interiors and for any

equipment related to air travel access, including boarding assistance equipment.

• Amend ACAA to expand DOT’s authority to:

ù conduct public education activities geared to consumers with disabilities

and the general public;

ù conduct regular ACAA compliance monitoring with the airlines; and

ù levy fines when the finding of an individual informal complaint

investigation indicates a violation has occurred, and impose civil penalties

for findings of pattern and practice violations.

• Amend ACAA to include foreign air carriers operating in the U.S. travel market and

using U.S. airport facilities within the scope of the law and its implementing regulation.
xxiii

While the FA Act prohibits unreasonable discrimination by foreign air carriers in

providing foreign air transportation, it has been applied only twice in cases of disability

discrimination. In both cases, the foreign carrier disputed that their treatment of the passengers

was discriminatory and challenged the statute’s applicability on this and other grounds. The

ACAA mandate of nondiscrimination, on the other hand, is clear in its legislative history: "to

provide equal access to air transportation,"6 ensuring that people with disabilities are "treated

equally when they [use] commercial air carriers"7 and not as "second class citizens when it

comes to air travel."8 This mandate should apply equally to domestic and foreign air

transportation service providers operating regularly within the U.S. air travel market.

This report candidly assesses current federal enforcement of the ACAA and recommends

changes necessary to fully realize its mandate.
xxiv
1

INTRODUCTION

Background

The Disability Civil Rights Monitoring Project is a policy initiative of the National

Council on Disability (NCD) to research, evaluate, and report to Congress on federal

implementation and enforcement of disability civil rights laws. The impetus for this project was

the 1996 National Summit on Disability Policy, at which a diverse group of disability

community leaders from across the country recommended that NCD

• work with the responsible federal agencies to develop strategies for greater enforcement

of existing disability civil rights laws "consistent with the philosophy of...ADA

(Americans with Disabilities Act)";9 

• continue working "toward elimination of contradictory laws, regulations and programs";

and

• "promote coordination and commonality of goals across agencies."10

NCD responded to these directives with a request for proposals to assess the Federal

Government’s compliance, enforcement, and public information efforts for ADA, Part B of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Fair Housing Act with 1988

Amendments, and the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA).11 NCD selected the Disability Rights

Education and Defense Fund to assess and report on federal enforcement of each of the four laws

and on the cumulative impact of federal enforcement of all four laws.

Purpose of this Report 

This first report evaluates the effectiveness of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in

implementing and enforcing ACAA. Areas of assessment include

• responsiveness of the regulation and approved modifications in addressing key areas of

discriminatory practice;

• clarity of the provisions;

• timeliness in issuing and implementing the regulation;

• quality and availability of public information to consumers on the provisions of ACAA;
2

• quality and timeliness of guidance to the aviation industry in implementing the provisions

of ACAA;

• effectiveness of compliance and enforcement activities in identifying and eliminating

patterns of discriminatory practice, reducing the overall frequency of incidents of alleged

violations, and creating equal access to quality air transportation service for persons with

disabilities;

• overall effectiveness of the agency in orchestrating interdepartmental (intermodal)

collaboration and coordination of resources to achieve industry compliance; and

• effectiveness of agency leadership in helping to resolve obstacles to the elimination of

discriminatory practices and access barriers.

Scope of the Report

Although this report addresses federal enforcement of the ACAA carried out by DOT, it

does not cover several significant aspects of implementation or enforcement. Specifically, it

does not address private litigation or the activities of the federally funded protection and

advocacy system. Nor does this report advocate specific solutions to the many unresolved

ACAA implementation issues. Finally, the report does not attempt to evaluate DOT enforcement

procedures in relation to the Administrative Procedures Act.

Research Approach

ACAA federal enforcement activities are assessed from two perspectives. The "whole

agency" approach examines the effectiveness of DOT internal coordination and collaboration in

achieving all enforcement objectives for which it is responsible. The "whole law" approach

examines the overall effectiveness of external coordination and collaboration (i.e., interagency

and with the private sector) in achieving all the enforcement objectives of the law.

Research Activities

The research activities for this study included the following:

• identifying the functions and organizational components of the overall federal ACAA

enforcement mechanism;

• identifying, collecting, and analyzing data on ACAA implementation, compliance
3

monitoring, and enforcement activities of the agency;

• identifying, collecting, and analyzing data on ACAA public information activities of the

agency and its contractors;

• conducting interviews with the responsible agency staff to validate understanding of the

day-to-day operation of ACAA enforcement functions;

• analyzing interactions and interrelationship of enforcement functions and their net impact

in addressing noncompliance;

• reviewing and evaluating overall enforcement operations in light of the requirements,

legislative history, and judicial interpretations of the regulation;

• identifying issues and areas for improvement in the enforcement mechanism and

operations (i.e., gaps, duplication, overlaps, inconsistencies);

• conducting a literature review to add dimension and perspective to research findings on

identified issues, including model practices for enhancing compliance; and

• deriving conclusions and developing preliminary recommendations from the entire

analysis.

Report Structure

The report is presented in four parts. Part I provides background on the enactment of

ACAA, as well as a brief overview of the current law, regulation, and proposed amendments. An

overview of DOT’s role in implementing and enforcing ACAA is presented in Part II. This part

includes research findings, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations with respect to each of

the major ACAA enforcement functions. Part III presents feedback from representatives of the

primary ACAA stakeholder groups (the aviation industry and the disability community) on

DOT’s role in implementing and enforcing ACAA. Part IV summarizes NCD’s

recommendations for strengthening federal ACAA enforcement.
4
5

PART I: THE LAW, THE REGULATION, AND THE CONTEXT

1.0 The Law: The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) of 1986

1.1 Why the Air Carrier Access Act?

Historically, air travel for people with disabilities has not been for the faint of heart. 

Often, people with certain disabilities either chose not to fly or traveled by air knowing they

would probably face prejudice, hostility, disability stereotyping, as well as architectural and other

physical barriers; sometimes they faced an outright denial of their right to travel.

Before enactment of ACAA, airlines commonly refused to transport motorized

wheelchairs, alleging that the wet cell batteries were hazardous. Airline workers frequently

either drained the acid from the batteries before loading the chair or left the batteries behind

without notifying the passengers, who then were stranded when they arrived at their destination. 

Often travelers were required to sign liability waivers to protect the airlines from responsibility

for damaging wheelchairs, scooters, and other assistive devices. Because aircraft lacked

accessible lavatories, some people with mobility disabilities would limit fluid intake hours before

and often during their flight to avoid needing to use the bathroom, especially for long flights. 

Assistance with boarding and deplaning the aircraft for people with mobility disabilities was

often unavailable. When available, it was often unpredictable and even dangerous because of the

lack of personnel training and uniform policies on boarding assistance.

Last-minute denials and capricious and arbitrary requirements were commonplace. A

passenger told by a customer service representative that a guide dog would be allowed in the

passenger cabin would be told at the airport that the dog must travel in the baggage compartment. 

Travelers with certain disabilities were commonly told they could fly only if accompanied by a

person who did not have a disability, whether or not they needed or wanted assistance. 

Passengers were told on the phone that they could travel unaccompanied, only to learn at the

airport that they would not be allowed to fly alone. People perceived as having HIV/AIDS were

denied the right to board flights because of fears and misperceptions about their illness.
6

In the terminal and on the aircraft, deaf and hearing-impaired passengers had little or no

access to publicly announced flight information and safety instructions. Access to information

about flight delays or changes in departure gates and times often depended on the willingness of

an airline worker or fellow traveler to pass on the necessary information. Telephone

communication from an airport for a passenger with a hearing disability was virtually

impossible.

Although passage of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FA Act)12 created a legal duty of

nondiscrimination for air carriers, the will to implement and enforce both the spirit and letter of

this provision concretely on behalf of persons with disabilities did not exist until much more

recently. Airlines and airports did little or nothing to accommodate persons with disabilities. 

The inconsistency with which the same airline provided the meager accommodations available

resulted in a denial of access to many disabled travelers. 

The intent of Congress in legislating the ACAA was to mandate nondiscrimination by

requiring the accommodations necessary for travelers with disabilities to have equal access to air

travel and related services.13 Despite some significant improvements over the past 10 years, most

of the scenarios described above could well have taken place in many airports around the country

during the past six months. The remaining challenge is to remove the barriers to full

implementation of ACAA’s mandate of nondiscrimination.

1.2 ACAA Impact: Progress but Persistent Problems

More accommodations are available for air travelers with disabilities today than at any

time in history. Yet the availability of accommodations is inconsistent, and discriminatory

treatment continues. The following recent experiences of air travelers with disabilities were

reported by several technical assistance organizations serving individuals with disabilities.

Wheelchair Delivery: "It’s against our policy"

 A woman with muscular dystrophy who uses a motorized wheelchair fractured her leg

shortly before traveling from New Zealand to Los Angeles. She was experiencing much pain
7

when she boarded her flight. A frequent traveler, she requested that a tag be placed on her

wheelchair instructing the Los Angeles ground crew to deliver it to the arrival gate immediately

after the flight landed. Upon arriving, she was told by airline officials that airline policy

prevented them from delivering wheelchairs to the gate. She would have to transfer into an

airport chair and be pushed to the baggage claim area to retrieve her own chair. She refused,

telling the officials she was in great pain and could not endure being lifted unnecessarily. The

officials insisted their policy was valid and in force, and that she must deplane. She refused,

citing the ACAA and drawing attention to the extenuating circumstances created by her recently

fractured leg. An hour passed before the airline officials relented and arranged to have her chair

delivered to the plane. 

Following the incident, she wrote a letter to the airline complaining about her treatment

citing ACAA violations. In a telephone interview, the complainant said, "I have never been so

humiliated and embarrassed. They treated me with such hostility. At one point I broke down

and cried, I was so frustrated and in pain."

"We do not provide escort service"

The parent of a 12-year-old child with a cognitive impairment made an advance request

for airline personnel assistance to help her child travel between gates to make a connecting flight. 

The child had flown several times before, but on direct flights. On this occasion, there were no

direct flights to the child’s destination city. In various communications, including letters, airline

agents repeatedly told the child’s parent that they do not provide "escort service" (i.e.,

supervision to ensure that the passenger does not wander off) or "custodial assistance" for

children. The parent had requested neither; she had simply requested that someone help her child

travel from one gate to another to wait for her connecting flight.
8

"Sorry, no refunds for unused oxygen"

A woman with severe arthritis and heart problems was charged $300 for six canisters of

medical oxygen for in-flight use. According to FAA safety regulations, passengers may not

bring their own oxygen on board and must pay for oxygen canisters provided by the airline. Two

canisters of oxygen were unused at the conclusion of her trip. When she requested a refund, the

airline said it was not their policy to issue refunds for unused oxygen. Another passenger who

requested a refund for unused oxygen from a different airline complained that the price of

oxygen canisters had tripled (from $50 to $150) between 1995 and 1997. This passenger

received a modest refund for several unused canisters and assurances that the airline was working

to reduce the cost.

"Sorry, we don’t have time to board you"

A man who uses a manual wheelchair was en route from Houston to Billings with a plane

change in Denver. He had notified the airline that he would require a boarding chair and

boarding assistance for each leg of the trip. Upon arriving in Denver he reminded the gate agent

for the departing flight that he required a boarding chair. The gate agent told him a boarding

chair was not available and the airline did not have time to board him. He objected, informing

the agent that he had provided advance notice that he required a boarding chair. The passenger

missed his flight and was forced to spend the night in Denver. He elected not to file a complaint

because he felt it would not result in any significant change in the system.

"Please deplane immediately"

A man and his wife, both of whom have Tourette syndrome, had boarded a flight from

New York bound for San Francisco. Tourette syndrome is a condition characterized by

involuntary vocalizations exacerbated by stress. Upon learning of their presence on the plane,

the captain asked them to deplane because he believed they would be disruptive. They provided

literature on Tourette syndrome to the captain, explaining that their vocalizations were

involuntary and would subside when the stress of the moment had passed. The pilot refused to

allow the passengers to remain on the flight. The couple filed a lawsuit against the airline.
9

Each of the incidents above describes a potential ACAA violation. The following section

gives a brief history of the ACAA and explains the intent of Congress to remedy discrimination

against air travelers with disabilities.

1.3 Background on the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986

The ACAA was enacted after an extended and unsuccessful struggle to establish through

case law the illegality of discriminatory practices against air travelers with disabilities.14 The

legal obligation of nondiscrimination created by the FA Act in 1958 was based on two provisions

addressing air carriers’ service. Section 404(a) required air carriers to provide "safe and

adequate" service.15 Section 404(b), as originally written, prohibited "undue or unreasonable

preference or advantage to any particular person, port, locality, or description of traffic."16

Gradually, the legal meaning of these two provisions became linked and any kind of

unjustified discrimination toward air travelers was understood to be a violation of the air carriers’

duty to provide adequate air transportation service. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB),17

however, generally invoked the provision in connection with rate or fare issues. While

acknowledging section 404’s potential application to cases of noneconomic discrimination that

directly affected the provision of air transportation, CAB never applied it to any specific case

involving alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, race, gender, or ethnicity.18

Consequently, these provisions had little actual impact on improving access to air transportation

for persons with disabilities. Airline and airport policies, as a rule, remained unresponsive to the

unique service requirements of persons with disabilities, justified on the basis of safety,

economics, and the convenience of other passengers.19

Fifteen years after the FA Act was enacted, discrimination on the basis of disability was

specifically prohibited by law with the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.20 Section 504,

as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any federally assisted

program.21 This provision, along with the provisions of sections 404(a) and (b) of the FA Act,

formed the legal basis for the original nondiscrimination regulation (old Part 382).22 Subpart A

contained a general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of disability in providing air
10

transportation; subpart B contained specific requirements for service to disabled passengers; and

subpart C outlined record-keeping, reporting, and enforcement responsibilities. The general

prohibition contained in subpart A was based on section 404 of the FA Act and applied to all

certificated air carriers. The specific requirements of subparts B and C, based on the Section 504

provisions, applied only to certificated carriers receiving direct federal subsidies under the

Essential Air Service program.23

The Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) challenged the limited application of subparts

B and C in court, arguing that all carriers benefit from federal assistance in the form of Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control services and federal grants for improving

airport facilities. Therefore, PVA argued, Part 382 should be applied in its entirety to all air

carriers, in accordance with section 504. Although the U.S. District Court agreed with PVA’s

reasoning,24 the Supreme Court did not, holding that unsubsidized carriers were not recipients of

federal assistance and thus outside the scope of section 504.25 The Supreme Court’s decision

exempted most air carriers from the duty to make specific accommodations in providing services

to passengers with disabilities. 

In response to this decision, Congress enacted and President Reagan signed into law the

Air Carrier Access Act of 1986.26 Codified as section 404© of the FA Act, the amendment

prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by all air carriers, and authorizes DOT to issue

regulations "to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment of qualified handicapped individuals

consistent with safe carriage of all passengers on air carriers."

Congress’s multiple objectives are clear in the statute’s legislative history. First, all air

carriers were to be bound by affirmative responsibilities similar to those set forth in subparts B

and C of the existing regulation. Second, the statute was specifically intended to remedy

"discriminatory, inconsistent and unpredictable treatment" of air travelers with disabilities. 

Finally, the statute affirmed that rules for accommodation were to be consistent with safety

regulations, and that restrictions not based on safety and applied solely to passengers with

disabilities were to be eliminated.
11

The new ACAA rule, replacing the old Part 382, took more than four years to develop. 

Stakeholders in the aviation industry and the disability community provided significant input to

the final rule through a regulatory negotiation process. In promulgating the final rule, the

Department of Transportation (DOT) clarified five core issues:

First, DOT applied the section 504 "undue burden" principle to strike a balance between

requiring accommodations sufficient to enable equal access while containing the costs to the

aviation industry in making those accommodations.27

Second, DOT clarified that air carrier discretion in imposing additional requirements or

restrictions on air travelers with disabilities is limited to what is required by FAA safety rules.28

Third, DOT emphasized that the new Part 382 resulted from a regulatory negotiation

requested by the parties.29 DOT used much of the information generated through the process to

develop the new, more detailed regulation to supersede the old Part 382. 

Fourth, DOT declared that Part 382 should preempt state regulations protecting persons

with disabilities in the area of air transportation services but should be applied on a case-by-case

basis.30

Finally, DOT declared its responsibility to implement the ACAA by prohibiting

discriminatory practices. Given the continued prevalence of many discriminatory practices under

the old Part 382, the new rule required greater clarity in establishing standards to ensure

consistent practices by the airlines.31

The following section provides a summary of key Part 382 implementation provisions, as

well as an overview of ongoing and unresolved ACAA implementation issues.
12

2.0 The Implementing Regulation: 14 CFR Part 382&Nondiscrimination on the Basis of

Disability in Air Travel

The purpose of Part 382 is to implement the ACAA nondiscrimination mandate: "[N]o

air carrier may discriminate against any otherwise qualified individual with a disability, by

reason of such disability, in the provision of air transportation."32 Part 382 details the actions

necessary for compliance. Although clear in many respects, the regulation’s areas of uncertainty

and stalemate continue to hamper its effectiveness. And clarity notwithstanding, many of the

basic Part 382 requirements are poorly understood and not consistently implemented.

2.1 Definitions

2.1.1 Who is an "Individual with a Disability?"

Any individual who

• has physical or mental impairment that on a permanent or temporary basis substantially

limits one or more major life activities;

• has a record of such impairment; or

• is regarded as having such impairment.

It should be noted that a person with a substantially limiting temporary impairment (e.g.,

broken limb, acute allergic reaction) is within the scope of the nondiscrimination provision.

2.1.2 Who is a "Qualified Individual with a Disability"?

Any individual with a disability who

• with respect to using airport terminal facilities and ground transportation or obtaining

information, acts to avail himself or herself of facilities or services offered by an air

carrier to the general public, with reasonable accommodations provided by the air carrier,

as needed;

• with respect to obtaining an airline ticket, offers or makes a good faith attempt to offer to

buy, or otherwise validly obtain, an airline ticket; and

• with respect to obtaining air transportation or other services or accommodations required

by Part 382, possesses a valid ticket, presents himself or herself for travel at the airport

for the ticketed flight, and meets reasonable, nondiscriminatory contract of carriage33

requirements applicable to all passengers.34
13

2.1.3 Nondiscrimination: What It Means

Air carriers are prohibited from

• excluding or denying passengers with disabilities the benefit of any air transportation or

related services available to other persons, even if separate or different services are

provided, except when specifically permitted by the regulation;35

• requiring individuals with disabilities to accept special services they did not request;36

• restricting the movement of passengers with disabilities in terminals or requiring them to

remain in a special holding area in order to receive assistance, or mandating any other

separate treatment, unless permitted or required by Part 382;37

• requiring passengers with disabilities to sit on blankets;38

• imposing charges on persons with disabilities for providing the facilities, equipment, or

services required by Part 382;39 or

• taking adverse action against an individual who asserts rights protected by the ACAA,

whether on his or her own behalf, or through or on behalf of someone else.40

Air carriers shall also ensure that their contractors who provide services to passengers are

bound contractually by a nondiscrimination provision to

• perform their activities on behalf of the air carriers consistent with Part 382; and 

• comply with directives issued by the air carriers’ complaint resolution officers (CROs).41

2.2 Implementation Requirements

2.2.1 Implementation Issues

Detailed descriptions of the Part 382 nondiscrimination requirements are in Appendix A,

organized under headings corresponding to those in the regulation. For many of these

requirements, compliance has been uneven. In some instances, requirements are being

challenged or disregarded by airline policies that effectively circumvent the intent of certain

provisions and prevent their implementation. A brief commentary on some of the unresolved

implementation issues follows.
14

Accessible Cabin Interiors

DOT has no design inspection program to ensure that all aircraft ordered after August 5,

1990, conform to the Part 382 accessibility requirements. It is difficult to imagine how

compliance can otherwise be ensured. In 1997, 187 new aircraft were scheduled for delivery to

Air Transport Association member airlines, which are mostly U.S. air carriers.42 By 2002,

another 457 new aircraft will be delivered.43 Most of these deliveries will be commercial

passenger aircraft. If these new aircraft are not designed and built in compliance, retrofitting will

be the only viable remedy. Because the cost will far exceed building the aircraft to correct

specification, retrofitting will likely be viewed as an "undue burden" inconsistent with the legal

standard for reasonable accommodation. The result will be further delays in access to service for

air travelers with disabilities.

Lifting and Carrying Passengers

Lifting and carrying is an issue involving the safety and dignity of passengers, as well as

air carrier personnel.44 Although assistance from air carrier personnel in using ground

wheelchairs, boarding wheelchairs, on-board chairs, ramps, and mechanical lifts is within the

intended scope of the regulation, "hand-carrying" passengers onto small aircraft (fewer than 30

seats) is not. The reason is that in-door stairs, by which passengers enter aircraft not accessible

by a mechanical lift, can safely accommodate only one person at a time.45 

In other circumstances, lifting and carrying assistance is required where such assistance is

reasonable. The problem in implementing the "lifting and carrying" provisions is one of

differing interpretations of what is required. Some air carrier personnel will help with transfers

that involve lifting, and others will not. On the other hand, some personnel will refuse to allow

even friends, family, or personal attendants to lift the passenger with a disability, insisting that

air carrier personnel do the lifting. The unfortunate results have sometimes been injuries from

being dropped or otherwise mishandled by personnel not well trained in lifting techniques, or

refusals to provide needed assistance.
15

Inconsistencies in policy and practice add to the frustration and unpredictability

encountered by air travelers with mobility impairments. More work is needed to define

appropriate guidelines for limited physical assistance that minimizes the risk of injury to either

passengers or air carrier personnel.

Traveling with an Attendant

Given the inconsistencies among airlines in their lifting/carrying policies, traveling with

an attendant is the only way for persons with mobility disabilities to ensure such assistance while

traveling. Many passengers with disabilities traveling with an attendant have experienced two

major problems. First, persons whose health is unpredictable because of severe disabilities may

not always be able to travel on the date they are scheduled to fly. Unless they have purchased

full-priced tickets, they typically lose anywhere from $150 ($75 for each ticket to change their

travel date) to the entire cost of two tickets upon canceling their trip. Exceptions are rarely made

to allow the customer to reschedule, even with restrictions. More flexible ticketing policies are

needed to accommodate passengers when circumstances related to their disabilities arise,

impairing their ability to travel at the scheduled departure time.

A similar problem results when a person traveling with an attendant is notified at the last

minute that a different attendant will accompany him or her. Because airline tickets are

nontransferable, the passenger must purchase another ticket, usually at full price, for the new

attendant. The cost of air travel, already far more expensive for the person who must travel with

an attendant, becomes prohibitive without accommodations in airline ticketing practices for these

special needs and circumstances.

Seat Assignments

 In November 1996, DOT issued a notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comment on

a number of issues, including seating accommodations. On March 4, 1998, DOT issued the final

rule containing modifications responsive to the comments received from stakeholders. Effective

as of April 3, 1998, the final rule details the requirements as well as the methods airlines can use

to accommodate any individual who self-identifies to an airline as having a disability.46
16

The final rule is a clear improvement over the very limited accommodation provided for

in the NPRM. Yet the rule is complicated, requiring an automated tracking mechanism and

personnel training to implement it effectively. As with other provisions of Part 382, successful

implementation depends greatly on the initiative taken by air carriers in quickly issuing

procedures explaining the new requirements and ensuring timely training of their personnel.

Preboarding

Under Part 382, passengers who wish to stow assistive devices in the aircraft cabin must

preboard in order to have priority access to closet space. In the past several years, airlines have

increasingly eliminated preboarding procedures. Ostensibly, this was a result of overuse of

preboarding by passengers who simply wish to board the plane ahead of everyone else. Because

several accommodations under the regulation are contingent upon the passenger with a disability

preboarding the aircraft, without preboarding, this passenger must rely on the goodwill of flight

attendants and other passengers to make already occupied storage space or an appropriate seat

available. Preboarding is the mechanism by which people with disabilities can ensure that the

priority access they are entitled to as an accommodation is in fact given.

Cost and Availability of Oxygen

Under the regulation, passengers who must travel with oxygen need give only 48 hours

advance notice and 1 hour advance check-in when the carrier provides oxygen service. A

significant number of problems have been reported concerning both the price and availability of

oxygen. The cost of oxygen canisters, which must be supplied by the air carrier to comply with

safety regulations, varies significantly depending on the carrier, the airport, and even the flight. 

(Prices are reported to vary from $50 to $250 per canister.) Some carriers do not permit

passengers to return unused canisters for which they have paid a premium price. Other

complaints document the failure of personnel to ensure that oxygen requested in advance is

available at the gate for use while awaiting a connecting flight.

Inaccessible Websites
17

An issue that has received little attention is the accessibility of websites and other online

means of communication between consumers and airline reservation systems. Airlines

frequently offer incentives for making online reservations at websites, which often are

inaccessible to consumers with visual and other impairments. Offering incentives without

offering consumers with disabilities an alternative means to take advantage of them does not

meet the regulation’s program accessibility standard. Both consumers and airlines could benefit

from a fully accessible web-based reservation system that allowed consumers to enter their own

special needs information to their reservation at the point of sale.

2.2.2 Airline Administrative Responsibilities

Training

Under 14 CFR Part 382.61, air carriers are required to:

• provide training to all personnel dealing with the traveling public on the requirements of

Part 382 pertinent to their duties, if the carrier operates aircraft having more than 19

seats.47

• ensure that employees are proficient and knowledgeable concerning

ù Requirements of Part 382 and other DOT and FAA regulations affecting air

transportation service to persons with disabilities and

ù The carrier’s own procedures implementing these regulations, including the safe

and proper operation of equipment used to accommodate persons with

disabilities.48

• train their employees in

ù Awareness of the different kinds of disabilities, including physical, sensory,

mental, and emotional; 

ù responding appropriately to persons with disabilities; and

ù Distinguishing among the differing abilities of persons with disabilities.49

• consult with organizations representing persons with disabilities to develop programs for

training employees in the policies and procedures for implementing federal

requirements.50

• ensure that the initial training of employees takes place as follows:
18

ù All crew members subject to training under 14 CFR Part 121 or 135 and

employed on the date the air carrier’s program is established shall receive training

as part of their next scheduled recurrent training.51

ù All other personnel employed on the date the air carrier’s program is established

shall receive training within 180 days of that date.

ù All crew members subject to training under 14 CFR Part 121 or 135 and

employed subsequent to the date the air carrier’s program is established shall

receive training before they assume their duties.

ù All other personnel employed subsequent to the date the air carrier’s program is

established shall receive training within 60 days after they begin employment.52

• ensure that

ù all employees receive refresher training as needed to maintain proficiency

regarding the requirements of Part 382 pertaining to their duties.53

ù training, in accordance with the above requirements, is provided to every

contractor employee who deals directly with the traveling public at airports.54

ù employees who are designated CROs receive training on the requirements of Part

382 and CRO responsibilities by June 5, 1990 (within 60 days of the regulation’s

effective date). Employees subsequently designated as CROs must receive

training before assuming their duties. All employees performing CRO functions

must receive annual refresher training.55

ù training is provided to flight crew members and other appropriate personnel to

ensure their familiarity and compliance with the requirements of Part 382, if the

carrier operates aircraft having 19 or fewer seats.56

Compliance Programs

Under 14 CFR Part 382.63, air carriers are required to

• establish and implement a written program for carrying out the requirements of Part 382

by December 4, 1990, if the carrier operates aircraft having more than 19 seats.57

• comply with Part 382 requirements before their programs are established.58

• include a schedule for training personnel implementing Part 382 requirements on policies

and procedures.59

• submit their programs for review by December 4, 1990, and implement them

immediately upon submission to DOT, if the carrier is a major or national carrier or

shares a designator code with a major or national carrier.60
19

• maintain their programs on file, make them available to DOT upon request, and

incorporate changes into their programs as directed by DOT.61

• establish and maintain a complaint resolution mechanism that includes the availability of

one or more CROs at each airport the carrier serves.62

• make a CRO available to any person who complains of an alleged violation of Part 382

during all times the carrier is operating at the airport. If the CRO is not present in person

at the airport at the time of the complaint, the air carrier shall make the CRO available via

telephone or via teletype service for the hearing impaired at no cost to the customer.63

• ensure that the CRO is thoroughly familiar with the requirements of Part 382.64

• ensure that the CRO has authority to make dispositive resolution of complaints on behalf

of the carrier65 as follows:

ù If a complaint is made before an action has resulted in a violation, the CRO will

take action or direct other carrier personnel to take the action necessary to ensure

compliance. If the refusal to comply is based on safety, the CRO may not

countermand a decision of the pilot in command of an aircraft.

ù If a complaint is based on an alleged violation that has already occurred and the

CRO agrees that a violation has occurred, the CRO shall provide to the

complainant a written summary of the facts and the steps the carrier proposes to

take, if any, in response to the violation.

ù If the CRO determines that no violation has occurred, the CRO shall provide to

the complainant a written summary of the facts and the reasons, under Part 382,

for the determination.

ù The CRO’s summary will inform the complainant of the right to pursue DOT

enforcement action. The summary will be provided to the complainant at the

airport or forwarded to him or her within 10 calendar days of the complaint.66

• establish the following procedures for resolving written complaints alleging violations of 

Part 382:67

ù Complaints postmarked more than 45 days after the alleged violation do not

require a response.68

ù Written complaints shall state whether the complainant has contacted a CRO, and

shall include the CRO’s name, date of contact, and any written summary or

response received from the CRO.69
20

ù Written complaints alleging violations shall receive a dispositive written response

within 30 days of receipt70 as follows:

 If the carrier agrees that a violation has occurred, the carrier shall provide

a written statement setting forth the summary of the facts and the steps the

carrier proposes to take, if any, in response to the violation.

 If the carrier denies that a violation has occurred, the response shall

include a written summary of the facts and the reasons, under Part 382, for

the determination.

 The written response shall inform the complainant of his or her right to

pursue DOT enforcement action.71

Under 14 CFR Part 382.65, air carriers are obliged to inform complainants of their right

to pursue DOT enforcement action.72

2.2.3 Department of Transportation Administrative Responsibilities

Under 14 CFR Part 382.63, DOT is required to review the implementation plan of each

air carrier and direct them to amend their plans as needed to comply with the requirements of

Part 382.73

Under 14 CFR Part 382.65, consumers with a complaint about an ACAA violation may

contact the DOT Office of Consumer Affairs for assistance. Consumers may also file formal

complaints for DOT administrative review in accordance with 14 CFR Part 302.74

Since 1986, no ACAA amendments have been passed, but Part 382 has been modified

several times. Section 3.0 summarizes recent changes and proposed amendments.

3.0 Recently Approved Changes to the Regulation and Proposed Changes to the Law

3.1 Final Rule Amending Part 382, Issued March 4, 1998

3.1.1 Clarification of the Definition of Nondiscrimination

In the final rule issued on March 4, 1998, to the November 1996 NPRM, DOT establishes

the nondiscrimination standard set forth in the Rehabilitation Act, Section 504, as amended, as

the applicable standard for ACAA implementation and enforcement. This standard requires that

air carriers, in addition to meeting the specific requirements of Part 382, to modify policies,
21

practices, or facilities as needed to ensure nondiscrimination, unless making the modifications

would constitute "an undue burden or fundamentally alter their program."75

DOT’s purpose in adding the Section 504 standard to Part 382.7 was to clarify that air

carriers have a duty to proactively implement modifications in accordance with the general

principle of nondiscrimination, and not limit accommodations to those enumerated in Part 382.76

3.1.2 Procedures for Providing Seating Accommodations

Under the new amendment to the regulation, air carriers are required to make the

following accommodations

• Any person who self-identifies to the carrier as having a disability and who cannot readily

transfer over a fixed armrest from an aisle chair must be seated in a row with a moveable

armrest.77

• Personal assistants performing functions for a passenger that airline personnel are not

required to perform shall be seated next to the person they are assisting.78

• Air carriers shall provide either a bulkhead seat or another seat as requested by

passengers traveling with service animals or passengers having a fused or immobilized

leg;79

• Air carriers that provide advance seat assignments shall use either a "seat blocking," a

"designated priority seating," or some other mechanism approved by DOT to comply

with seating accommodation requirements.80

3.1.3 In-Cabin Stowage of Collapsible Electric Wheelchairs

Air carriers are required to accept a passenger’s battery-powered wheelchair as checked

baggage, subject to requirements such as timely check-in and proper labeling, securement and

packaging.81 Air carriers shall not drain wheelchair batteries.82 Upon passenger request,

collapsible wheelchairs shall be stowed in the cabin stowage area, subject to the Part 382

stowage guidelines.83 Passengers also may provide written directions to airline personnel for

disassembly and reassembly of their wheelchairs.84

3.1.4 Issues Not Addressed by the Final Rule
22

In the 1996 NPRM, DOT also sought comment on additional accommodations for

persons with hearing impairments and the provision of a smoke-free accessible path through

airports for persons with respiratory disabilities. DOT deferred decisions on whether to propose

rules on both of these matters until after further consideration.85

3.2 Proposed Amendments to the Air Carrier Access Act

3.2.1 Draft Miller Amendment

Case law has established that a plaintiff has a private right of action for ACAA violations. 

However, guidelines regarding damages and legal fees have not been established. Sharon G.

Miller, lead attorney in a recent ACAA case,86 has proposed the following amendments to codify

plaintiffs’ standing and the terms of a private right of action:

• persons filing lawsuits pursuant to ACAA violations should have the same private right

of action and private remedies as persons filing lawsuits regarding any other civil rights

statutes;

• public remedies pursuant to violations of the ACAA should be assessed in the same

amounts as violations of other civil rights statutes ($50,000 for first violation and

$100,000 each for subsequent violations, with each discriminatory act counted as a

violation);

• each airline should be required to forward copies of written complaints and its written

summaries of oral complaints relating to disability to DOT within 30 days of receipt; and

• DOT should be required to investigate individual complaints against airlines, determine

whether a violation has occurred, and penalize the airlines for each occurrence of an

ACAA violation.87

3.2.2 Inclusion of Code-Sharing Foreign Air Carriers

The number of Americans with disabilities who travel internationally is increasing. 

Because ACAA applies only to U.S. domestic carriers, passengers on international flights of

foreign air carriers operating within the United States often experience discrimination in the form

of inaccessible facilities and lack of reasonable accommodations such as wheelchair assistance. 

Although a general prohibition against discrimination applies to foreign carriers under the FA
23

Act, DOT has applied it to only two cases of discrimination involving a disability issue.88 The

economic advantages to foreign carriers operating in the U.S. market and using U.S. airport and

air traffic control facilities are clear. Those advantages are further enhanced when foreign

carriers enter into code-sharing arrangements with U.S. domestic carriers whose flight networks

they share. Foreign carriers operating in the U.S. market must be required to comply with the

same laws as U.S. domestic carriers in providing air travel services to the American public. The

ACAA should be amended to include foreign carriers within its scope, and the necessary

international agreements should be developed or revised to reflect these legal obligations.

In light of this background on ACAA’s history and the continuing problems in realizing

its goals, Part II begins the analysis of federal enforcement with a description of its

organizational and functional components at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
24
25

PART II. THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

4.0 Background on DOT Enforcement Philosophy and Operations

4.1 Regulation of the Aviation Industry and Consumer Protection

Some history on the federal aviation enforcement function will aid in understanding the

Air Carriers Access Act (ACAA) enforcement today. Informal complaints alleging ACAA

violations are handled by the Consumer Protection Division within DOT’s Office of General

Counsel (OGC). Aviation consumer protection, initially established by the Civil Aeronautics

Board (CAB) during the 1950s, was originally linked to the economic regulation of the airline

industry.

CAB’s mission as the agency for the regulation of aviation industry economic issues,

including consumer protection, grew for two decades. At its peak, the CAB regulatory

enforcement mechanism consisted of more than 100 enforcement and legal staff in Washington,

DC,89 in addition to a national network of field office auditors.90 By the late 1970s, changes in

the national political climate and fiscal priorities led to the phase-out of CAB and most of its

organizational structure.

4.2 The Transition to Industry Deregulation

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 abolished CAB by calling for the gradual lapsing

of its powers to set airline rates and routes and to exercise antitrust functions by 1984.91 The

Deregulation Act also called for the elimination of all requirements of section 404(a), except the

provision for "safe and adequate service" and the general nondiscrimination provision of section

404(b) as applied to domestic, but not foreign, air transportation by 1982. By the end of the

sunset period in 1984, CAB had been entirely dissolved except for a few components transferred

to DOT. Initially excluded from those organizations scheduled for transfer to DOT, the Aviation

Consumer Protection Division was transferred into DOT’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs in

1985, as a result of the Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984.92 The Sunset Act amended

and clarified the provisions of the Deregulation Act regarding the transfer of certain functions to
26

DOT, including the consumer protection function. The legislation was a reprieve, saving the

entire division from the fate of its parent organization.93

Although the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FA Act) mandated nondiscrimination in air

travel,94 the standard was interpreted in conjunction with the "safe and adequate" service

provision of section 404 (a).95 Nondiscrimination was understood more as a matter of fair and

consistent commercial practices (e.g., ticketing, pricing) than of equal access to air travel. 

Enforcement of this provision did not extend to the protection of civil rights, though CAB

affirmed that instances of race or age discrimination might come within the scope of section 404

if the alleged discrimination directly affected the provision of air transportation.96 

Not until the enactment of the Rehabilitation Act in 1973 was the issue of systemic

discrimination against persons with disabilities addressed on a broad scale. Interpretation of the

FA Act’s nondiscrimination provision was broadened by the Rehabilitation Act, which created a

stronger basis for legal challenges to discriminatory practices restricting access to air travel by

passengers with disabilities. With the passage of the Deregulation Act in 1978, however, the

nondiscrimination provision applying to domestic air transportation was abolished, undercutting

the movement toward greater definition of the nondiscrimination standard.97

To clarify the applicability of the general nondiscrimination provision to discrimination

on the basis of disability, CAB promulgated Part 382, specifically prohibiting discrimination by

certificated airlines on the basis of disability. Drawing on the Rehabilitation Act, Part 382

targeted systemic discrimination against air travelers with disabilities, starting with air carriers

receiving federal assistance. It did so by spelling out the affirmative requirements of a policy of

nondiscrimination and equal access for passengers with disabilities. The irony is that even as the

original Part 382 went into effect in 1982, creating new CAB regulatory enforcement

responsibilities, the Consumer Protection Division was reducing staff and curtailing operations in

response to legislated cutbacks.

4.3 Impact on the DOT Organization 
27

Significantly, Part 382 became effective as the CAB organization and functions were

phasing out. In the eleventh hour of the CAB phase-out, the Consumer Protection Division got a

reprieve and was transferred to DOT, where it resumed scaled-down operations with

approximately 40 staff members in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.98 In 1995, the staff

was reduced again and transferred to OGC as a separate division under the Assistant General

Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.99

The scope of post-CAB consumer protection responsibility includes monitoring all

categories of incoming aviation consumer complaints and working directly with the airlines to

improve their service and compliance with commercial regulations. ACAA compliance

monitoring is actually a very small subset of the larger aviation consumer protection function as

it has evolved. The Deregulation Act shifted the government’s role in the economics of aviation

from strict control of competition and fare discounting to reliance on competitive market forces

to promote both increased consumer choices and the financial viability of the industry. Yet as

the emphasis on regulation waned, a new emphasis on the protection of consumer’s civil rights

emerged. CAB’s dismantling weakened the role of government regulators just as new

regulations having a different objective were being created. In a new era of deregulation, the

scaled-down Consumer Protection Division became responsible for protecting consumer

economic interests without imposing burdensome compliance requirements and for ensuring that

aviation consumers were not denied their civil rights under Part 382. 

4.4 Consumer Protection in a Postregulation Environment

Deregulation brought about a new approach to consumer protection. With far fewer

resources at its disposal, DOT adopted a nonadversarial approach as more economically feasible

and in keeping with the philosophy of deregulation. Consumer complaints were no longer

routinely investigated on a case-by-case basis, and investigation was largely replaced by

complaint monitoring.100 With a staff of seven including administrative staff, Consumer

Protection interfaces regularly with airline representatives on all consumer issues, including

complaints and compliance with non-safety regulations.101 The actual resource level dedicated to

handling all informal ACAA complaints is currently estimated at less than one full-time
28

equivalent (FTE) per year.102 Compliance monitoring activities generally have been scaled back

in number and scope such that proactive monitoring of ACAA compliance is both inadequate and

inconsistent. 

4.5 Civil Rights Enforcement as a Function of Consumer Protection

The sweeping changes to consumer protection following the Deregulation Act affected

DOT’s approach to ACAA enforcement in three ways. First, the dismantling of the complaint

investigation mechanism has meant fewer resources for follow-up on the complaints of persons

with disabilities alleging discrimination. Like most complaints received by the Consumer

Protection Division, informal ACAA complaints are usually not investigated on a case-by-case

basis, although they are subject to a higher standard of review. Second, airline compliance

monitoring became very limited in scope, in keeping with deregulation.

Finally, the filing of formal ACAA complaints seeking enforcement action has not been

encouraged as it is in other agencies having civil rights enforcement responsibilities. All formal

complaints by private individuals, as well as formal complaints DOT files on the basis of pattern

and practice violations, are investigated by the staff of the Assistant General Counsel for

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. Of the seven lawyers on staff (one of whom is parttime), two handle ACAA issues along with other matters.103 Yet since 1990, startlingly few

formal complaints have been filed, and the majority of these have been dismissed. The analysis

below will address some of the features of both the informal and the formal complaint

mechanisms that contribute to their limited role in ACAA enforcement. The following section

briefly describes the functions performed by each organizational component involved in ACAA

implementation and enforcement.

5.0 DOT Organizational Components Involved in ACAA Enforcement
29

Figure 1 identifies the ACAA/Part 382 implementation and enforcement functions carried

out by DOT. Figure 2 shows DOT’s organizational plan correlating the implementation and

enforcement functions with the responsible organizations shown in bold. The Secretary of

Transportation is ultimately responsible for Part 382 enforcement. Under the Secretary, OGC

performs most of the ACAA enforcement activity, with some implementation responsibilities

performed by other organizations. The overview of roles presented in this section will be

followed by a more detailed description and analysis in sections 6.1 through 6.7.

5.1 Office of General Counsel

OGC oversees and ensures integration of ACAA implementation and enforcement

activities carried out by the Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement and the

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. Regulation and

Enforcement develops Part 382, and Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings monitors and

enforces compliance. Communication and coordination between the two offices are intended to

ensure that the regulation is effective in fulfilling its legislative mandate and is modified as

needed in response to stakeholders’ concerns.

5.2 Regulation and Enforcement

The Office of Regulation and Enforcement manages the standard and negotiated

rulemaking processes. It acts as intermediary among the ACAA stakeholder groups in

developing a regulation satisfying the goals of nondiscrimination and access to air travel, in

accordance with applicable legal standards (e.g., reasonable accommodation).

5.3 Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings is responsible for activities relating

to the enforcement of aviation economic laws under DOT’s jurisdiction.104 Consumer protection

and legal support on aviation economic licensing matters are its two main spheres of

responsibility. ACAA enforcement constitutes a very small subset of its consumer protection

responsibilities, which include
30

• unfair and deceptive practices;

• unfair competition by air carriers and travel agents;

• deceptive advertising;

• denied boarding compensation;

• violations of rules pertaining to discrimination against air travelers on the basis of race,

ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender, disability, and so forth;

• violations of rules pertaining to ticket refunds;

• violations of rules pertaining to lost baggage liability;

• violations of public charter rules; and

• violations of restrictions on ticket sales and service to countries posing security threats.105

The Enforcement Office handles formal complaints alleging any of the above infractions that

may result in enforcement action.106

Figure 1.

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Air Carrier Access Act 

Implementation and Enforcement Functions 

(1) Chief executive enforcement authority

(2) Rulemaking process and regulatory negotiations

(3) Development and dissemination of public information

(4) Guidance and technical assistance to the aviation 

 industry

(5) Reviews and compliance monitoring

(6) Informal consumer complaint handling

(7) Formal complaint process handling

(8) Enforcement actions

(9) Maintenance of tracking system for all civil rights 

 complaints handled within every DOT mode and 

 division

The Enforcement Office’s responsibilities in the area of economic licensing are somewhat

broader. The office provides legal review and investigative support to authorize all air
31

transportation concerns operating in the United States and their continuing fitness for service.

The Enforcement Office is public counsel in formal proceedings involving carrier fitness and

selection, and prosecutes to obtain civil penalties in cases involving fraudulent statements or

claims made to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) under the Program Fraud

Civil Remedies Act.107
32

Secretary (1)

Deputy Secretary

Office of Civil

Rights (9)

Board of Contract

Appeals

Office of Small &

Disadvantaged

Business

 Utilization

Office of

Intelligence &

Security

Office of 

Affa

Executive

Secretariat

Assistant Secretary

for Transportation

Policy

Assistant Secretary

for Aviation &

International Affairs

Assistant Secretary

for Budget &

Programs/Chief

Financial Officer

Assistant Secretary

for Governmental

Affairs

Assistant Secretary

for Administration

Office o

Ge

General Counsel

Assistant General

Counsel for

Aviation

Enforcement (7) (8)

Assistant General

Counsel for

 Regulation &

Enforcement (2)

Office of

Environment

Energy & Safety

 (3) (4) (5)

United States

Coast Guard

Federal

Aviation

Administration

Federal

 Highway

Administration

Federal

 Railroad

Administration

National

 Highway

Traffic Safety

Administration

Federal Transit

Administration

St. Lawrence

Seaway

Development

Corporation

Maritime

Administration

THE MODES

Rese

&Sp

Prog

Admin

Associate Deputy Secretary/

Office of Intermodalism

Office of Drug & Alcohol

 Policy and Compliance

Aviation

Consumer

Protection Division

(3) (4) (5) (6)

Figure 2. U.S. Department of Transportation Organizational Chart

NOTE: Organizations in bold boxes have ACAA implementation and/or enforcement responsibilities. See Figure 1 for 
33

Most ACAA activity originates within the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a

subdivision of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. The division’s responsibilities are to

• receive informal complaints from members of the public regarding aviation consumer

issues;

• verify compliance with DOT’s consumer protection requirements;

• provide guidance to the industry and members of the public on consumer protection

matters; and

• make available to the public information on consumer protection matters.108

Of the division’s seven full-time staff (including clerical), less than one FTE is dedicated

to ACAA-related activity. As mentioned earlier, the current Enforcement Office has fewer than

seven full-time attorneys, two of whom work on ACAA issues part time. These staffing

constraints are part of continuing budget cutbacks affecting OGC’s operations at every level.

For example, the entire OGC with a staff of about 85 had an annual travel budget of

$46,250 in Fiscal Year (FY) 98109 and $30,000 in FY99.110 There has been no training budget

for some time.111 The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings comprises less than 20

percent of OGC’s entire operation and competes for funds with six other offices, including the

Office of International Law; the Office of Environmental, Civil Rights, and General Law; and the

Office of Regulation and Enforcement. In FY97, the Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings spent less than less $4,000 on all business travel. For each of the past two years,

only $20,000 has been allocated to OGC for subscriptions and supplies.112

None of the subdivisions within OGC is funded for any specific compliance or

implementation monitoring activities.113 OGC docketing facility, however, has a total annual

budget of $800,000 for all expenses related to litigation, rulemaking and DOT certification

activities.114 Salaries are the only budget line items broken out by subdivision of OGC. Salaries

and benefits for the Enforcement Office (including the Consumer Protection Division) total over

$1.4 million annually.115 The picture emerges of a small staff having a broad range of

responsibilities with little or no budget authority and consequently few resources (or incentives)
34

to develop an effective system for monitoring compliance, supporting implementation, and

enforcing the ACAA. 

5.4 Office of Environment, Energy, and Safety

DOT’s Office of Environment, Energy, and Safety operates under the Assistant Secretary

for Transportation Policy. Although no official document was available describing the office’s

general responsibilities, an interview with staff members provided an overview of its ACAA

implementation responsibilities. To date, these responsibilities have included review and

comment on the initial Part 382 compliance plans submitted by major and national airlines,

development of ACAA public information pamphlets, and sponsorship of a federal advisory

committee on the feasibility of incorporating accessible lavatories in single-aisle airplanes with a

seating capacity of between 100 and 199 seats.

5.5 Departmental Office of Civil Rights

DOT’s Departmental Office on Civil Rights (DOT Civil Rights) plays no direct role in

ACAA enforcement, but does maintain a website with links to public information on ACAA and

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transportation access provisions. ADA enforcement is

the responsibility of the civil rights offices within the Federal Transit Administration, Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) and other modes responsible for regulatory enforcement (see

Figure 1). The DOT Civil Rights website directs persons with disabilities to contact OGC for

complaints against airlines (ACAA enforcement) and the FAA Office of Civil Rights for

complaints against airports (Section 504 and ADA Title II enforcement).

The relationship between OGC and DOT Civil Rights is informal. OGC may consult

with DOT Civil Rights concerning its ACAA enforcement cases and gives them advance notice

concerning its enforcement actions.116 OGC has two civil rights staff attorneys serving as

advisors on ACAA and other civil rights issues and as liaisons with DOT Civil Rights.

Because of the decentralized DOT environment, the civil rights offices in each mode have

developed their own enforcement philosophies, methods, and priorities. As a step toward a more
35

unified departmental civil rights policy, DOT Civil Rights is developing a central database for

tracking and analyzing trends among all civil rights complaints handled anywhere within DOT.117

5.6 Analysis and Recommendations

Finding No. 1: DOT enforces ACAA from a consumer affairs office, not a civil rights

enforcement office.

Recommendation No. 1: DOT should establish a unit for ACAA civil rights enforcement

that is separate from consumer affairs monitoring.

Such a unit might be located in OGC or DOT Civil Rights. Congress should appropriate

funds for adequate staff and resources to run the enforcement office effectively.

Finding No. 2: There is little coordination and integration of activities among the many

offices having ACAA implementation and enforcement responsibilities.

Recommendation No. 2: DOT should develop and carry out an integrated implementation

and enforcement strategy with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the various

offices involved. 

Effective implementation requires a relationship among compliance monitoring, technical

assistance, public information, and enforcement. The many offices involved in these activities

should develop an overall blueprint for implementing the law, and work with outside

stakeholders to refine the blueprint and see that the law is implemented effectively.

Finding No. 3: DOT has perpetuated nonaction by taking away fiscal control from the

offices responsible for ACAA enforcement, removing both the resources and the incentives

to effectively perform their assigned enforcement role.

Recommendation No. 3: DOT must realistically reassess its fiscal priorities and budget

strategy in light of its responsibilities under the law.

As part of a comprehensive ACAA enforcement strategy, DOT must identify ways to

more effectively use resources. When additional funds are unavailable, DOT must encourage the
36

offices involved to collaborate, seek outside resources, share resources internally, and find

alternative ways to meet the objectives of their integrated enforcement strategy.

6.0 Implementation and Enforcement Functions

6.1 Consumer Information Explaining the Law

Unlike some other disability rights statutes, ACAA contains no statutory requirements for

the development or dissemination of public information about the rights of people with

disabilities under the law and its regulation. Nonetheless, since the enactment of the law in 1986,

DOT has developed a variety of public information materials related to ACAA.

6.1.1 Public Information: Print Material

Fly-Rights: A Consumer Guide to Air Travel&September 1994 (tenth revised edition). This

58-page brochure explains the rights and responsibilities of air travelers. Topics include air

fares, overbooking, frequent-flyer programs, and travel scams. The brochure includes two pages

on the ACAA and its regulations.

New Horizons: Information for the Air Traveler with a Disability&July 1995 (second edition). 

This 40-page brochure describes the rights and responsibilities of air travelers with disabilities

under the ACAA. It includes directions on how to file an informal complaint.

Plane Talk on Passengers with Disabilities&This one-page fact sheet provides highlights of the

provisions of the ACAA and its regulations.

Air Travel Consumer Report&Published monthly, this reports presents statistics on airline

performance in baggage handling, oversales and on-time flights. Complaint statistics are

reported for the following categories: customer service, flight problems (including delays,

cancellations, and misconnections), ticketing/boarding (including "disabled"), baggage, refunds,

oversales, other (including frequent flyer), fares, tours, advertising, smoking, and credit. ACAA

disability complaints are included in this report subsumed under Category C complaints

regarding ticketing/boarding.
37

6.1.2 Website Information

Information about ACAA and the disability discrimination complaint process is available on the

Internet at www.dot.gov/ost/ogc/subject/consumer/aviation/index.html (Aviation Consumer

Protection Division publication page); www.dot.gov/ost/docr/HOME.HTM (DOT Civil Rights

home page); and www.faa.gov/acr/disabemp.htm (Federal Aviation Administration Civil Rights

Office page).

6.1.3 Available Formats

New Horizons is available on audiotape and in large print. New Horizons, Fly-Rights,

Plane Talk, and the Air Travel Consumer Report are available on the websites listed above.

6.1.4 Methods of Dissemination

Copies of New Horizons are usually sent only upon request. Copies of Fly-Rights are

routinely provided to all consumers who send complaints and inquiries to DOT. Thus,

consumers who send disability complaints are routinely sent a copy of Fly-Rights but not New

Horizons.

The monthly Air Travel Consumer Report is disseminated by DOT’s Public Affairs

Office and the Consumer Protection Division. On the mailing list are approximately 400

individuals, primarily airline and airport officials, but also academics and consumer

organizations. The Report is provided to the media, which report selected statistics. Upon

request, anyone can be placed on the mailing list. The mailing list is updated annually, purging

names and addresses that are defunct and people who no longer wish to receive the Report. 

Because many publications are available on the Internet, DOT plans eventually to phase out

some of its mailing lists, although the Consumer Protection Division does not plan to do so.

Airlines use the data in the monthly reports to rate their performance relative to that at

their competitors and to analyze their industry status in corporate management reports. Airline

representatives review the consumer complaints received by DOT every month for a quality

assurance check on their customer service.
38

Data from specific complaint areas, such as on-time performance for specific flights, are

also available on the computerized reservation systems used by airline ticket offices and travel

agents to advise customers.

6.1.5 Analysis and Recommendations

Finding No. 4: DOT has done little to educate people with disabilities about either their

rights under ACAA or how to exercise them.

Since the inception of ACAA in 1986, DOT has published only one brochure fully

dedicated to explaining the law. There have been no public service announcements, no videos,

no outreach campaigns, and no grants to nonprofits for public education. In contrast to the ADA

public education materials and programs developed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), DOT has done little to train people with

disabilities about their rights and responsibilities under the law and how to use them.

Recommendation No. 4: DOT should request that Congress appropriate funding for a

comprehensive ACAA public education effort geared to informing air travelers with

disabilities about their civil rights.

DOT should seek a budget appropriation to develop and carry out a strategic ACAA

education campaign geared to developing ACAA awareness among air travelers with disabilities.

Many people with disabilities remain unaware of their rights under ACAA or have limited

information about how it works. DOT should develop a plan for training adults with disabilities

and parents of children with disabilities about their rights under the law, the obligations of

airlines, and the procedures for carrying out the law.

The plan should include development of regular ACAA publications and updates of

materials for consumers with disabilities. As regulations change and procedures and practices

evolve, DOT should ensure that its publications reflect current practice. DOT should also

develop a dissemination strategy targeting adults with disabilities and parents of children with

disabilities. Materials should be available at airports, through the airlines, from disability

organizations, on-line, and in libraries. All materials should be in accessible formats.
39

Finding No. 5: DOT has done little to educate the public about the rights of people with

disabilities and ACAA’s nondiscrimination mandate.

Recommendation No. 5: DOT should request that Congress appropriate funds for a

general public education campaign on the ACAA’s nondiscrimination mandate.

Public awareness of disability rights laws is generally low, particularly as it relates to air

travel. Public education campaigns can be most effective in promoting changed attitudes in

relation to important social justice issues, such as disability rights.

Finding No. 6: The disability community has yet to be viewed as a market to be sought by

the airlines industry.

Private industry always seeks new markets to enhance competitive advantages. People

with disabilities and their families offer a potentially lucrative market for air carriers. However,

uneven ACAA compliance would suggest that they are not yet viewed in this manner.

Recommendation No. 6(a): DOT should develop an explicit category for tracking disability

complaints in the consumer complaint database and should publish the statistics monthly

in the Air Travel Consumer Report.

Currently, data about disability complaints are reported as a subcategory of

ticketing/boarding. This categorization provides no information for assessing the airlines’

performance regarding disability issues. Airline customers who have access to on-time

performance statistics can use the information in deciding which airlines to patronize. Creating a

distinct category for disability complaints would provide an opportunity for people with

disabilities, federal officials, advocates, and researchers to monitor airline performance in serving

customers with disabilities. Disability organizations could widely disseminate such information

for consumers with disabilities to use in determining where to take their air travel business.

Recommendation No. 6(b): DOT should ensure that disability community organizations

and researchers with an interest in disability policy are part of the target audience for

monthly dissemination of the Air Travel Consumer Report.

Recommendation No. 6(c): Federal officials overseeing ACAA enforcement should develop

a strategy for using these statistics to hold airlines accountable for their performance.
40

6.2 General Guidance to the Aviation Industry

Education and technical assistance to industry in implementing a regulation is an

important component of a successful enforcement strategy. DOT has several approaches to

providing general guidance and technical assistance to the aviation industry. This section

describes each of these approaches, NCD’s findings regarding how they have been carried out,

and recommendations.

6.2.1 Letters to the Airline Industry

DOT periodically sends letters to the airlines and others interested in the aviation industry

about rules concerning passengers with disabilities. NCD’s research team was given about a

dozen letters sent between 1988 and 1997. Although the present Part 382 did not become

effective until 1990, the requirements of the old Part 382 were in effect. The ACAA-related

letters are summarized briefly below, as they have been a major avenue for DOT in providing

compliance guidance to the industry.

April 25, 1990&Immediately after Part 382 went into effect in April 1990, DOT sent copies of

the rule to the major U.S. carriers with a letter notifying them to submit their required written

compliance plans.118 They were also notified to implement a disability complaint resolution

mechanism, designate their complaint resolution officers (CROs), and provide DOT with their

names by June 4, 1990.119

November 29, 1990&DOT sent a second letter advising airline executives of "a clear and

troubling trend" of "numerous complaints stress[ing] that many airline employees do not even

know that the new rule exists!"120 The letter also criticized the insufficiency of many airline

responses to disability complaints that neither addressed the specific complaint nor stated what

corrective action had been or would be taken. Finally, the letter stated that DOT would "refer to

the Enforcement Office any matter which appears to warrant enforcement action because of a

lack of employee awareness of the requirements of Part 382."121

December 20, 1991&DOT sent a letter to airline executives clarifying Part 382 boarding

assistance requirements and explaining that it was imperative for airlines to inform passengers
41

about accessibility limitations on all legs of their journeys.122 DOT outlined the standard

industry method for coding a need for special assistance into the passenger’s reservation. DOT

stressed the importance of training airline reservationists and travel agents to be aware of

disability issues when making or checking existing reservations, and to identify potential

accessibility conflicts. This letter was sent to all major and national U.S. airlines, encouraging

them to work together and to avoid enforcement action through voluntary action. DOT also sent

the letter to the major travel agency associations with a request to distribute it to their members.

April 2, 1992&In a letter sent to all Air Travel Consumer Report recipients, DOT emphasized

the need for greater cooperation between airline and airport personnel to effect ACAA

compliance in two key areas: providing lift devices and improving communication among airline

and airport personnel regarding the special needs of passengers.123 The availability of a free

booklet and audio cassette for air travelers with disabilities was announced, and carriers were

reminded that new aircraft delivered as of April 1992 must meet Part 382 accessibility standards.

March 16, 1993 and April 5, 1993&In two different letters, DOT notified all airlines and

Aviation Consumer Report recipients of required cabin interior accessibility features for various

types of aircraft.124 Enclosed with the second letter was a booklet on accessible lavatory design

for two aisle aircraft developed by an ATA-sponsored ad hoc working group. The letter

emphasized that compliance with Part 382 accessibility standards is mandatory.125

July 15, 1993&This communication was sent to airline officials as a cover letter with copies of

two recent letters to industry representatives discussing the interpretation and proper application

of Part 382 guidelines concerning passengers with communicable diseases.126

October 7, 1993&DOT solicited recipients of the Air Travel Consumer Report for input on the

NPRM concerning the design of lifts, ramps, and other suitable boarding devices, as well as a

workable division of responsibility between airlines and airports in providing this equipment.127

During 1994 and 1995, apparently no industry letters addressing Part 382 issues were sent.
42

November 4, 1996&DOT sent the 1996 NPRM dealing with communicable diseases, seating

accommodations, wheelchair stowage, and airport accessibility standards and accommodations

with an industry letter to recipients of the Aviation Consumer Report and requested comments.128

May 23, 1997&This letter was sent to all major and national carriers, air transport organizations

and "certain disability organizations" with a copy of Part 382 and the 1996 amendments.129

Recipients were reminded that Part 382 can be downloaded from the Internet and must be made

available to consumers at all airports at all times.

August 2, 1998&This letter was sent to the 10 largest U.S. certificated airlines, explaining

DOT’s policy under Part 382 on accommodating air travelers with documented severe peanut

allergies. The letter explained the reasoning of the Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings that creating peanut-free buffer zones in response to the request of a traveler with a

medically documented peanut allergy was a reasonable accommodation and did not constitute an

undue burden on air carriers.130

6.2.2 Consumer Complaint Review Meetings

Each month, DOT staff meets with representatives from the individual major airlines to

review consumer complaints received by DOT during the previous month. A summary of their

complaint statistics is published in the Air Travel Consumer Report. Airline representatives

willingly participate in these meetings because complaint levels are considered such an important

measure of airline performance. The meetings aim to identify corrective action, discuss any

problem patterns, and improve the airline’s overall customer service record. 

Consumer complaints received by DOT, not by the airline itself,131 are reviewed as part of

the exercise. As currently conducted, these meetings do not address the specific issues of airline

compliance with Part 382 arising from their own complaint data. 

6.2.3 General Compliance Review Meetings
43

In 1995, DOT began a series of airline reviews as part of the Travelers First initiative.

Since 1995, DOT has visited the headquarters offices of 10 major U.S. airlines and 15 smaller

carriers as part of this initiative.132 The program was designed to promote improvement in the

quality of service to the public by the aviation industry. DOT also wanted the program to

promote its new image as a consumer protection "facilitator" with the airlines. By approaching

the compliance reviews in the spirit of information-sharing rather than investigation, DOT began

its move away from a regulatory and toward a more "programmatic" mode of operation.133

Travelers First is still in effect and includes a general review of consumer protection operations

for all the major airlines. 

DOT reports that it has emphasized voluntary compliance with the law. During each

Travelers First review, DOT representatives met with airline officials and staff responsible for

general consumer protection. The 10 major air carriers received a briefing on Part 382

requirements, but no inspections were conducted.134 DOT staff examined the Part 382

complaint-handling processes and training programs for 15 regional and large commuter air

carriers, and also may have randomly inspected their aircraft cabins and equipment for Part 382

compliance (movable armrests, availability of wheelchairs, onboard wheelchairs, etc.). During

the reviews, ACAA complaint data typically were not reviewed.135 DOT is currently planning

action to require airlines to certify the extent to which all their aircraft meet Part 382’s physical

accessibility requirements.136

An area not currently within the scope of Travelers First or any other ACAA monitoring

activity is compliance with the requirements for accessible lavatories in newly delivered doubleaisle aircraft. OGC reports that it is currently considering the advisability and feasibility of

working with FAA to inspect aircraft for compliance with all physical specifications required by

ACAA regulations.

Each Travelers First review concludes with an information-sharing session on the various

implementation strategies used by airlines in meeting Part 382 requirements. Following each

airline visit, DOT sends a follow-up letter listing improvement/compliance recommendations and
44

requests a response to the recommendations. It is not clear how many airlines sent responses. 

Researchers were not provided with samples of the follow-up letters or airline responses.

Airlines found to be noncompliant during the reviews are warned about possible legal

consequences, and DOT reports that follow-up visits have been conducted with four of those

airlines to date. In several instances, carriers have been required to change policies and

procedures to modify aircraft to ensure compliance with the physical accessibility requirements

of Part 382.137

6.2.4 DOT Presentations at Industrywide Conferences

DOT regularly gives presentations on Part 382 requirements and implementation issues at

annual conferences sponsored by the Air Transport Association and the Paralyzed Veterans of

America. DOT has presented at a number of Access to the Skies conferences, which provide a

forum for the aviation industry, government, and disability group representatives to exchange

information on accessibility problems for air travelers with disabilities.

6.2.5 Analysis and Recommendations

Finding No. 7: There appears to be little or no DOT follow-up to ensure compliance with

DOT directives and guidance.

The guidance letters sent since 1990 have raised a number of compliance issues and

concerns. However, there appears to be virtually no follow-up or resolution of concerns raised. 

For example, DOT’s industry letter dated November 1990 expressed great concern about the

many complaints pointing to a lack of airline personnel training. The letter threatened that

enforcement action would be warranted if complaints continued. 

After raising this concern in 1990, DOT did not mention it again, or any action it had

taken to encourage compliance. Yet DOT’s complaint files and records provide many current

examples indicating inadequate training of airline personnel. The threat of enforcement action

has also been empty. Of the five penalties issued, only one even mentions training as a factor

that directly relates to the many violations.
45

Recommendation No. 7: DOT should use industry letters to report on both problem areas

and the actions taken by DOT and the airlines to correct them.

Industry letters can be another forum for communicating about ACAA problem-solving

initiatives and inviting airlines to communicate the solutions they are developing internally.

Finding No. 8: The monthly reviews of airline consumer complaints are underused as a

resource for improving ACAA compliance.

Currently, a discussion of specific disability issues that appear in the airlines’ own ACAA

complaint data is not part of the monthly review of consumer complaints. There is no 

mechanism to ensure that recurring complaints and problem facilities identified in the airlines’ 

complaint data are regularly addressed.

Recommendation No. 8: Once a quarter, DOT should use the monthly airline consumer

complaint review meetings to focus on ACAA complaints.

During the quarterly meetings, airlines should be prepared to review their own disability

complaint data with DOT, their own trend analysis of these data, and their own "get-well plan"

(i.e., action plan for correcting any identified problems).

Finding No. 9: DOT does not provide incentives to encourage airline ACAA compliance.

Having dropped the regulatory role, DOT currently uses the Travelers First program as a

form of compliance monitoring. Yet Travelers First is not so much a tool for compliance

monitoring as for DOT collaboration with airlines to encourage overall performance

improvement. It assumes a willingness to improve performance, an assumption that does not

always apply to ACAA compliance. Other alternatives must be explored.

Recommendation No. 9: DOT should reward the airlines that are best in ACAA

compliance and complaint resolution.

Airlines that are doing especially well in a particular area of ACAA compliance or

complaint resolution should be given special recognition. Public recognition (free publicity) for

a job well done in making travel accessible for people with disabilities is one of the most

powerful tools available to encourage compliance.
46

Finding No. 10: The failure to include any regular review of ACAA complaints received

directly by the airlines impairs effective monitoring. 

The failure to include any regular review of ACAA complaints received directly by the

airlines has many and varied implications for the implementation of ACAA. Because the vast

majority of ACAA complaints go directly to the airlines, a regular examination of these data to

determine where the real compliance problems are for each airline and a comparison of their

statistics over time to measure improvements in performance are essential. 

Recommendation No. 10: DOT should conduct routine follow-up reviews.

Airlines demonstrating borderline compliance or noncompliance should not only expect

DOT check-ups but also should be required to produce evidence periodically that their

compliance efforts are resulting in improvement.

Finding No. 11: DOT appears to take no initiative to provide appropriate, targeted

assistance when airline problems are identified.

Recommendation No. 11: DOT should assist airlines in developing corrective action plans

and compliance improvement objectives.

Finding No. 12: DOT does not appear to have a mechanism for facilitating intermodal and

interdepartmental or external collaboration to meet ACAA enforcement responsibilities.

For example, no monitoring of any kind is under way in the delivery of new (doubleaisle) aircraft with accessible lavatories.138 While DOT claims that no complaints based on a

failure to comply with lavatory accessibility requirements have been received to date,139

noncompliance will have long-term consequences for a many people with disabilities. DOT

must be more proactive, despite resource limitations, in meeting its civil rights enforcement

responsibilities. It must do some creative problem-solving and activate a mechanism for better

use of existing resources. Redistributing resources and sharing responsibility within the agency,

as well as aligning with outside resources and expertise may be necessary for DOT to ensure

aircraft design monitoring is carried out and ACAA compliance achieved.140
47

Recommendation No. 12(a): DOT should require collaboration between OST departments

having official ACAA enforcement responsibility and FAA departments having operational

responsibilities directly affected by ACAA requirements.

For example, FAA provides review and final approval for all airline flight attendant

training programs. DOT should work with FAA to identify any training programs for aviation

industry personnel who interface with air travelers within FAA’s purview. DOT should

collaborate with FAA to expand FAA’s role to ensure ACAA requirements are a required

component of every applicable training program.

Another example is that FAA inspectors must review and approve all aircraft designs to

ensure compliance with FAA safety regulations. No aircraft can be built without an FAAapproved specification. Including ACAA access requirements within the scope of FAA’s design

inspection is an economical alternative that can significantly strengthen enforcement; it

eliminates the need for multiple inspections of the same specification and makes design approval

contingent upon compliance with the full spectrum of safety and access requirements. OGC is

currently considering the feasibility of working with FAA on new aircraft inspections to ensure

compliance with ACAA physical accessibility requirements.

Recommendation No. 12(b): The Rehabilitation Act should be amended to expand the

authority of the Access Board.

The Access Board is a small independent federal agency that develops accessibility

standards and guidelines. It developed ADA accessibility guidelines that were subsequently

adopted by DOJ as part of the implementing regulations for the law. The Access Board’s

expertise in accessibility and standards development uniquely qualifies it for this role in relation

to ACAA. This role parallels the one the Access Board plays for ADA in relation to DOJ.

Access Board responsibilities should include the development of airplane access

standards and guidelines (including restrooms, deplaning equipment, and enplaning equipment)

that should be incorporated into ACAA regulations. Congress should appropriate adequate funds

to enable the Access Board to carry out this function. The Access Board should work in

conjunction with FAA, other divisions of DOT, and disability community stakeholders as they
48

carry out ACAA compliance activities. The participation of FAA in this process is critical

because it is already involved in the inspection and approval of aircraft designs.

Recommendation No. 12(c): DOT should anticipate where industry noncompliance may be

most pervasive and develop appropriate countermeasures and incentives.

DOT should notify airlines and aircraft manufacturers about the accessibility standards

their aircraft must meet and institute periodic inspections to monitor compliance. Airlines with a

demonstrated record of compliance should be given special recognition in the Air Travel

Consumer Reports. Where noncompliance is found, enforcement action should be initiated

immediately to obtain voluntary compliance; civil penalties should be levied whenever a pattern

of inconsistency in meeting accessibility standards is found. Severe penalties should be imposed

for every instance in which the requirement for accessible lavatories in double aisle aircraft

ordered after April 1990 or delivered after April 1992 has not been met. 

6.3 Technical Assistance to the Aviation Industry

DOT has not had a formal technical assistance program to support Part 382

implementation. Aside from notifying airline officials about technical guidance available

through external sources (e.g., ATA’s design specification for accessible lavatories in two-aisle

aircraft) and occasionally sending an implementation guidance letter, DOT technical assistance

has consisted primarily of giving informal guidance to airlines, passengers, and disability rights

organizations in interpreting and implementing ACAA regulations.141

Regarding specific technical issues such as transmitting a passengers’ special seating

assignment information between airlines, DOT has sent an industry letter detailing a workable

implementation approach. Researchers did not, however, encounter any materials indicating

ongoing involvement in resolving specific problems involving technical issues (e.g.,

lifting/transferring passengers in wheelchairs, lavatory design for single-aisle aircraft).

Another issue indirectly affecting technical implementation of ACAA requirements is the

dual accessibility standards (those applying to ADA Titles II and III) called for under Part 382. 

Although guidance for meeting both ADA standards is available through DOJ and DOT has
49

distinguished the responsibilities of airlines and airports in Part 382, some confusion remains

about which technical standards ought to apply (for example, airport operators may choose

between ADA Accessibility Guidelines and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards in

meeting certain ACAA accessibility requirements). This uncertainty is compounded when

airlines and airports are required to share responsibility for meeting certain ACAA accessibility

requirements (e.g., in providing mechanical lift equipment and an accessible path into an

aircraft). Airport operators are held to ADA Title II’s standards of "program accessibility" and

"barrier removal," while airlines must meet the ADA Title III "reasonable accommodation" and

"readily achievable" standards. These differing legal standards only add complexity to

negotiations between airports and airlines in jointly developing solutions.

Finally, DOT has made limited efforts to tackle controversial but major cabin design

problems. Under the leadership of the Office of Environment, Energy, and Safety and the Office

of Regulation and Enforcement, the Aircraft Accessibility Federal Advisory Committee was

formed to develop a workable design for accessible lavatories in single-aisle aircraft. To that

end, the committee of stakeholders met to address technical issues and to resolve the many

conflicting interests among the participants.

6.3.1 Aircraft Accessibility Federal Advisory Committee

Advisory committee members were representatives from the airline industry, disability

groups, aircraft designers and manufacturers, and flight attendants. The committee met

approximately eight times over 18 months to develop design options for accessible lavatories in

single-aisle aircraft. Unable to reach consensus, the committee disbanded in 1996. A major area

of disagreement was whether a curtain-enclosed partition was the only economically and

technically feasible lavatory design option. The committee’s final report, recently made

available to the public, can be obtained from DOT’s website ostpxweb.dot.gov.142

6.3.2 Analysis and Recommendations
50

Finding No. 13: Confusion concerning which standards apply continues to impede full

cooperation between airport operators and airlines where Part 382 mandates joint action

to meet ACAA accessibility requirements.

Recommendation No. 13: Although DOT issued clarifying regulations as part of the

November 1, 1996, amendments to Part 382 and 49 CFR Part 27, DOT must exercise

stronger leadership to ensure that airports and airlines take joint action, consistent with

the standards that apply to each, to provide an accessible path through the airport and

proper equipment for boarding an aircraft.

Finding No. 14: DOT leadership is needed to find solutions to ACAA implementation

problems and encourage collaborative stakeholder initiatives.

Recommendation No. 14: DOT must actively encourage airlines to collaborate with the

disability community in developing solutions to common ACAA implementation problems. 

DOT has used the regulatory negotiation process to address some technical issues in the

past with limited success. DOT should build on its experience with these past negotiations to

address controversial access issues. The most recent advisory committee on accessible lavatories

in single-aisle aircraft failed because of intransigent conflict among the stakeholders. A

relatively high level of disagreement and controversy among the stakeholders is a given. It is

within DOT’s ACAA enforcement mandate to initiate consensus-based processes and keep

participants focused on working through stalemates to solve the problems. Issues calling for

immediate attention include conflicts between Part 382 requirements and airline policies that

seem to circumvent ACAA requirements (e.g., changes in airline preboarding practices).

6.4 Informal Complaints Alleging Potential Violations of 14 CFR Part 382

6.4.1 The Informal Consumer Complaint Process

Under Part 382, consumers should first lodge complaints about discriminatory treatment

with the airline itself through the airline’s CRO. The responsibilities of the CRO are twofold. 

First, the CRO is to have the authority to resolve complaints, instructing other air carrier

personnel to take the actions required to ensure ACAA compliance (except to countermand pilot
51

decisions based on safety considerations). Second, the CRO makes a written record of any

disability-related consumer complaint and provides to the complainant a written statement

containing a summary of the facts.

If the CRO determines that a potential violation of the ACAA occurred, the statement

provided to the complainant must include information about what steps the air carrier has taken

or will take in response. If the CRO determines that the actions of air carrier personnel did not

violate the ACAA, the statement must include the reasons for this determination. The written

statement to the complainant must also "inform the complainant of his or her right to pursue

DOT enforcement action."143 Although the airline must keep written records, these complaints

are considered informal complaints. 

Airline passengers may also contact DOT directly with a complaint about discriminatory

treatment by an air carrier. Complaints sent directly to DOT are simultaneously logged into the

DOT complaint database and forwarded with a form letter to the particular airline for action by

its consumer affairs division. Thus, some complaints appear only in the records of the specific

air carrier, while other complaints appear in both the air carrier’s database and the complaint

database at DOT. The vast majority of complaints are sent directly to the airlines, with no copy

to DOT.

Disability discrimination complaints sent to DOT are entered into the same DOT

database that stores information on all categories of aviation consumer complaints, as well as

complaints of discrimination under Title VI or any other civil rights laws. All these complaints,

whether customer service or civil rights in nature, are considered informal complaints. The

information profile on a disability complaint includes the date received, airline and flight

number, type of disability of the passenger (broken into eight broad categories), basis of the

complaint, identity of the person filing the complaint (e.g., the passenger, a relative of the

passenger, a lawyer for the complainant, or a congressperson), date of the potential violation,

disposition of the complaint, and status of the complaint (open or closed). In addition to the

profile in the complaint database, DOT maintains a paper file on the complaint that includes

correspondence about the complaint received by DOT, DOT letter of notification to the airline,
52

and the airline response to DOT and to the customer. Files of cases older than 12 months are

purged regularly; only cases determined to be potential enforcement actions are retained.

DOT receives complaints in the form of phone calls, letters addressed directly to DOT,

and copies of letters addressed directly to the airline. As the complaints come into DOT, an

analyst reviews them and records them in the complaint database. The hard copy file may have

letters and materials with information from the complainant and from the airline about actions

taken in response to the complaint. After reviewing the file, the analyst may make further

inquiries of the airline or the complainant and seek to clarify the pertinent ACAA requirements. 

Telephone complaints are usually followed up with a phone call to the complainant telling him or

her to send a written complaint. After the complaint is logged in, the case is classified as

"potential violation" or it is closed, or both, depending on whether the complaint was originally

received in writing, by telephone, or other means. Complaints by telephone are generally closed

the day they are received. Complaints sent by letter are coded "potential violation" and sent with

a form letter to the airline requesting that it respond to the complainant and notify DOT of its

actions within 30 days. When DOT receives a copy of the airline response, the complaint record

is typically closed. DOT follows up with the airline only when the complaint involves an

established policy or procedure that is out of compliance with ACAA. The vast majority of

complaints are not determined to be matters of policy or procedure.

Even when they receive a finding of potential violation, individual informal complaints

are rarely referred to the Enforcement Office for investigation. Although the Enforcement Office

might file a formal complaint based on a single complaint that appears conspicuously egregious

and raises issues of general public concern, no individual informal complaints have been referred

for enforcement since 1990.144 Generally, when an airline accumulates a significant number of

complaints of the same type, indicating a problem of general public concern, these cases will be

forwarded to the Enforcement Office for further investigation of a possible pattern and practice

violation. The Enforcement Office may then seek a settlement with the airline or file a formal

complaint. Most ACAA complaints received by DOT are informal, and only 17 formal
53

complaints alleging an ACAA violation have been fully processed since 1986. These are

discussed in section 6.5 of this report.

6.4.2 Characteristics of Informal Complaints Received by DOT

Summary data from the complete DOT database made available to NCD show that

complaints involving disability constitute approximately 4.5 percent of all consumer complaints

received on the major airlines. Table 1 shows the total number of consumer complaints in all

categories received for each of 10 major U.S. carriers during the entire ACAA enforcement

period, what percentage of this total were identified as potential enforcement actions, and of

those what percentage were disability-related. 

Between April 1990 and October 1997, DOT received approximately 1,831 informal

disability-related complaints. Of these, 140 appear to be multiple complaints generated from a

single "travel occurrence" involving the same airline, actions, and date of travel. Although

ACAA does not apply to foreign air carriers, 103 (5.6%) complaints in the database are from

foreign carriers. Approximately 80 percent of the complaints involved one of the major U.S.

airlines or their commuter airline affiliate (see Table 2). The remaining complaints involved

smaller air carriers or tour operators.

The DOT database also shows that 72.5 percent of the complaints are made by letter, with

27.5 percent by telephone. More than one complainant can be listed for a single complaint. In

fact, some complaints list up to four different complainants; these may include the traveler with

the disability, a relative of the traveler, a lawyer, a congressperson, or other individual. The

person registering the complaint is most often the passenger with the disability, although

relatives (16 percent of all complainants), congresspersons (6.3 percent), and lawyers (3.2

percent) also appear in the records as complainants. 

Table 3 displays the distribution of complaints against U.S. air carriers by type of

disability, using the categories contained in the DOT database. DOT coding categories for the

type of disability do not clearly describe the types of disabilities of the complainants, as some of

the categories refer to conditions while others refer to assistive devices. It is also not clear how
54

people with multiple disabilities are categorized by the analysts who create the complaint record

on the basis of the oral or written statement of the complainant. Approximately 60 percent of the

complaints involve a person who uses a wheelchair, while another 19 percent are from persons

classified as "other handicapped." Nearly 6 percent of the complaints come from persons with

hearing or vision impairments, and 8.7 percent involve someone who uses oxygen.

The types of actions upon which the complaints are based are listed in Table 4. Failure to

provide assistance is by far the most common complaint, accounting for 50 percent of the

complaints. Complaints involving the handling of assistive devices constitute another large

category. Approximately 21 percent of the complaints allege an ACAA violation involving

problems with storage, loss, or damage to an assistive device, delay in returning the device to the

owner; or the insistence upon a liability waiver (not allowed under ACAA). Although the

database does not identify the types of devices involved in these complaints, a review of selected

complaint files suggests that many of these cases involve wheelchairs. A smaller, but still

significant, number of complaints involve refusal to board or seat assignment restrictions (the

April 1998 NPRM addresses seating assignment rules).

Of the 1,728 disability-related complaints logged against U.S. carriers from April 1990

through October 1997, 169 or 9.8 percent were identified as "potential enforcement actions." In

addition, all but 6.5 percent (113) of the complaints were considered closed cases. A

determination of potential violation is made based on the complainant’s statement (written or

taken by telephone) and the airline’s written response. DOT usually does not independently

investigate these complaints by interviewing the major parties to the complaint or contacting

other persons who may have witnessed the actions that form the basis of the complaint. 

In summary, most of the complaints filed with DOT involve experiences with the major

U.S. air carriers. This situation is not illogical because these carriers account for more flights

and passengers overall. However, the concentration of most of the complaints among a small

number of large carriers suggests that better oversight and increased support and consultation

with a few airlines could produce a noticeable improvement in the air travel experience of people

with disabilities. The DOT database also indicates that people who use wheelchairs continue to
55

experience problems&in the airport, in boarding and deplaning, the planes, and in the storage and

retrieval of their wheelchairs. DOT should be able to monitor and address these problems

through its database and compliance processes.

6.4.3 Complaint Data from the Airlines: A Different Picture

The complaints received by DOT constitute only a small proportion of all the complaints

directly lodged with the airlines. Each airline has its own complaint handling system for

recording complaints received and the actions taken. This record is required in Part 382, even

though DOT has to date conducted no formal, systematic review of airline complaint records to

date. Researchers learned of two instances in which these airline records had been obtained as

part of discovery for lawsuits brought under ACAA by air travelers with disabilities. In both

cases, the number of complaints filed directly with the airline far exceeded the number of

complaints filed with DOT about that same airline.

The complaint log from one of these lawsuits was made available for our analysis. Table

5 summarizes this log, showing complaints received from January 1993 through November 1996

by a major U.S. carrier. More detail about the content of those complaints is given in Appendix

B. Analysis of the log is useful not only because it provides a more accurate picture of the

volume of disability complaints, but because it provides more detail about the types of actions

that are the bases of complaints. 

A total of 5,072 disability-related complaints were logged with this air carrier during a

47-month period. Approximately 38 percent of the complaints (1,942) were categorized by the

airline as involving damaged or delayed wheelchairs. Nearly 25 percent of the complaints

(1,258) were classified as failures on the part of the airline’s customer service agents to provide

sufficient or appropriate assistance to passengers with disabilities. Over 10 percent of the

complaints were logged as problems with seating, particularly with requests for the bulkhead.

In analyzing the specific complaints, researchers found that a single complaint sometimes

described several problems. Complaints about "delayed wheelchairs" also appeared in other

categories such as "disabled passenger seating problem" or "disabled passenger left unattended." 
56

To get a better sense of the true frequency of certain kinds of complaints, researchers tabulated

each problem reported regardless of the main category into which the overall complaint had been

logged. These results are shown in Table 6.

These complaints indicate significant problems with the level of training and knowledge

of airline personnel about their obligations under ACAA, assisting someone with a disability,

reassembling wheelchairs, and helping passengers with other assistive devices. It is also

noteworthy that the complaints record insensitive, rude, and irresponsible treatment of

passengers with disabilities. For example, there are 65 complaints of a passenger being left

unattended in a manner that violated the requirement to provide assistance and that may have

compromised the safety of the passenger.

To provide additional insight into the bases of ACAA disability complaints, researchers

extracted the complaint details from the hard copy files for a small set of complaints filed with

DOT. This information is located in Appendix C. The descriptions of the airlines’ actions are

very similar to the kinds of actions described in the individual airline database summarized in

Table 5. Although the cases profiled here are not from a random sample of cases, they do

present typical examples of the relationship between the nature of the complaints and their

resolution.

For many of these cases, even cases that have been closed, no specific determination by

DOT is noted. Apologies or compensatory vouchers by the airline appear to be treated as

satisfactory responses in most cases. In a couple of instances, complaints have been marked as a

"potential enforcement action," while complaints alleging similar violations are coded "potential

violations." Even complaints marked as "potential enforcement actions" were not necessarily

forwarded to the Enforcement Office for investigation. Researchers were told that the

"potential enforcement action" notation flag problems that may become the basis for a pattern or

practice enforcement action in the future.145
57

Table 1. Summary of ACAA Informal Consumer Complaints 

April 5, 1990%October 23, 1997

Air Carrier Consumer

Complaints 

(All

Categories)

Category C

Complaints:

Reservations/

Ticketing/Boarding

& Disability

Disability-Related

Complaints Only

Potential Enforcement Acti

Total % of all

complaints

Total % of all

complaints

Total

number

(all

categories)

Number

disabilityrelated

% 

disab

rela

CARRIER A 6,243 853 13.6 272 4.4 1,169 25 CARRIER B 5,102 658 12.8 259 5.0 1,160 28 CARRIER C 3,112 493 15.8 193 6.2 633 26 CARRIER D 3,680 587 15.9 183 5.0 1,208 27 CARRIER E 3,008 458 15.2 173 5.8 839 24 CARRIER F 3,661 436 11.9 137 3.7 570 18 CARRIER G 3,982 413 10.3 112 2.8 584 12 CARRIER H 1,702 224 13.1 48 2.8 299 5 CARRIER I 811 130 16.0 34 4.2 232 2 CARRIER J 321 55 17.1 25 7.8 97 2 TOTAL/AVERAGE

31,622 4,307

13.6

1,436

4.5

6,791 169
58

Table 2. ACAA Informal Complaints Against Major U.S. 

Carriers Received by DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division

April 5, 1990%October 23, 1997

Air Carrier

% of 

Informal

ACAA

Complaints

Ranking

based on

share of

customer

base*

American Airlines (includes

American Eagle)

15.5 3

United Airlines (includes United

Express)

14.9 2

US Airways/USAIR (includes US

Air Express)

10.7 4

Delta Airlines 10.0 1

Northwest Airlines (includes

Northwest Airlink)

9.8 6

Continental Airlines (includes

Continental Express)

7.6 7

Trans World Airlines (includes

Trans World Express)

6.4 8

America West Airlines 2.6 9

Southwest Airlines 1.9 5

Alaska Airlines 1.4 10

Total 80.8

 (N=1476) 

*Ranking based on total number of passengers served in 1996 as reported in the Air Transport Association 1997

Annual Report, p. 16. The major carriers listed above carry an estimated 92 percent of all commercial air traffic.
59

Table 3. Informal ACAA Complaints: Disability Categories1

DOT Disability Category2

% of

Complaints

Other wheelchair 59.8

Other handicapped 18.7

Oxygen 8.7

Vision impaired 3.2

Hearing impaired 2.0

Paraplegic 2.0

Mentally impaired 1.9

Quadriplegic 1.4

Vision/hearing impaired 0.7

Other assistive device 0.7

Communicable disease 0.6

Stretcher 0.4

Total 100.1

(N=1728)

1

Based upon data from U.S. carriers only.

2

The categories are those used in the DOT complaint database.

 Percentages are rounded to the nearest tenth.
60

Table 4. ACAA Informal Complaints:

Types of Disability Complaints Received1

DOT Complaint Types2

% of

Complaints

Failure to provide assistance3 50.0

Assistive device; storage; loss/damage/delay; Liability

waiver

21.1

Other 8.5

Seat assignment restriction 7.9

Refusal to board passenger 5.8

Aircraft not accessible 2.0

Unsatisfactory information 1.2

Airport not accessible 1.1

Service animal problem 0.9

Refusal to board without attendant 0.8

Advance notice dispute 0.3

Ticket not received; ticket/reservation incorrect 0.3

Refusal to accept other airline ticket / Required to

repurchase lost ticket

0.1

Unable to contact 0.1

Total 100.1

(N=1728)

1

Based upon data from U.S. carriers only.

2

The complaint types are those used in the DOT complaint database.

Percentages are rounded to the nearest tenth.

3

"Failure to provide assistance" includes not providing a wheelchair or assistance in getting to a restroom, or not

communicating information in a manner appropriate to a person’s disability.
61

Table 5. Complaints Filed Directly with a Major Air Carrier

January, 1993%November, 19961

CODE CATEGORY TITLE

Number of

Complaints

DDWC Delayed wheelchair 1871

DCSAH Disabled pax assistance by CSA 1258

DSEAT Disabled pax seating problems 524

DIFAT Lack of F/A assistance with disabled pax 322

DCONT Contract employee complaint 305

DMISC Disabled miscellaneous 225

DRR Lack of res. assistance with disabled pax 123

DPRO Agent unfamiliar with disabled procedures 79

DAF Disabled dissatisfied with aircraft facilities 74

DFAC Disabled facility complaint 72

DDDWC Damaged wheelchair 71

DUNAT Disabled PAX left unattended 65

DPB Disabled PAX preboarding 63

DTIPS Disabled PAX solicitation of tips 20

Total Complaints 5072

1

The complaints summarized in this table are from the records of a single airline. The major category

headings are listed verbatim from the airline’s file. Some of these complaints may have been sent to the

Department of Transportation as well. The criteria for defining each category are unclear, as similar

types of complaints often were found under several different categories. 

PAX = passenger

CSA = customer service agent

F/A = flight attendant
62

Table 6. Complaints Filed Directly with a Major Air Carrier

January 1993–November 1996

Rank Ordering of Recurring Specific Complaints*

Recurring Complaints Number of

Complaints

Denied/delayed/challenged wheelchair use 2395

Refused/challenged need for assistance 354

Mistreated/rude/incompetent staff 229

Refused bulkhead seating 218

Left abandoned/unattended 202

No preboarding/boarding assistance 162

Missed connection/misboarded/wrong gate 151

Oxygen mishandling/overcharge/no delivery 143

Reservation assistance complaints 123

Injury during transfer/transport 95

Damaged wheelchair 83

Seated at rear of plane 73

Disabled in restricted (middle) seat 42

Solicitation of tips 41

No movable armrests 40

Forced to check assistive device before gate 39

Separated from companion 37

Nondisabled seated in bulkhead 36

No lift/jetway 28

Closed captioning complaints 26

Refused assistance to transfer/transport 25

Pre-assigned seat request denied 22

Staff incompetent/untrained 19

Nondisabled complaints of disabled as 

obstruction/safety hazard in aisle seats

17

Non-English speaking 15

ACAA violation complaints 15

Safety complaints/safety info transmission 13

No TTY 12

Restrooms inaccessible 11

TOTAL 4666

*

 The complaints summarized in this table are from the records of a single airline. Specific

complaints with fewer than 10 occurrences are not included.
63

6.4.4 Analysis and Recommendations

Finding No. 15: The informal complaint handling process does not result in consistent

enforcement and remediation to individuals whose civil rights were abridged in violation of 

ACAA.

The manner in which DOT handles ACAA complaints raises the issue of whether it is

appropriate to treat complaints of civil rights violations as informal complaints. The process and

the database used by DOT are much the same as those used for consumer complaints that do not

involve violations of an individual’s legally protected civil rights or, in some cases, any law at

all. When draft ACAA regulations were issued, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America brought

this issue to the attention of DOT. However, DOT nonetheless decided to structure the primary

complaint process as an informal one. In its response to the comments received about the NPRM

of June 22, 1988, DOT describes the role of the Consumer Protection Division as follows:

The Department’s Consumer Affairs Office is often able to help resolve problems

between passenger and carriers on disability issues as well as other airline

consumer matters. We recommend that, before filing a part 302 complaint [this is

a formal complaint], a passenger write or call this office to determine if it can

work out a solution to the problem.

DOT goes on to say,

In the absence of other enforcement mechanisms the Department will consider

individual complaints as well as so-called “pattern or practice” complaints under

part 302 procedures. The office [Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings Office]

will evaluate all complaints that come in. To mandate that every complaint be

prosecuted, however, regardless of its merits, would entail a considerable waste of

resources, both the Department’s and those of carriers and complainants.

Researchers did not survey any ACAA complainants to learn what their expectations of

the complaint process were. However, because complaints of housing discrimination and

employment discrimination are generally handled on a case-by-case basis, with investigation and
64

individual case resolution and enforcement, it is logical to expect that complaints of disability

discrimination in air travel would get similar individual case attention. The New Horizons

brochure states, “Any person believing that a carrier has violated any provision of the rule may

contact the following office,” followed by the address for the Consumer Protection Division.

Nothing in the DOT brochure or website information about the ACAA compliance process

makes it clear that most complaints sent to DOT are processed with a brief assessment, a tracking

record created in a database, a form letter to the respondent airline, and monitoring of the

complaint until an airline response is received and the complaint closed.146 Only the few

complaints determined to involve policies or procedures out of compliance with ACAA are 

investigated. It is not clear whether consumers with disabilities relying on DOT’s public

information brochures would be aware of the limitations of filing an informal complaint with

DOT to obtain complaint resolution.

Complainants who are not satisfied with the airline response to their complaint are

encouraged to contact DOT. However, even if DOT has determined that a potential violation

occurred and that the airline response was inappropriate, further formal action usually does not

result. DOT may contact the airline and request that it amend its response to the passenger, but it

does not levy a fine or engage in any formal mediation or adjudication between the complainant

and the airline unless a formal complaint is filed. Thus, passengers dissatisfied with the airline

response to their complaint are left with civil litigation as the primary means for obtaining a

satisfactory or enforceable redress for the alleged violation of their rights.

Recommendation No. 15(a): Complaints filed under the Air Carrier Access Act should be

individually investigated and given a specific determination by DOT that is communicated

to the complainant.

 The process should be modeled on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) procedures for handling discrimination complaints and should involve the possibility of

mediation and compensation or awards to complainants as an alternative to litigation.

Recommendation No. 15(b): The public information materials distributed by DOT should

clearly describe the types of outcomes possible from filing an ACAA complaint with DOT.
65

Finding No. 16: DOT’s complaint database is inadequate for adjudicating individual

ACAA complaints and monitoring ACAA compliance across all air carriers.

The usefulness of the DOT complaint database as a vehicle for monitoring and enforcing

ACAA is questionable. For example, all disability-related complaints are logged into a central

database containing every category of consumer complaint received by DOT. Complaints about

foreign air carriers, which are not currently enforced under ACAA, are included in DOT’s

statistical reporting of disability complaints. 

The DOT database resides on an antiquated mainframe having limited capability to sort

on user-selected data fields for different types of analysis. Researchers requested a variety of

reports sorted according to different selection criteria and with different sets of data fields. DOT

declined to provide all but two on the grounds that the requested reports required complicated

reprogramming of the reporting function which none of the consumer protection staff knew how

to do. However, following a review of the second draft of this report, DOT staff members said

that the mainframe was capable of producing a broad range of reports, including those initially

requested. 

Another factor affecting the usefulness of the complaint data is the categories for type of

disability and type of discriminatory action. Some categories are so broad (e.g., “other

wheelchair”) that it is difficult to produce a clear profile of the travelers and the events triggering

their complaints.

Furthermore, specific information is lacking in the database records concerning the nature

and circumstances of the complaints. Capturing this information is particularly important

because it is DOT’s policy to destroy the hard copies of most complaint files (other than those

identified as a “potential enforcement action”) a year after they have been received. Although the

database record can be expanded indefinitely to document specifics of a given complaint file, the

vast majority of complaint records contain only the most basic information about the complainant

and the nature and disposition of the complaint. Part of the difficulty may be that complaint

letters are written in a narrative style and contain varying amounts of relevant details about the

occurrences. A carefully developed complaint form would allow more consistent and specific
66

data to be collected. In the National Council on Disability (NCD) interviews, DOT staff did

acknowledge that the database categories could be improved and indicated that a standardized

complaint form had been drafted and was under consideration for approval.147 Between

November 1997 and January 1998, researchers asked several different staff persons about the

status of the complaint form. Most staff members indicated that no consensus had been reached

on whether such a form would be useful or desirable. At the time of NCD’s last inquiry, the

form apparently was in limbo at an unknown level.148

Still another concern is the use to which the complaint data are put. The database

complaint records serve primarily to provide DOT with an aggregate picture of the problems

reported by the public for each airline. DOT uses the data mainly to work with each airline at the

big picture level in correcting compliance problems affecting its overall performance assessment

or potentially leading to enforcement action. Although this is a legitimate and useful purpose for

the data, the effort expended by individual consumers to document and report their complaints

frequently does not result in a satisfactory outcome for them. In addition, as described above,

disability complaints are not identified by individual airline in the public report of consumer

complaints issued monthly by DOT. Instead, the disability complaints are grouped within the

aggregate category “ticketing/boarding.”

Finally, no data are regularly maintained by DOT that can be used to assess the full extent

of ACAA problems or ACAA compliance across the nation. This is partly because the DOT

database contains only a small fraction of the actual number of ACAA complaints generated each

year. Most complaints are sent directly to the airline with no copy sent to DOT. Regarding those

complaints that are sent to DOT, researchers were not able to determine whether they came from

the most dissatisfied or aggrieved passengers, those most knowledgeable about the ACAA, or

neither. Although the airline CROs by law must keep a written record of all complaints, DOT

does not ask the airlines for these records or for a summary report of the records to analyze,

unless in connection with the investigation of a formal complaint or enforcement action.

Yet complaint data produced by a defendant airline during the discovery phase of

litigation in which it was involved indicated conclusively that the number of disability-related
67

complaints made directly to the airline was many times greater than the number of complaints

received by DOT over the same period. Between January 1993 and November 1996, this major

carrier received 5,072 disability-related complaints;149 over the same period, DOT received only

142 complaints against that carrier and 1,009 disability-related complaints against all air carriers,

including foreign carriers.

Researchers asked Enforcement Office staff what the estimated discrepancy was between

the number of disability complaints received by DOT and the number received directly by the

airlines. Using airline complaint data during enforcement investigations, they estimated that for

every single complaint received by DOT against an airline, about 99 more disability complaints

were recorded only in that airline’s own records.150

Recommendation No. 16(a): DOT should maintain a technically proficient database

adequate to perform ACAA complaint tracking and analysis.

A database using modern application software should be developed to track the data

items and codes required for ACAA complaint processing, investigation, enforcement, and

compliance monitoring. In addition, the complaint data categories should be redesigned into

clearly defined categories that describe meaningful data.

Recommendation No. 16(b): DOT should require all air carriers whose activities are

covered by ACAA to submit annually the record of disability complaints that they are

required by law to maintain.

DOT should review these records and evaluate them as part of its responsibility for

compliance review.

Finding No. 17: The criteria are unclear for determining when complaints alleging similar

violations are to be coded as potential violations only or as potential enforcement actions

for investigation by the Enforcement Office.

Although the complaints handled by DOT are considered informal complaints, at some

point they may be coded as potential violations or potential enforcement actions of both. 

Researchers noticed that complaints alleging similar violations were inconsistently coded—

sometimes as potential violations and sometimes as potential enforcement actions—and asked
68

about the distinction between the two codes. When asked what the rules were for deciding which

code to apply, DOT staff said there was “no written list” of criteria for distinguishing potential

violations from potential enforcement actions or for referring cases to the Enforcement Office for

formal enforcement. DOT staff explained that DOT routinely codes as “potential violations” all

records generated from complaint letters after a copy of the complaint letter and a DOT form

letter go out to the airline requesting a response to the complainant within 30 days.151

When pressed to provide the criteria used to distinguish a potential enforcement action

from a potential violation, DOT staff said that some of the criteria for determining whether

enforcement action should be taken on a complaint were

• the (perceived) potential effect of the enforcement action on consumers (positive and

negative);

• the uniqueness of the complaint issue (i.e., whether it involves a new service the airlines

are not yet accustomed to providing);

• how widespread the alleged violation is throughout the industry; and 

• the potential impact of the enforcement action on the aviation industry.152

Months later, DOT staff members reviewing the second draft of this report with NCD

staff members, identified another criterion: whether a complaint involves an established airline

policy or procedure that is not in compliance with ACAA. NCD staff members were told that

this is the main benchmark for determining whether a complaint is a potential enforcement

action. Relatively few complaints receive this designation because it is narrowly applied. 

Researchers were told that when enough complaints (potential violations) of a similar nature

against a given airline had accumulated to suggest a pattern or practice not in the public interest,

those cases might be forwarded to the Enforcement Office for review as “potential enforcement

actions” against the airline.153

Researchers received conflicting information from DOT staff regarding the categories 

“potential violation” and “potential enforcement action.” During early interviews with DOT

staff, researchers were told that some complaints are initially determined to be “potential
69

enforcement actions,” while all other complaints are routinely coded as “potential violations.” 

Later, DOT staff said that most complaints are classified as potential enforcement actions from

the outset. 

Recommendation No. 17: DOT should develop written materials that articulate the

decision rules for deciding the status of consumer complaints at each step of the

enforcement process.

Objective criteria need to be defined for analyzing informal complaints to identify the

elements of liability for prima facie violations, potential enforcement actions, and the imposition

of civil penalties.

The next section presents an in-depth description of the formal complaint process and its

relationship to ACAA enforcement.

6.5 Formal Complaints and Enforcement Actions

6.5.1 Filing a Formal Complaint 

Formal complaints under ACAA are filed following the rules of 14 CFR Part 302. These

rules apply not only to ACAA formal complaints but to all complaints alleging violations of any

federal aviation statute or DOT rule or order. Any individual, corporation, or public entity,

including DOT itself, may file a formal complaint alleging violation of the ACAA with DOT’s

Dockets section under Part 302.

The complaint must conform to the procedural requirements of section 302.3 (see

Appendix E) with respect to the form and filing of documents. These requirements, which are

exacting and time-consuming, serve as procedural safeguards intended to meet due process

requirements with respect to the respondent air carrier.154

There are no public education documents describing how to file a formal complaint under

the ACAA. The New Horizons brochure, DOT’s only publication for the public that describes in

detail the protections afforded air passengers with disabilities, does not inform the public of the

possibility of filing a formal complaint. Nor does it list the Enforcement Office as one of the
70

federal offices involved with ACAA enforcement. Thus, anyone seeking to file a Part 302

complaint would need to find out on his or her own whom to contact to file the complaint. To

file correctly, it would be necessary to consult the federal regulations. Without the assistance of

a lawyer, an individual would probably not know about the formal complaint process or

successfully be able to file a complaint under it.

6.5.2 The Formal Complaint Process 

After the complaint has been filed with DOT’s Dockets section, the respondent has 15

days to file an answer. After all answers have been filed and any necessary investigation has

been conducted, the Enforcement Office has a reasonable period (60 days unless an extension is

granted) to file the notice of enforcement and proposed assessment of civil penalty or to dismiss

the complaint.155 At any time after the filing, the respondent may file an answer and a motion to

dismiss the complaint. The Enforcement Office will consider matters raised in the answer in

deciding whether to dismiss the complaint or institute an enforcement proceeding. The

Enforcement Office will dismiss a third-party complaint if it finds either that

• the allegations do not provide sufficient grounds for believing that a violation of a

federal aviation statute or department rule or order has occurred, or 

• further investigation is not in the public interest.

 A notice stating the reason must accompany the dismissal order. If the Enforcement

Office does not act within a reasonable period, the complainant may file a motion with the

Deputy General Counsel to docket the complaint. 

If the Enforcement Office decides to file a notice of enforcement proceeding and its own

formal complaint, the case is then assigned to an administrative law judge for a formal hearing

under the requirements of 14 CFR 302.3–302.4. In keeping with its overall enforcement strategy,

DOT will seek to resolve complaints informally whenever possible before resorting to formal

enforcement action.

6.5.3 Informal Enforcement Strategy
71

The Enforcement Office maintains that the goal of enforcement is to ensure that

consumers are protected adequately, and that formal enforcement action can actually impede

consumer protection, depending on the approach taken.156 Regulatory enforcement hinders a

business’s ability to satisfy customer needs, whereas collaborative enforcement supports efforts

towards compliance in meeting customers needs.157 The goal is to use the lowest level of

enforcement appropriate to achieve satisfactory compliance on any given issue.

In keeping with this goal, the ACAA informal enforcement mechanism is graduated as

follows:

• a telephone call explaining the need for compliance, followed by

• correspondence stating the same, followed by

• explicit warning notice, followed by

• referral for administrative enforcement action.

As a matter of policy, the Enforcement Office does not publicize formal complaint cases

resulting in voluntary compliance, presumably to encourage voluntary compliance by

respondents. If compliance is not forthcoming, enforcement action may begin.158 Enforcement

action can take the form of a voluntary consent order or administrative adjudication, either of

which can impose cease and desist provisions (with or without civil penalties) or a federal

lawsuit for injunctive relief.159

Those staff persons who carry out DOT’s enforcement strategy repeatedly emphasized: 

Collaboration is the key to DOT’s enforcement strategy. The subtext of the collaborative

strategy is that the rules governing success in the marketplace will ensure that consumer issues

will eventually correct themselves. When asked what economic incentive an airline would have

for Part 382 compliance, DOT staff frankly admitted that the main business incentive for

complying with Part 382 is projecting the image of a customer-caring business to the general

public.160 
72

Key DOT staff members believe this enforcement strategy is highly effective, saying that

“air carriers are complying 99 percent” with the regulation (Part 382).161 The Enforcement Office

also noted that the drastic cutback in compliance monitoring since deregulation seems to have

had little real effect on the compliance picture. In support of its view on the extent of ACAA

compliance problems, the Enforcement Office cites a statistical analysis of consumer complaint

data samples from a number of airlines over several years during the 1990s. Their findings

showed that disability complaints consistently represented only about 4 percent of the total

consumer complaints across the board for every airline and for each year sampled.

6.5.4 Enforcement Orders

From 1987 until September 1998, DOT received 17 formal complaints filed by third

parties and one formal complaint filed by the Enforcement Office. The formal complaint filed by

the Enforcement Office resulted in a cease and desist order. Fourteen of the third-party

complaints were dismissed. 

Of the 14 third-party complaints dismissed, two resulted in cease and desist orders that

also carried civil penalties. Four of the 14 were dismissed upon request of the complainants after

private settlements had been reached with the airlines. Three complaints were dismissed because

of insufficient cause and one because the accommodation requested constituted an undue burden. 

 Four other dismissals were based on a finding that, while a violation may have occurred,

mitigating factors led to a determination that it was not in the public interest to pursue

enforcement action. 

As of September 1998, the total amount in civil penalties imposed on airlines as a result

of third-party formal complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability was $28,000. 

Summaries of the three complaints resulting in cease and desist orders or civil penalties or both,

follow.

6.5.5 Formal Enforcement Proceedings 
73

A notice of the enforcement proceeding and a formal complaint initiated by the

Enforcement Office commence an oral evidentiary proceeding, which may be based on a formal

third-party complaint, on informal complaints received by DOT, or on information gathered by

DOT without any complaint being filed.162

Once a hearing has been held and the parties have filed briefs on the issues raised in the

complaint, the administrative law judge issues a recommended decision or may certify the record

to the DOT decisionmaker, who is either the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International

Affairs or the Secretary. Any final DOT order may be appealed to the U.S. Circuit Courts under

49 U.S.C. § 46110.163

The procedures in a formal enforcement case are burdensome to all parties, imposing a

continuing need to meet filing requirements or to make appearances at hearings or conferences.

As a result, this process typically takes place over a protracted period of time. Enforcement

decisions are based upon the information and materials supplied by the complainant and the

respondent, as well as any additional information resulting from the Enforcement Office’s

investigation. The only disability discrimination case to make it through the full hearing and

review process was the Southwest Airlines Enforcement Proceeding.

164 The third-party plaintiff

filed the initial complaint in August 1984 and DOT rendered its decision (cease and desist order)

on November 6, 1987. Since the sunset of the Civil Aeronautics Board in 1985, no enforcement

case initiated by DOT has proceeded through all stages of the formal process.

Moody v. Delta165

This consent order found that Delta violated Part 382 by failing to provide adequate

assistance to passengers using wheelchairs and assessed a $25,000 civil penalty. The order also

required Delta Airlines (1) to increase the availability of self-mobile wheelchairs at its terminal
74

stations and (2) to emphasize in training its gate agents that they must give first priority to

requests for assistance from passengers who use wheelchairs.

Del Colle v. Continental Airlines166

This consent order assessed Continental Airlines a $3,000 civil penalty for the air

carrier’s failure to provide accurate information on the availability of seats with movable

armrests and ordered the carrier to cease and desist from further such violations. 

Southwest Airlines Enforcement Proceeding167

DOT received the original complaint in this case in 1984 and subsequently pursued its

own complaint pursuant to a policy of Southwest Airlines that required passengers who are

totally blind and deaf to travel with a ticketed companion. DOT determined that Southwest’s

requirement that all deaf-blind passengers travel with a companion was over-broad because it

unjustly discriminated against deaf-blind individuals who can demonstrate an ability to

understand general safety instructions. DOT directed Southwest to cease and desist from its

categorical refusal to transport unaccompanied deaf-blind passengers and instead to treat deafblind passengers in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Below are summaries of cases dismissed because informal settlements were reached,

insufficient cause was found, or enforcement action was deemed not to be in the public interest.

Wood v. American Airlines, Manning v. American Airlines168

This dismissal order combined two complaints against American Airlines filed within a

two-year period. The first complaint alleged that American Airlines failed to provide adequate

assistance to Ms. Wood, who is a wheelchair user, in boarding and deplaning the aircraft and in

transporting her wheelchair during a flight in 1992. Amanda Manning filed a similar complaint

against American on June 13, 1994. The complainants and the airline reached an amicable

resolution and requested that the complaints be dismissed.

Roberts and EPVA v. USAir169
75

In this order, DOT dismissed a third-party complaint after the airport at issue, Stewart

International Airport, modified its terminal area to make it accessible to wheelchair users. The

airport also purchased a mechanized chairlift for passengers who use wheelchairs. 

Seligman v. Northwest Airlines170

This order dismissed a third-party complaint against Northwest Airlines alleging that the

carrier failed to provide adequate attention to a passenger with Tourette syndrome. The dismissal

order was issued after the carrier agreed to enhance its personnel training to place greater

emphasis on meeting the special needs of passengers with this condition.

Segarra v. America West Airlines171

The complaint in this case alleged that America West Airlines failed to remove a series of

steps at its terminal at JFK Airport. According to the complaint, the steps constituted a barrier to

disabled individuals that under ACAA and Part 382 should have been removed by April 1993. 

The order dismissed the complaint, citing the carrier’s move, subsequent to the filing of the

complaint, to facilities that complied with the requirements for accessibility. The order,

however, found that the steps were a technical violation of the rules and that the carrier was in

violation of Part 382 during the six months prior to the transfer of the gate area in October 1993.

Hacker v. Southwest Airlines172

This complaint alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when Southwest refused

Ms. Hacker and her husband boarding as standbys on a Southwest flight in favor of all other

passengers holding standby passes, solely because she was a wheelchair user. The airlines

asserted, and the DOT concurred, that the Hackers were denied standby boarding, along with

other passengers, because they arrived at the gate too late to board, not because of her disability. 

The complaint was dismissed.

Vasquez v. Southwest Airlines173
76

This complaint alleged that Southwest refused to allow Ms. Vasquez, a person with

cerebral palsy and a wheelchair user, to travel unaccompanied on a flight. Southwest admitted

that it did not permit Ms. Vasquez to travel unaccompanied, but maintained that the refusal was

justified based on a determination by Southwest personnel that she could present a safety risk in 

an emergency and could require extensive special assistance during the flight.

DOT found that affidavits filed by Ms. Vasquez and her sisters differed so significantly

from those given by Southwest’s employees as to put at issue whether Southwest could have

reasonably concluded that Ms. Vasquez was not a person with a disability within the meaning of

the statute. The complaint was dismissed because DOT further found that the extensive factfinding required to investigate the issue would not be in the public interest and because the facts

in Ms. Vasquez’ complaint gave Southwest sufficient information to resolve its concerns about

her ability to fly safely without an attendant in the future. In addition, two other issues raised in

the complaint and the respondent’s answer were in the process of being addressed in rulemaking

at that time: when to require mobility-impaired passengers to fly with attendants and whether

airlines were required to provide personal assistance to passengers with mobility impairments in

using the lavatory. DOT elected to allow these issues to be clarified through the release of the

NPRM rather than through a formal enforcement proceeding.

Sontag v. Simmons Airlines174

The complainants, who are both blind, alleged that Simmons’ failure to allow them to

stow their flexible white canes at their seats constituted discrimination. Simmons asserted that

its actions were based on safety considerations. DOT dismissed the complaint, concurring with

Simmons that the carrier’s decision was necessary in the interest of safety, not because the

complainants were blind.

Greenberg v. American Airlines175
77

The complainant alleged that American Airlines refused to allow him to sit in an

emergency exit row because he is blind and subsequently refused to board him at all. He also

alleged that he was not provided with the name of an official or agent to make a determination

regarding their refusal to provide service. DOT dismissed his complaint, noting that it was their

policy not to institute enforcement actions against carriers for refusing to transport blind

passengers in emergency exit rows. In addition, DOT deemed American justified in refusing to

board Mr. Greenberg. The risk of confrontation onboard between Mr. Greenberg and passengers

angered by the flight delay resulting from his refusal to relocate from his seat in the emergency

exit row was considered a threat to flight safety. DOT found no violation in relation to the claim

regarding provision of airline personnel to resolve issues for disabled patrons.

In addition to the 17 formal complaints received since 1987, DOT has issued consent

orders imposing civil penalties in six cases involving ACAA violations and two cases involving

violations of the FA Act’s general nondiscrimination provision. Each of these actions resulted

from an independent investigation undertaken by the Enforcement Office. In five of those cases,

failure to comply with several consumer notice regulations, including the requirement to have

Part 382 available for review upon request, was the cause of action. The civil penalties imposed

in those five cases, ranging from $15,000 to $40,000, were for failure to comply with multiple

consumer notice regulations, among them the provision in Part 382. The other enforcement

action that resulted in a civil penalty, involving an independent investigation of informal ACAA

complaints by the Enforcement Office, is summarized below.

American Airlines176

After the Enforcement Office investigated a number of informal consumer complaints

filed with DOT, this order found that American violated numerous provisions of Part 382 by

failing to provide adequate assistance to people with disabilities. The order directed American

Airlines to increase the number of wheelchairs available at its airport stations and to significantly

increase the number of wheelchairs with movable armrests. The order assessed a $25,000

penalty.
78

The Enforcement Office has recently issued two other enforcement orders for violations

of 49 U.S.C. §41310 involving disability discrimination by a foreign carrier and its U.S. codesharing counterpart that imposed civil penalties in the amounts of $1,000 and $3,000,

respectively.

Since 1987, only three enforcement orders with civil penalties totaling $53,000 have been

issued in cases primarily involving ACAA violations. Another five enforcement orders with

civil penalties totaling $161,000 have been issued in cases involving noncompliance with

multiple consumer notice regulations, including the provision in Part 382. These orders do not

indicate what portion of the penalty was assessed for the ACAA violation. Two additional

enforcement orders involving disability discrimination in violation of the FA Act’s general

nondiscrimination provision applied to foreign carriers imposed penalties totaling $4,000 ($3,000

for the foreign carrier and $1,000 for the U.S. carrier). These findings indicate that civil penalties

have not been a primary tool in DOT’s overall strategy for obtaining ACAA compliance. 

Also noticeably absent from DOT’s enforcement strategy is the practice of filing amicus

briefs in civil actions alleging ACAA violations, a finding discussed in the following section.

6.5.6 Amicus Briefs

DOT has never participated in an ACAA case as an amicus. However, DOT is not

authorized under the ACAA statute to file an amicus brief in civil actions relating to alleged

ACAA violations and therefore must obtain prior approval from the Department of Justice (DOJ)

to do so. In addition, the Enforcement Office reports that DOT has been invited only once to

participate as an amicus party by an ACAA plaintiff;177 in correspondence to both the plaintiff

and the carrier. DOT concurred with the plaintiff’s interpretation of the provision in Part 382

limiting a carrier’s discretion to require attendants for deaf and blind passengers. DOT also

indicated to the plaintiff its willingness to intervene as an amicus if DOJ granted permission and

if the case reached the Circuit Court level. However, the carrier agreed to modify its training

manuals and instructions to conform to the rule and declined to appeal the District Court’s

verdict of liability and imposition of nominal damages, so no amicus was filed.
79

Inquiries into the practices of other federal agencies showed that agencies having civil

rights enforcement responsibilities typically take a different approach to participating as amicus

parties. These agencies will petition to file an amicus brief, usually at the appeal stage, in

selected cases in which the agency wants to clarify its position to the court on a particular issue. 

In instances in which the requesting agency is a designated enforcer of a civil rights statute, DOJ

generally grants permission. Despite DOJ’s liberality in granting petitions, DOT has chosen not

to be proactive in using amicus briefs to assist the court in interpreting the ACAA and its

regulation.

6.5.7 Analysis and Recommendations

Finding No. 18: The ACAA enforcement process at DOT does not adequately address the

need for satisfactory resolution of individual complaints.

As discussed in detail earlier, DOT’s informal complaint-handling procedure largely

catalogues incoming complaints and tracks whether the airline makes a formal response as

required in Part 382. Investigation of informal complaints usually takes place as part of a formal

complaint or independent DOT investigation looking at the pattern and practice of a particular

airline. Most informal complaints are not investigated at all. Further, because DOT does not

actively investigate most informal complaints, its role in informal complaint resolution is also

limited. Other than tracking to ensure that airlines send a response to the complainant, DOT

intervenes only when the complaint is determined to be a matter of airline policy or procedure

not in compliance with ACAA. Part 382 states that complainants should contact DOT for

assistance in connection with their ACAA complaints. Under the current informal complainthandling procedure, it is unclear what assistance they can expect to receive. 

Recommendation No. 18: DOT’s enforcement mechanism must be made more credible and

vigorous. At a minimum, the following are necessary:

• investigation and evaluation of all individual complaints received by DOT;

• explicit criteria consistently applied in assessing complaints as potential violations and

enforcement actions;

• penalties for violations;
80

• monitoring of complaints received directly by airlines; and

• development of a database dedicated to complaint processing and tracking compliancemonitoring activities.

Persistent problems with noncompliance will not resolve themselves. Congress must

work with DOT to insist on a commitment to effective ACAA enforcement and remove the

remaining obstacles to such enforcement, including resource barriers. ACAA enforcement must

become a DOT civil rights priority, starting with allocation of the necessary resources for more

extensive investigation and analysis of complaints.

Finding No. 19: Lack of available attorneys’ fees and damages under ACAA hampers

consumers in exercising their private right of action.

Another weakness in ACAA enforcement is the disincentives to exercising a private

cause of action. The right to a private cause of action for ACAA violations was established

through case law, not the ACAA.178 If the plaintiff wins, the damages awarded, if any, are

usually small. Reimbursement for legal fees and expenses is solely at the court’s discretion. 

Many people with disabilities who would file an ACAA lawsuit simply cannot afford an

attorney. Without an attorney’s fee provision, a lawyer has little incentive to take even a strong

case on contingency. It is widely believed within the disability community that few ACAA cases

have been brought to date precisely because attorneys’ fees are unavailable. These strong

disincentives to private legal action, combined with DOT’s meager enforcement role, virtually

eliminate any credible threat of enforcement, even when persistent violations occur. Under the

ADA and other civil rights laws, plaintiffs who bring suit and win are entitled to reimbursement

for attorney’s fees and damages. The same should apply to cases brought under ACAA. 

Recommendation No. 19: ACAA should be amended to authorize a private right of action

and the awarding of attorneys’ fees, as well as compensatory and punitive damages for

successful litigants. DOT should notify complainants of their private right of action and

the availability of fees and damages. 

To bring the ACAA into parity with other disability civil rights laws, attorneys’ fees and

damages provisions should be included. Such provisions are necessary to ensure that individuals
81

protected by the law are able to exercise their rights fully. Establishing a private right of action

in the statute will ensure the security of the provision.

Finding No. 20: Despite a number of ACAA lawsuits, DOT has never filed an amicus brief.

Recommendation No. 20: DOT should petition DOJ to file amicus briefs in ACAA cases. 

It is in the public interest and part of DOT’s enforcement responsibility to exercise

leadership in clarifying the legal implications of ACAA. Without DOT’s initiative in clarifying

the intent of the law and regulation, further confusion results as courts in different jurisdictions

make inconsistent decisions on similar issues. It is DOT’s prerogative to clarify the intent of the

law when the regulation is not clear. Therefore, DOT should request notification from the

general public regarding pending ACAA lawsuits, and petition DOJ to file an amicus brief in

every meritorious case involving an issue of public interest.

6.6 Compliance Monitoring

6.6.1 Review of Airline Compliance and Personnel Training Plans

All air carriers are required to have ACAA compliance plans. Major and national carriers

were required to submit them to DOT by October 1990. Other carriers are required to have them

on file and make them available for review by DOT. DOT was required to review the plans of all

major and national air carriers by December 1990. If DOT requests amendments to any plan, the

carrier is required to make the amendments and implement them immediately. DOT reports that

it asks new air carriers to submit compliance plans.179 The plan must include a schedule for

personnel training, as well as the carrier’s policies and procedures for accommodating passengers

with disabilities.

DOT reports that it has received between 35 and 40 plans since the inception of the law. 

However, DOT did not have a list of which airlines were required to submit plans in 1990 and

did not track those that did and did not comply. Today there is still no current list, even though

new airlines are notified by FAA of the requirement to submit a plan as part of the certification
82

process. DOT used a standardized checklist to evaluate the plans. A review of the plans

provided to researchers showed that DOT required revisions to most of the original submissions,

and that most airlines complied by submitting a revised plan.

When asked whether DOT was monitoring whether and how the compliance and training

plans were being implemented, DOT staff members frankly admitted that no monitoring was

done unless the volume of ACAA complaints received for a given airline indicated a compliance

problem.180

6.6.2 Analysis and Recommendations

Finding No. 21: DOT’s ACAA compliance monitoring is not proactive.

DOT reports that there is no regular monitoring of the implementation of compliance

plans, nor of the specific accessibility requirements for new aircraft. DOT reports that it received

35 to 40 compliance plans, most between 1990 and 1991. Since the initial plan revisions were

submitted in 1991–1992, DOT has not required any updates to the plans submitted by major and

national carriers. 

A major feature of the air carrier compliance mechanism is the designation of a CRO at

every airport. DOT has occasionally requested a list of such officials but was not able to explain

to researchers whether these lists were received and from which airlines. To NCD’s knowledge,

DOT has never attempted to monitor the performance of CROs. 

DOT reports no regular ACAA compliance monitoring mechanism or regular compliance

monitoring activities for air carriers at this time.

Recommendation No. 21: DOT should strengthen ACAA compliance monitoring.

Effective enforcement of ACAA requires a robust compliance monitoring mechanism. 

Air carriers need to know that they are accountable to DOT for their compliance and need to

ensure ongoing efforts to achieve compliance. Part 382 should require a compliance monitoring

program that includes, at a minimum
83

• annual reviews by DOT of the records of major and national air carriers to verify ACAA

compliance (e.g., a list of the CROs designated at every airport served by the airline;

records on when ACAA trainings are conducted; the most recent date of ACAA training

for all employees who work with the public; and a description of a system for complying

with ACAA seating assignment requirements);

• air carrier submission of “correction plans” to DOT within a specified time frame when

implementation records indicate noncompliance with ACAA requirements;

• DOT review and evaluation of all major and national air carrier ACAA compliance plans

triennially;

• air carrier submission, within a specified time frame, of revisions to plans found

insufficient; and 

• regular DOT site visits to spot-check airline ACAA compliance at airports. Adequate

funds should be made available for such activities.

6.7 ACAA Rulemaking—14 CFR Part 382 and Modifications

This section will review both the rulemaking and regulatory negotiation processes to

evaluate their effectiveness and assess their impact on 14 CFR Part 382.

6.7.1 The Rulemaking Process

In developing new regulations under the standard rulemaking process, the Office of

Regulation and Enforcement conducts extensive research on the statute’s legislative history. 

When there is not enough information to develop an appropriate rule on a given issue, the Office

of Regulation and Enforcement will request technical and other input through advance notices of

proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register. Such notices may simply be for the

purpose of getting advance comments on specific issues affecting the regulated and protected
84

parties. All comments received in response to these notices are considered in developing the

rule.

The Office of Regulation and Enforcement publishes the draft regulation as an NPRM in

the Federal Register. The public, particularly stakeholder groups, are invited to submit

comments. During the comment and review period, new issues may arise. The Office of

Regulation and Enforcement may publish supplemental notices of proposed rulemaking for

additional information on the new issues. In developing the final rule, the Office of Regulation

and Enforcement considers all comments and weighs the interests of all the parties in formulating

its regulatory position. The Office of Regulation and Enforcement directly addresses all

substantive comments received on each major section and states the reasons for its position in the

preamble of the proposed regulation.

After ACAA was passed in 1986, DOT intended to make the old Part 382 applicable to

all carriers as an interim final rule and use the standard rulemaking process to develop revisions

and address new issues. However, an interim rule was not issued. At the request of the parties,

DOT instead initiated a regulatory negotiation process to develop an entirely new rule. The

negotiation took somewhat longer to complete than the standard rulemaking process,

contributing to a long delay in issuing the final rule.

The request for negotiations in place of the standard rulemaking procedure indicated the

parties’ belief that they themselves could develop a rule to serve their individual and mutual

interests better. However, negotiations did not fully succeed. Stalemate on several issues could

not be resolved, and negotiations terminated without reaching consensus on a final rule. DOT

resumed the rulemaking process to finalize a concrete set of nondiscrimination requirements that

did not impose undue burdens on the industry.

Members of the disability community complain repeatedly that the rulemaking process is

that exceedingly slow. On two occasions lawsuits were filed against DOT for failure to act in a

timely manner in issuing the regulation or changes.181 It would seem that some reasons for these

delays go beyond bureaucratic inefficiency. Part 382 is quite precise in defining how to comply
85

with its target objective: nondiscrimination against air travelers with disabilities. Because Part

382 was intended to lay out specific rather than broad general requirements, all stakeholders had

a heightened interest in how each provision would be crafted. Indeed, the intensity of conflict on

several specific requirements hindered the regulatory negotiation (reg neg) process from reaching

overall consensus on a package of provisions.

The rulemaking process was inadequate for several additional reasons. The most obvious

is that the regulation lacked the enforcement provisions necessary to ensure ready compliance. 

This lack was a result not only of opposition from the aviation industry but also of DOT’s own

ambivalence about enforcement. As mentioned earlier, a lack of consensus within DOT led to

dropping every enforcement proposal involving imposition of penalties in conjunction with the

informal complaint process. Enforcement provisions that involved the commitment of DOT

resources to specific monitoring tasks also failed to survive in the final regulation. The result

was a regulation with great promise but inadequate tools for actualizing it. The regulation did

not sufficiently empower DOT to exercise the authority and leadership necessary to implement a

controversial law in an unwilling environment.

The purpose of the reg neg process was to resolve some of the controversial issues

sufficiently to agree on the language of the regulation. It was also intended to give parties greater

insight into the concerns of other stakeholders and to begin dealing with the implementation

issues that would create obstacles to compliance. Although this process might have resulted in a

regulation having a high voluntary compliance rate, this has not been the case with Part 382. The

next section presents findings as to why this has been the case and some recommendations for

structuring a more effective reg neg process.

6.7.2 Analysis and Recommendations

Finding No. 22: The rulemaking process does not adequately

• identify and explicitly address the underlying obstacles to compliance;

• identify/create incentives for industry compliance; or
86

• respond proactively to noncompliance issues that emerge over time.

Recommendation No. 22: Supplement the rulemaking process by sponsoring multiple

stakeholder processes, each of which is targeted to develop alternative solutions for a

specific issue; incorporate the findings/results into the regulation.

DOT must take the lead to bring stakeholders together in task forces aimed at finding

solutions to the specific obstacles to implementation and compliance. A partnership with the

private sector must be formed, having ACAA implementation problem-solving as its focus.

6.7.3 The Regulatory Negotiation Process

The reg neg process is consensus rulemaking by committee. Under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, DOT has authority to convene an advisory committee of representatives from

groups having interests affected by the proposed rulemaking. Usually a neutral mediator from

the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service facilitates the committee. The negotiated

rulemaking process takes place in an extended series of meetings during which the parties

discuss each issue covered by the regulation to develop a consensus recommendation on the

applicable regulatory language. If consensus is achieved, DOT must issue the final advisory

committee recommendations as the official rule.

The reg neg process to develop Part 382 was only partially successful. The advisory

committee met from June through November 1987 and produced many draft consensus

recommendations. The advisory committee was unable to reach consensus on all the issues and

therefore did not produce a final rule. DOT incorporated many of the committee’s

recommendations to its proposed rule and finalized it under the standard rulemaking procedure.

Despite the consensus-building work of the advisory committee, the proposed rule was in

review for over six months, twice the normal time. An additional 30 days were granted for

commenting parties to reply to the comments of other parties. DOT received more than 300

comments. In drafting the final regulation, DOT essentially took the role of arbitrator. Weighing
87

the interests and input of all the parties, DOT crafted the final rule to balance all stakeholder

interests in light of the overall ACAA objective—civil rights protection. 

It should be noted that DOT itself is a stakeholder in this process, and its own interests

strongly influenced the final rule. When the regulation was drafted, several different

enforcement mechanisms were under consideration. Most of them involved a stronger

monitoring function and the imposition of penalties for violations. No consensus could be

reached within DOT on any mechanism involving penalties, supposedly because of a lack of

resources.182 DOT also dropped a proposal to monitor ACAA complaints received by the

airlines, in part because DOT was concerned that such monitoring would not comport with the

Paperwork Reduction Act and in part because of a lack of resources.183

6.7.4 Analysis and Recommendations

Finding No. 23: Many problems with ACAA interpretation remain, and consensus on

definitions and implementation is lacking. The rulemaking and regulatory negotiation

processes are not adequate to resolve these problems.

Some examples of implementation issues that remain unresolved are appropriate

application of the “threat to safety” standard when making denial of boarding determinations;

clear requirements concerning lifting and transferring passengers with mobility disabilities; and

ensuring passengers with disabilities priority in stowing assistive devices. 

Recommendation No. 23: Tighten up the regulation with guidelines and definitions

developed by stakeholder groups.

DOT has stated that the regulation provides flexibility in determining on a case-by-case

basis whether its provisions constitute an undue burden or fundamentally alter the nature of an

airline’s program.184 At the same time, the many implementation problems indicate that more

guidance is needed on how to comply without creating undue burden or fundamental program

alteration. Finding solutions to difficult implementation problems requires joint participation by

the concerned stakeholders in developing practical guidelines for eventual incorporation to the
88

regulation. DOT should create avenues and encourage experimentation with alternative

approaches to working through implementation issues.

6.8 Monitoring the Law

As the executive agency responsible for ACAA enforcement, DOT plays a key role in

monitoring its impact and assessing what changes are needed to achieve its legislative objectives. 

This monitoring responsibility includes not only ensuring compliance with the regulation by

airlines and airport operators but also examining where regulatory changes are needed to clarify

the requirements of the law. One area where discrimination continues legally in spite of the law 

is international air travel. Although the legal authority to extend a general nondiscrimination

mandate to foreign air carriers exists under 49 U.S.C. §41310, DOT has applied this provision

only twice in discrimination cases against foreign air carriers on the basis of disability (in

September and December 1998). As the federal agency responsible for international air

transportation policy, DOT negotiates the terms of international agreements under which foreign

carriers must operate in the United States. DOT must ensure that foreign air carriers that have

access to U.S. airport facilities and air travel markets conform to the requirements of the same

civil rights laws that bind U.S. carriers. NCD urges DOT to continue exercising its authority to

require all air travel service providers operating in U.S. markets to comply with the established

standard of nondiscrimination. 

Part III explores the views of stakeholders in the aviation industry and the disability

communities on DOT’s role in enforcing ACAA compliance.
89
90

PART III. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON ACAA ENFORCEMENT

7.0 Aviation Industry Perspectives

As part of this study, researchers met with representatives from the operations and legal

divisions in the Air Transport Association (ATA) for their thoughts on Air Carrier Access Act

(ACAA) implementation.185 In addition to its stakeholder participation in ACAA regulatory

negotiations, ATA supports ACAA implementation, including being the prime mover behind a

task force to develop design specifications for accessible lavatories in wide-body aircraft. ATA

was involved in another task force to develop solutions to problems with transporting power

wheelchairs. “Products” of the task force included (1) a training video on disassembling and

reassembling power wheelchairs; (2) successful passage of a regulation to label all batteries as

“spillable” or “nonspillable”; (3) packaging instructions for spillable batteries; and (4) a portable

placard for the back of wheelchairs illustrating proper disassembly and reassembly.186

ATA developed a model ACAA training plan in 1990 and coordinated with the Federal

Aviation Administration for the inclusion of the ACAA segment in flight attendant training

programs. Recently ATA sponsored a joint meeting of all airline executives responsible for the

complaint resolution officer (CRO) function.187

The persons interviewed raised several important points. They readily admitted that

ACAA compliance has been uneven across the major airlines but generally felt that the situation

has vastly improved since 1990. They also believed that Access to the Skies conferences and

other joint forums have strengthened communication between disability groups and the aviation

industry on ACAA issues. However, they conceded the following points: these forums do not

provide an ongoing process for moving toward consensus or actually resolving compliance

problems; many compliance problems might stem from the market-driven, decentralized

decision-making processes characteristic of the industry; there is a need for an ongoing process to

resolve issues arising from “poor service decisions” and to design programs that permit “flexible

accommodation based on responsible decision-making.”188
91

The ATA executives interviewed readily agreed that some follow-up mechanism is

needed to improve compliance and suggested that ATA would like to help facilitate it. ATA

represents most of the passenger and cargo airline operations in the United States, and has the

“infrastructure for communicating with 97 percent of the industry.” They recognize that

continuing dialogue on these issues is necessary to finding solutions that meet the needs and can

be successfully implemented.

8.0 Perspectives of Air Travelers with Disabilities

Enacted almost 12 years ago, the ACAA prohibits commercial air carriers from

discriminating against travelers with disabilities. Despite the sweep of the law and its potential

impact on travelers with disabilities, limited research has been conducted measuring its

effectiveness from the perspectives of persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, the available

research, written ACAA complaints, and personal anecdotes reveal patterns of continued

discrimination by air carriers and weak enforcement by DOT. The following perspectives

illustrate the problems that remain and suggest areas for improving implementation and

enforcement of the law. 

8.1 Accessibility of Air Travel—A Customer Perspective

“[I]f you are a wheelchair user and travel even occasionally by air, it’s a safe bet

that you have had trouble on just about every flight you have ever taken.”189

The Paralysis Society of America (PSA) conducted a year-long poll completed in 1996

that reveals mixed air travel experiences by persons with disabilities.190 Although flying

conditions for people with disabilities have improved since ACAA’s enactment, many air

travelers with disabilities still fare poorly. The PSA poll, responded to by 550 self-selected

individuals answering survey questions by toll-free number or on the Internet, revealed:

• about one-third of respondents requesting specific seats (i.e., bulkhead, aisle) did not

receive them (accessible seating was addressed in the March 1998 notice of proposed

rulemaking that became effective September 30, 1998);

• 41 percent of respondents specifically requesting bulkhead seats did not receive them;
92

• only 16 percent of people who requested seats with movable armrests received them;

• of 56 people traveling on flights not serviced by jet bridges, 19 (34%) had to be carried up

the stairs in a boarding chair or by hand;191

• 17 people said they were charged a fee for a requested service, including charges for a

wheelchair as extra baggage, a fee for retrieving a wheelchair, and a fee for connection

assistance;

• more than half the people responding to the poll (52.18%) said their mobility aids had not

been returned to them in good working order; and

• 49 percent said that airline personnel communicated with someone other than them

concerning service, rather than directly with them.

It must be noted that the March 1998 amendment to Part 382 contains provisions

addressing most of the issues related to seating assignments and requests mentioned in this

survey. Many survey respondents said that airline personnel need more and better training,

especially regarding disassembly and reassembly of motorized wheelchairs, lifting and

transferring travelers with mobility disabilities, and persons with hidden disabilities. Airline

personnel frequently told wheelchair users they could not stow their folding chairs in the aircraft

cabin and failed to communicate gate information effectively. The PSA survey results suggest

that DOT’s weak ACAA enforcement and monitoring result in inconsistent access to safe and

reliable air transportation services by people with disabilities.192

8.2 Industry Compliance with ACAA and DOT Enforcement of ACAA: A Sample of

Customer Complaints

Review of a sample of written complaints filed during 1997 with DOT by individuals

with disabilities, their families, or attorneys reveals problems similar to those identified in the

PSA poll.

• A frequent complaint involved air carrier response to requests for special needs

accommodations such as boarding assistance, stowage of a power wheelchair or seating
93

requirements. Despite giving advance notice in accordance with ACAA regulations,

travelers with special needs encountered the following situations at the airport:

ù the airline’s computer database contained no record at all of the advance request;

ù airline personnel had not noted the advance request in the database and were

unprepared to provide the requested assistance; 

ù airline personnel failed to act in a timely manner or simply did not act at all to

provide the requested assistance; and

ù in some cases, airline personnel refused outright to provide the requested

assistance.

• One passenger with a heart condition requested boarding and deplaning assistance. When

her flight was rerouted because of weather conditions, her daughter telephoned the airline

to inform them of her mother's requirements. She encountered an airline official whom

she described as "very confrontational&rather than trying to diffuse the situation and see

how he might be able to help, he [said] ‘perhaps your mother should not be flying at all if

she has a heart condition,’ then he hung up."193

• One traveler alleged that an air-carrier-operated frequent flyer lounge was not accessible

to him. Only after he wrote three letters of complaint and his attorney contacted both

DOT and the airline was a method to access the lounge provided.194

• Several complaints alleged that flight crews, ramp agents, and other ground personnel

were unaware of the ACAA requirement for a CRO at each airport, who the airport CRO

was, or even what a CRO was. However, passengers reported that problems were

resolved when CROs were available to assist. For example, one complainant who had

been unable to convince the flight crew to allow his wife’s manual wheelchair to be

stowed in the passenger storage area asked to speak to the CRO. He wrote " [she] moved

mountains. Within minutes, the wheelchair that wouldn’t fit did fit like I said it would. 

[She] showed a lot of sensitivity and concern. When [she] spoke, it was a done deal."195

• Many of the complaints alleged that flight crews frequently refused to stow adaptive

equipment such as walkers and folding wheelchairs in the aircraft cabin. For example,
94

one complainant wrote that she was told by a flight attendant, "We never allow

wheelchairs in the cabin&you have to gate-check it."196

• Several travelers alleged that advance special seat assignments (e.g., bulkhead and aisle)

either could not be scheduled or were not honored at flight time.

• Many complaints alleged that airline contractors, such as those who provide boarding

assistance or transport passengers to and from flights, are not trained adequately and are

insensitive to the rights and requirements of travelers with disabilities.

• One complainant reported that an airline contract escort service at New York’s Kennedy

Airport would not allow her husband, who has a mobility disability, to use a wheelchair

provided by the airline beyond the passenger arrival area. The contractor told her

husband the chair was needed for another passenger, a claim that proved false.197

The following sample of case summaries of ACAA complaints filed with various airlines

and DOT during 1997 further illustrate common experiences of air travelers with disabilities.

DOT Case Summary No. 1: An elderly woman who had recently undergone knee

surgery was traveling with her husband from Philadelphia to Detroit. He had made their airline

reservations well in advance, requesting bulkhead seating to accommodate his wife’s inability to

bend her knee. He received a letter from the airline confirming the reservations and bulkhead

seat assignments. When they arrived at the airport they learned that their seat assignments had

been changed. The ticket agent refused to try to accommodate them in bulkhead seating,

indicating the flight was full although the woman’s husband observed vacant seats on the flight.

In a letter to airline officials he said, "we boarded and endured the flight. This resulted in a very

painful flight and a couple of painful nights. I hope this episode has not set back her [his wife’s]

recovery."198

The man wrote twice to the airline complaining of poor treatment. A copy of his

complaint was forwarded to DOT’s Consumer Protection Division. At the time, the current

regulation requiring airlines to accommodate individuals having certain impairments with
95

accessible seats had not been written. Eventually the airline responded saying advanced seating

is offered as a courtesy and cannot be guaranteed. The letter also stated that it is the

responsibility of the traveler to confirm the flight in advance, but the letter did not state that a

change of schedule regarding this particular flight had taken place. It also stated that it was not

the policy of the airlines to compensate in these instances; however, two $25 dollar vouchers

toward future flights were provided.

DOT Case Summary No. 2: Traveling with her husband on a round trip flight from

Pittsburgh to Ft. Lauderdale, a woman who used a manual wheelchair requested permission to

stow her chair in the passenger cabin’s storage area. Their flights required a plane change on both

legs of the trip. The cabin crews for each of four flights insisted that she stow her chair in

baggage, although her husband explained that the chair was frequently damaged when it was

stowed in the luggage area. Armed with DOT’s booklet entitled New Horizons for the Air

Traveler with a Disability, the passenger’s husband showed the flight crews the provision for onboard storage of manual wheelchairs but was told the storage area was not "approved" or was

reserved for coats. He explained that her chair would fit easily in the cabin’s storage area but the

crew insisted it be stored below.

He sent a complaint letter to DOT requesting a definition of approved storage. DOT

referred his letter to the airline and sent the complainant a copy of Fly Rights. Because DOT did

not explain the meaning of "approved storage", the complainant sent a second letter in an effort

to obtain an answer to his original question. His second letter triggered a written explanation by

DOT of the ACAA rules providing for on-board stowage of manual wheelchairs. This letter was

copied to the airline. His second inquiry also triggered an internal DOT memo in which the

airline personnel’s conduct was characterized as "egregious" and the airline’s response to the

complainant called "a classic nonresponse that doesn’t come close to the ‘dispositive’ reply

required by section 382.65."199 The airline wrote the complainant acknowledging that it permits

stowage of folding wheelchairs in most of its aircraft and informing him of its plans to issue a

bulletin to "airport personnel reminding them of the applicable regulations." It also gave the

couple vouchers for $150 each toward the purchase of future tickets.
96

DOT Case Summary No. 3: A woman with multiple sclerosis traveling from Miami to

Chicago was not permitted to stow her walker in the aircraft’s storage area although she had been

allowed to keep the walker with her on a previous flight. She was taking various medications for

her medical condition, including diuretics and steroids that caused frequent urination. She was

unable to walk to the aircraft’s lavatory without the walker. In a letter to DOT’s Consumer

Protection Division, her daughter stated that a member of the flight crew said she didn’t care

what had been allowed on a previous flight, the passenger couldn’t carry the walker on with her.

The daughter went on to state, " My mother was forced to sit the entire flight without being able

to go to the rest room. She suffered not only from discomfort but from the humiliation and fear

of being unable to control her bladder."200 DOT forwarded the letter to the airline, which issued

an apology and two $200 travel vouchers.

8.3 Analysis

The preceding case summaries and anecdotes illustrate some of the problems air travelers

with disabilities still encounter. Taken as a whole, they reveal inconsistent ACAA

implementation by the airline industry and weak, inconsistent enforcement of the law by DOT.

Each time they travel, passengers with disabilities must cope with a myriad of potential

disability-related complications above and beyond those faced by travelers who do not have

disabilities. They must arrive for their flights armed with information about their rights and

prepared to advocate for themselves or their traveling companions. When their complaints do

receive attention from an air carrier, the solution is often an apology and a ticket voucher.

Carriers appear to respond to ACAA violations in the same manner in which they respond to

customer service complaints involving lost baggage or flight delays, rather than as civil rights

violations. There is little evidence to suggest that carriers take action to resolve systemic ACAA

violations or that DOT fully exercises its enforcement authority and responsibility when it is

aware of such problems. 

Private litigation is not a reasonable option for many people with disabilities because

ACAA itself does not provide explicitly for monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. Although an

attorney can recover reasonable fees if the complainant prevails in a litigation matter regarding
97

other civil rights laws, few attorneys are willing to represent clients with disabilities in ACAA

claims because clients cannot afford to pay the legal fees. It is imperative that DOT fulfill its

public trust to ensure that persons with disabilities are given equal access to air travel service at a

level of quality and comfort comparable to that afforded the traveling public generally.
98

PART IV: CONCLUSION

9.0 Summary of Recommendations

Disability policy has clearly established full participation and integration of people with

disabilities as a national goal. Access to transportation is a lynchpin for that participation and

integration. As airline travel increasingly becomes a major mode of travel for Americans, it is

essential that people with disabilities have full access to air travel. The Air Carriers Access Act

(ACAA) is the federal law ensuring that access. Yet federal enforcement of the law falls far

short of protecting people with disabilities from discrimination in airline travel.

Our recommendations for change are far-reaching and fall into three major categories: 

organizational change, process change, and changes to the law and regulation.

9.1 Recommendations for Organizational Changes

• DOT should establish an ACAA civil rights enforcement unit that is separate from

consumer affairs monitoring. 

• Such a unit might be located in the Office of General Counsel or in the Department of

Transportation Office of Civil Rights. Congress should appropriate additional funds for

adequate staff and resources to effectively run the enforcement office. The Department of

Justice (DOJ) should be authorized to receive, investigate and litigate complaints from

individuals alleging ACAA violations and to exercise independent litigation authority.

• The Access Board should be given authority to develop accessibility standards for aircraft

interiors and access to aircraft, including boarding assistance equipment and any other

equipment related to air travel access. The Access Board should work in consultation

with Federal Aviation Administration design inspectors and industry experts to develop

design specifications meeting ACAA access requirements. Congress should appropriate

the necessary funds.

 9.2 Recommendations for Process Changes
99

• As with other civil rights laws, all ACAA complaints alleging a prima facie violation

should have standing, including informal complaints. DOT should investigate every

legitimate complaint filed, make a determination concerning whether a violation has

likely occurred, and take appropriate corrective action. 

• Expand enforcement action for ACAA complaints beyond the Part 302 administrative

process to allow remedies for individual plaintiffs. Administrative action under Part 302

is a pattern and practice remedy and was never intended as a means for redressing civil

rights complaints. Furthermore, given the minimal civil penalties imposed, it has not

eliminated pattern and practice violations still prevalent throughout the industry.

• Request funding from Congress to develop and carry out strategic ACAA education

campaigns geared to consumers with disabilities and the general public.

• Develop explicit evaluation criteria for determining when a violation has occurred, and

when enforcement action is appropriate. Apply these criteria consistently to all

complaints.

• Develop appropriate remedies for ACAA violations comparable to those used for other

civil rights laws.

• Develop a database dedicated to complaint processing and compliance monitoring

(complaint log, evaluation checklist, action checklists, and "life cycle" status).

• Require air carriers to submit their Part 382 complaint data in standardized format to

DOT at regular intervals. Publish the results of the summarized complaint data for all

major airlines in the DOT Air Travel Consumer Report.

• Analyze air carrier Part 382 complaints regularly to identify noncompliance areas and

monitor potential pattern and practice trends.
100

• Review non-compliance areas with airline representatives at quarterly intervals and

require airlines to submit correction plans, including objective measures of success and a

timeframe for achieving compliance.

• Undertake more extensive investigation and analyses of the causes of Part 382

noncompliance among air carriers and airports.

• Commit more resources (both staff and funds) to the expansion of compliance monitoring

and enforcement activities.

• Provide training and technical assistance to the aviation industry in all aspects of ACAA

implementation and compliance.

• Initiate facilitated consensus building among stakeholder groups to resolve technical

issues impeding compliance and disagreements on definitions and appropriate

accommodations.

9.3 Recommendations for Statutory Changes and Increased Appropriations

• Amend the ACAA to strengthen legal redress for ACAA violations:

ù establish a statutory private right of action; 

ù authorize the award of attorney’s fees to successful litigants;

ù authorize the award of compensatory and punitive damages to successful

litigants; and

ù establish the right to file individual ACAA complaints directly with DOJ for

investigation and litigation as for complaints made under other civil rights laws.

• Appropriate the funds to DOT’s budget to conduct an aggressive ACAA education

campaign geared to consumers with disabilities and the general public .

• Amend ACAA to require foreign carriers operating in the United States to comply with

the same civil rights requirements as domestic carriers do.
101

• Amend the Rehabilitation Act to mandate the Access Board as the lead agency in

developing access standards for aircraft.

• DOT and the Access Board should request and Congress should appropriate additional

funds to carry out the recommendations of this report.

There is an urgent need for change in the overall approach to ACAA enforcement if the

goal of nondiscrimination in air travel is to be fully realized. Most important is the need for

DOT’s leadership and initiative to help all parties overcome the substantial remaining obstacles

to equal access.
102

1

 Air Carrier Access Act. Pub. L. No. 99-435, 100 Stat. 1080 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 1374(c)(1986) (hereinafter

ACAA).

2

 See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 14 CFR Pt. 382 including November 1996

amendments, at 14, U.S. Department of Transportation (1996).

3

 See 49 U.S.C. 41708(a), (b).

4

 See 49 U.S.C. 41310(a) (formerly 49 U.S.C. 1374(b)) (stating "An air carrier or foreign air carrier may not

subject a person, place, port or type of type of traffic in foreign air transportation to unreasonable discrimination.").

5

 See Lufthansa German Airlines, Order 98-9-23, September 23, 1998, and Alitalia, Order 98-12-19, December 15,

1998 (U.S. Department of Transportation).

6

 See 132 Cong. Rec. 21770 (daily ed. August 15, 1986) (quoting Sen. Dole).

7

 See id. at 21772 (quoting Sen. Metzenbaum).

8

 See 132 Cong. Rec. 21770-71 (daily ed. September 18, 1986) (quoting statements of Rep. Snyder and Rep.

Ackerman).

9

 National Council on Disability, Achieving Independence: The Challenge for the 21st Century, A Decade of

Progress in Disability Policy Setting an Agenda for the Future (July 26, 1996), at 155.

10 See id.

11 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12101 et seq. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pt. B,

20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq. Fair Housing Act with 1988 Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §§3601-3619 (1988); ACAA, 49

U.S.C. §1374(c) (1986).

12 Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1374 et seq. (1958).

13 See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 14 CFR § 382.49(a)(2) (1996).

14 See PVA v. CAB, 752 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1985); see also DOT v. PVA, 477 U.S. 597 (1986).

15 See supra note 12, §1374(a).

16 See supra note 12, §1374(b).

17 Federal agency responsible for aviation industry regulation before the agency was abolished and its functions

transferred to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

18 See U.S. Department of Transportation Office of General Counsel comments on the draft Air Carrier Access

Enforcement Report (August 21, 1998), p. 10 (hereinafter OGC comments).

19 See supra note 2, at 13%14.

20 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq.)

(1973).

21 29 U.S.C. §794(a) (1988).

22 See supra note 2, at 14.

23 See id., at 13.

24 See PVA v. CAB, 752 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

25 See DOT v. PVA, 477 U.S. 597 (1986).

26 See supra note 1.

ENDNOTES

__________________________
103

27 See supra note 2, at 14%15.

28 See supra note 2, at 15%17.

29 See supra note 2, at 17.

30 See supra note 2, at 17%18.

31 See supra note 2, at 18.

32 See 49 U.S.C. §1374(c)(1).

33 See supra note 1, at 21 (explaining that "contract of carriage" refers to "those reasonable requests of air carrier

personnel, with which all passengers, whether or not disabled, may be expected to comply as a condition for air

travel service).

34 See 14 CFR §382.5 (1990).

35 See id. §382.7.

36 See id.

37 See id. §382.55(c).

38 See id. §382.55(b).

39 See id. §382.57.

40 See id. §382.7.

41 See id .§382.9.

42 See Air Transport Association, 1997 Annual Report (June 1997), at 15.

43 See id.

44 See supra note 2, at 36%37.

45 See id.

46 See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 63 Fed. Reg. 10, 529, 10535-36 (1998) (to be

codified at 14 CFR pt. 382).

47 See CFR §382.61(a) (1990).

48 See id. §382.61(a)(1).

49 See id. §382.61(a)(2).

50 See id. §382.61(a)(3).

51 14 CFR §121 contains operating requirements including training, for all domestic, flag, and supplemental

operations; 14 CFR §135 contains parallel requirements for commuter and on-demand operations.

52 See 14 CFR §382.61(a)(4) (1990).

53 See id. §382.61(a)(5).

54 See id. §382.61(a)(6).

55 See id. §382.61(a)(7).

56 See id. §382.61(b).

57 See 14 CFR §382.63(a)(4) (1990).

58 See id. §382.63(a)(2).

59 See id. §382.63(b).

60 See id. §382.63(c)(1), (2).

61 See id. §382.63(c)(3), (d). 
104

62 See 14 CFR §382.65(a) (1990).

63 See id. §382.65(a)(1), (2).

64 See id. §382.65(a)(3).

65 See id. §382.65(a)(4).

66 See id. §382.65(a)(4)(i)%(iv).

67 See 14 CFR §382.65(b) (1990).

68 See id. §382.65(b)(1).

69 See id. §382.65(b)(2).

70 See id. §382.65(b)(3).

71 See id. §382.65(b)(3)(I)%(iii).

72 See 14 CFR §382.65(d) (1990).

73 See 14 CFR §382.63(c)(2), (3).

74 See id. §382.65(c).

75 See supra note 46, at 10535.

76 See id. at 10529.

77 See id. at 10535.

78 See id.

79 See id.

80 See supra note 46, at 10535-36. 

81 See id. at 10536.

82 See id.

83 See id. at 10536-37.

84 See id.

85 See supra note 46, at 10529.

86 Conway v. United Airlines, U.S. Dist. Ct. D.ME. (1997).

87 Sharon G. Miller’s proposed amendment to 49 U.S.C. §41705 (draft) (October 1997) (on file with author).

88 See supra note 5.

89 Interview with Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings and

Dayton Lehman, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, in Washington,

D.C. (November 6, 1997) (Information revised in OGC comments of August 21, 1998).

90 Interview with Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Aviation Consumer Protection (now retired), in

Washington, D.C. (November 22, 1997).

91 Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95-504, Stat. (codified at 49 U.S.C. ) October 24, 1978.

92 Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-443, Stat. (codified at 49 U.S.C. ) October 4, 1984.

93 See supra note 90.

94 See 49 U.S.C. 1374(b) (lapsed).

95 See 49 U.S.C. 1374(a).

96 See supra note 90.
105

97 See id.

98 See id.

99 See id.

100 See id.

101 See supra note 90.

102 See id.

103 See supra note 89.

104 As no formal documentation describing roles and responsibilities was made available to researchers, pages

accessible from the DOT Office of General Counsel’s website provided an overview of several organizations

discussed in this section. See http://www.dot.gov/ost/ogc/org/aviation/index/html (visited 10/15/97).

105 See id.

106 See 14 CFR 302.201.

107 See supra note 104.

108 See id.

109 Telephone interview with Charlotte Boeck, Administrative Officer for the Office of General Counsel, in

Washington, D.C. (March 10, 1998). 

110 Interview with Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

Office, in Washington, D.C. (November 23, 1998).

111 See id.

112 See supra note 109.

113 See id.

114 See id.

115 See id.

116 See supra note 89.

117 Interview with Julie Zirlin, Acting Chief of External Policy and Program Development Division, in Washington,

D.C. (December 1997).

118 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to air carrier

executives (April 25, 1990) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

119 See id.

120 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to air carrier

executives (November 29, 1990) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

121 See id.

122 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to air carrier and

travel agency executives (December 20, 1991) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

123 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to aviation consumer

report recipients (April 2, 1992) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

124 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to air carrier

executives (March 16, 1993) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

125 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to aviation consumer

report recipients (April 5, 1993) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).
106

126 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to air carrier

executives (July 15, 1993) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

127 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to aviation consumer

report recipients (October 7, 1993) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

128 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to aviation consumer

report recipients (November 4, 1996) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

129 Letter from Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), to major and

national airlines, air transport organizations, and certain disability groups (May 23, 1997) (on file with DOT

Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

130 Letter from Norman A. Strickman, Chief of Aviation Consumer Protection Division, to the 10 largest U.S.

certificated airlines (August 12, 1998) (on file with DOT Aviation Consumer Protection Division).

131 See supra note 90.

132 See OGC comments (August 21, 1998), p. 14.

133 Interview with Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), in Washington,

D.C. (November 5, 1997).

134 Telephone interview with Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, in Washington, D.C. (December 22, 1998).

135 See supra note 133.

136 Interview with Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, and

Michael Spollen in Washington, D.C. (November 23, 1998).

137 See supra note 132.

138 Interview with Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, in

Washington, D.C. (December 1, 1997).

139 See supra note 136.

140 See supra note 132 (The Enforcement Office is currently considering the advisability and feasibility of working

with the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure airlines’ compliance with ACAA accessibility requirements).

141 See id.

142 See id., at 15.

143 See 14 CFR §382.65(5)(iv).

144 See supra note 132 at 15.

145 See supra note 133.

146 On the other hand, the voice mail on DOT’s consumer assistance line (202-366-2220) does inform callers that

DOT does not have staff to mediate individual complaints or return phone calls, but will log their complaints in the

database.

147 See supra note 133.

148 Interview with Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), in Washington,

D.C. (January 20, 1998).

149 This figure comes from the data of a major carrier. These data were obtained as part of discovery in a lawsuit

against the carrier.

150 See supra note 89.

151 Interview with Hoyte B. Decker, Jr., Assistant Director for Consumer Protection (now retired), in Washington,

D.C. (November 13, 1997).
107

152 See supra note 133.

153 See id.

154 See OGC comments (August 21, 1998), p. 6.

155 See 14 CFR §302.205.

156 See supra note 89.

157 See id.

158 See id.

159 See supra note 136.

160 See supra note 89.

161 See id.

162 See OGC comments (August 21, 1998), p. 15.

163 See id., at 18.

164 See Southwest Airlines Proceeding, No. 87-11-16 (November 6, 1987) (Dept. of Transportation).

165 See Moody v. Delta, No. 95-11-6 (November 3, 1995) (Dept. of Transportation).

166 See Del Colle v. Continental Airlines, No. 94-12-39 (December 28, 1994).

167 See supra note 164.

168 See Wood v. American Airlines, No. 95-10-14 (October 10, 1995) (Dept. of Transportation).

169 See Roberts v. USAir, No. 95-7-38, (July 26, 1995) (Dept. of Transportation).

170 See Seligman v. Northwest Airlines, No. 94-12-38 (December 28, 1994) (Dept. of Transportation).

171 See Segarra v. America West Airlines, No. 94-4-20 (April 11, 1994) (Dept. of Transportation).

172 See Hacker v. Southwest Airlines, No. 93-10-10 (October 5, 1993) (Dept. of Transportation).

173 See Vasquez v. Southwest Airlines, No. 89-6-12 (June 9, 1989) (Dept. of Transportation).

174 See Sontag v. Simmons Airlines, No. 89-2-8 (February 3, 1989) (Dept. of Transportation).

175 See Greenberg v. American Airlines, No. 88-9-31 (September 16, 1988) (Dept. of Transportation).

176 See American Airlines, No. 95-9-1 (September 1, 1995) (Dept. of Transportation).

177 Tunison v. Continental Airlines

178 See Shinault v. American Airlines, 936 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Tallarico v. Trans World Airlines, 881

F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1989).

179 Interview with Don Trilling, DOT Director of the Office of Environment, Energy, and Safety, and Ira Laster,

Senior Program Analyst, in Washington, D.C. (December 3, 1997).

180 See id.

181 Interview with Robert Herman, Senior Advocacy Attorney for Paralyzed Veterans of America, in Washington,

D.C. (October 6, 1997). 

182 See supra note 138.

183 See id.

184 See OGC comments (August 21, 1998), p. 18.

185 Interview with Albert H. Prest, Vice President of Operations, Ronald J. Welding, Director of Operations

Standards; and David A. Berg, Assistant General Counsel for Air Transport Association of America, in

Washington, D.C. (December 12, 1997).
108

186 See id.

187 See id.

188 See id.

189 Capozzi, David M. (Fall 1989). The Disabled Fly Unfriendly Skies, 71 Bus & Soc Rev 22, 26.

190 Paralysis Society of America Airline Survey (August 1995%August 1996)) published by Paralyzed Veterans of

America (PVA) under the auspices of PVA’s Access to the Skies program.

191 One person who notified the airline in advance that she would require a lift had to crawl up the stairs because

the lift was frozen.

192 See supra note 190.

193 Disability Complaint, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, July 14, 1997.

194 Disability Complaint, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, July 1997.

195 Disability Complaint, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, July 10, 1997.

196 Disability Complaint, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, July 22, 1997.

197 Disability Complaint, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, July 24, 1997.

198 Disability Complaint, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, July 21, 1997.

199 Disability Complaint, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, May 30, 1997.

200 Disability Complaint, Aviation Consumer Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, June 30, 1997.
A-1

APPENDIX A

14 CFR Part 382 Requirements

Access to Aircraft&General Requirements

 Aircraft with 30 or more seats shall have movable armrests on at least one-half of the

passenger aisle seats. Aisle seats restricted from use by a mobility-impaired person by a

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety rule, or which are not feasible locations for a

movable armrest, are exempted.1

 Aircraft with one 100 or more seats shall have priority space in the cabin designated for

stowage of at least one folding wheelchair.2

 Aircraft with more than one aisle shall include at least one accessible lavatory.3 An

accessible lavatory means

ù All lavatory handles, dispensers, and other controls can be used by persons with 

manual impairments and persons using wheelchairs;

ù Passengers can enter, maneuver within, and leave by means of the aircraft’s onboard wheelchair; and

ù Passengers have privacy equivalent to that afforded ambulatory users.4

C Aircraft with more than 60 seats having an accessible lavatory shall be equipped 

with an operable on-board wheelchair.5

C Aircraft with more than 60 seats shall have an operable on-board wheelchair available

upon request by a passenger with a disability and advance notice that it is needed to reach

a nonaccessible lavatory from his or her seat.6 Air carriers shall comply with this

provision by August 5, 1992.7 ATR-72 and ATP aircraft seating 60%70 passengers are

exempted.8

Access to Aircraft&Implementation Responsibilities

 All air carriers shall ensure:

ù On-board wheelchairs meeting Part 382 design specifications are provided on

aircraft having accessible lavatories and more than 60 seats by August 5, 1992;9
A-2

ù Nonaccessible features of cabin interiors, as replaced, conform to applicable 

accessibility requirements.10 Replaced features shall meet a level of accessibility

not less than that specified in Part 38211;

ù All aircraft accessibility features are maintained in proper working order;

ù Aircraft ordered after August 5, 1990, or delivered after August 5, 1992, meet all 

accessibility requirements consistent with the aircraft’s size and structure;12 and

ù Cabins are configured or administrative systems established so that seating in

rows with movable armrests is readily available to passengers with mobility

impairments.13

Access to Airports&General Requirements Under Part 382 and Section 504

 Terminal facilities and services provided by air carriers, including frequent flyer clubs,

shall meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III accessibility standards for

public accommodations.14

 Terminal facilities and services provided by airport operators receiving federal assistance 

shall meet access requirements applying to state and local government programs and 

facilities under ADA (Title II).15

 The accessibility standard for airport facilities shall be the Americans with Disabilities Act

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAGs), including section 10.4.16

Access to Services&General Requirements

 Air carriers shall not refuse to provide transportation to a qualified person with a disability 

on the basis of his or her disability unless refusal to transport is specifically permitted by

the regulation.17

 Air carriers may refuse transportation to a passenger with a disability on the basis of

safety, or to comply with the Federal Aviation Regulations, but shall apply such rules in a

nondiscriminatory manner, or be subject to legal remedies.18

 Air carriers shall not refuse air transportation:

ù By limiting the number of persons with disabilities permitted to travel on a given

flight,19 or
A-3

ù When a passenger’s disability results in appearance or involuntary behavior that 

may offend, annoy, or inconvenience crew members or other passengers.20

 Air carriers shall provide a written explanation that includes the reasonable basis for the

carrier’s belief that flight safety would be compromised within 10 calendar days to any

person refused transportation on a basis relating to his or her disability.21

Access to Airports&Implementation Responsibilities

 Air carriers (Part 382) and airport operators (section 504) shall ensure

ù An accessible path between the gate and the aircraft boarding area (jetway,

tarmac, etc.);22

ù Compliance of interterminal transportation facilities with the Department of

Transportation’s (DOT’s) applicable ADA requirements;23 and

ù Contracts or leases between air carriers and airport operators concerning use of

airport facilities set forth their respective responsibilities for providing accessible

facilities and services, as required under part 382, and for airport operators, the

applicable section 504 and ADA rules of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and

DOT.24

 Airport operators receiving federal assistance shall submit a transition plan to the FAA

meeting the requirements of 49 CFR §27.65 by March 3, 1997.25

Access to Services &Implementation Responsibilities

Boarding assistance

 Air carriers shall provide

ù Personnel and equipment (including ground wheelchairs, boarding and on-board

wheelchairs, ramps) needed to provide assistance requested by or on behalf of a
A-4

person with a disability in enplaning, deplaning, making flight connections, and

moving between gates.26

ù Boarding by level entry platforms or accessible passenger lounges, when

available; otherwise, ramps, lifts, or other suitable devices shall be maintained in

working order for enplaning and deplaning passengers as needed.27

 Air carriers shall not leave passengers who are not independently mobile unattended in 

ground wheelchairs for more than 30 minutes.

 Air carriers operating 19%30 seat capacity aircraft at airports having 10,000 or more annual 

enplanements shall work with the airports to provide mechanical lifts, ramps, or other

boarding assistance devices that do not require employees to lift or carry passengers up

stairs.28

 Air carriers shall negotiate in good faith with airport operators concerning the acquisition

and use of suitable equipment, and execute written agreements allocating responsibilities

for meeting boarding assistance requirements by September 2, 1997.29

 Air carriers and airport operators are jointly responsible for timely and complete 

implementation of the agreements.30

 Agreements shall be made available to DOT upon request.31

 Agreements shall provide for the completion of all actions necessary to ensure accessible 

boarding as soon as possible, and no later than

ù December 2, 1998, at medium and large commercial service hub airports

ù December 2, 1999, at small commercial service hub airports; and

ù December 4, 2000, for nonhub commercial service primary airports.32
A-5

 Agreements shall ensure that all accessibility equipment is maintained in proper working 

condition.33

 Agreements may require passengers wishing to receive boarding assistance by lift to

check-in one hour before scheduled departure.34

 Air carriers shall provide boarding assistance by lift when the passenger checks in less than

one hour before departure, if it can do so without delaying the flight.35

 Boarding assistance under the agreement is not required for

ù access to aircraft with a capacity of fewer than 19 and more than 30 seats,

ù access to float planes, or

ù access to models of 19-seat aircraft determined by DOT to be unsuitable for 

boarding assistance.36

 When mechanical boarding assistance is not required or cannot be provided for reasons 

beyond the control of the parties to the agreement, boarding assistance shall be provided by

any means acceptable to the passenger except hand-carrying.37

 Air carriers shall not require personnel to provide boarding assistance that involves handcarrying a passenger.38

 Air carriers shall ensure that personnel are trained to proficiency in operating boarding

assistance equipment and in following procedures to protect the safety and dignity of 

passengers.39

 When a flight cancellation or substitution of inaccessible equipment forces a passenger to

travel with a different air carrier, air carriers shall assist the second carrier in providing

accommodations requested by the passenger to the maximum extent feasible. 40

Seat Assignments
A-6

 Air carriers shall not exclude persons with disabilities from any seat in an exit row or other

location or require seating in a particular seat, except to comply with FAA safety

regulations.41

 Air carriers refusing transportation on the basis of safety must offer seating in a particular

location as an alternative, when the safety problem would thereby be sufficiently

mitigated.42

 Air carriers shall offer, if available, a seat location that can accommodate a passenger’s

service animal, when the original seat location cannot, as an alternative to requiring the

animal to travel with checked baggage.43

In-Cabin Assistance

 Air carrier personnel are required to provide assistance in

ù Moving to and from seats;

ù Preparation for eating;

ù Use of the on-board wheelchair in moving to and from the lavatory;

ù Movement to and from the lavatory for semi-ambulatory persons, excluding

lifting or carrying; and

ù Loading and retrieving carry-on items, including mobility aids and assistive

devices stowed onboard.44

 Air carrier personnel are not required to provide extensive special assistance, including

ù Assistance in eating (feeding);

ù Assistance with elimination functions either in the lavatory or at the passenger’s 

seat; or
A-7

ù Medical services.45

Personal Equipment Stowage

 In accordance with applicable regulations, air carriers shall permit qualified passengers to

ù Bring on board and use personal equipment that meets required safety standards, 

including ventilators/respirators and nonspillable batteries;46

ù Stow canes and other assistive devices near their seats;47

ù Store wheelchairs (assembled or components) in overhead compartments or under

seats;48 and

ù Provide air carrier personnel with written directions for assembling and 

disassembling their wheelchairs.49

 Air carriers shall not count toward a limit on carry-on items any assistive device brought 

onboard by a qualified passenger.50

 Air carriers shall

ù Designate priority stowage space for at least one wheelchair in aircraft having 

stowage areas large enough to accommodate a folding wheelchair.51

ù Give priority to wheelchair stowage in approved areas for passengers who are

offered and accept preboarding; passengers who do not accept a preboarding offer

may use the areas on a first-come, first-served basis.52

ù Stow wheelchairs in the cargo department when no in-cabin stowage area is 

available.53
A-8

ù Accept and carry battery-powered wheelchairs (including batteries) as baggage, 

consistent with DOT safety regulations, where aircraft size and safety

considerations do not prohibit doing so.

ù Give priority to a passenger’s wheelchair or other assistive device over other

cargo and baggage for stowage in the aircraft’s baggage compartment.54

ù Give priority over other items to the retrieval and timely return to the passenger of

wheelchairs and other assistive devices from the aircraft’s baggage

compartment.55

ù Make every effort to ensure arrival of the passenger’s baggage within four hours

of his or her flight’s scheduled arrival, if the baggage and the assistive device

cannot be accommodated on the same flight.56

ù Provide for checking and timely return of wheelchairs and other assistive devices 

to the passenger either as close to the door of the aircraft as permitted by DOT 

safety regulations or at the baggage claim area, as the passenger requests.57

Wheelchairs

 Air carriers shall:

ù Transport electric wheelchairs in an upright position whenever feasible in order to

meet DOT safety standards without separating the battery from the chair.58

ù Provide DOT-approved packaging materials and package wheelchair batteries

when the battery must be detached from the chair. Use of packaging materials

other than those normally used for this purpose is at the discretion of the air

carrier.59

ù Reassemble and promptly return to passengers wheelchairs and other assistive

devices disassembled for stowage in the condition received.60
A-9

 Air carriers shall not

ù Drain batteries used by wheelchairs or other assistive devices.61

ù Limit liability for loss, damage, or delay concerning wheelchairs and other

mobility aids on domestic flights to any amount less than twice the limit

established for luggage under 14 CFR 254 (generally $1,250 per passenger).62

ù Require passengers to sign waivers of liability for damage to wheelchairs and

other assistive devices.63

Passenger Information

 Air carriers shall make available the following information to passengers upon request:

ù The location of seats with movable armrests and any seats not made available to 

persons with disabilities;64

ù Any limitations on an aircraft’s ability to accommodate persons with disabilities,

including limitations on the availability of boarding assistance to the aircraft at

departure and destination points as well as intermediate stops. Any passenger

who states that he or she uses a wheelchair for boarding shall be provided this

information, even if he or she does not explicitly request it.65

ù Any limitations on the availability of storage facilities for mobility aids and other

assistive devices in the cabin or baggage compartment.66

ù Whether the aircraft has an accessible lavatory.67

 With respect to safety briefings, air carrier personnel shall

ù Conduct individual safety briefings for passengers as required by DOT regulations

and for any other passenger as they wish.68
A-10

ù Conduct individual safety briefings as inconspicuously as possible.69

ù Impose no requirement to demonstrate understanding or "acceptance" of a safety 

briefing beyond that required of all passengers, or take related adverse action

against any passenger with a disability.70

 Air carrier personnel shall provide to persons with vision or hearing impairments who

request assistance timely access to information routinely provided to other passengers in the

terminal or on the aircraft (e.g., flight delays, schedule changes, connections, gate

assignments, aircraft changes).71

 Air carriers shall maintain a copy of Part 382 at every airport they use, available for review

by passengers upon request.72

Hearing Impairments

 All air carriers making telephone reservation and information service available to the public

shall provide the same service during the same hours via a teletype (TTY) device for the

deaf. The response time for answering TTY calls shall be equivalent to that for the general

public and the charge for the service may not exceed the charge to the general public.73

 Air carriers using video screens to present safety briefings shall ensure that the presentation

is accessible to persons with hearing impairments.74 Open captioning and sign-language

insets are the preferred methods of implementation. If neither method is feasible, nonvideo

alternatives may be used.75 Uncaptioned video materials shall be replaced in the normal

course of the carrier’s operations with captioned materials.76

Security Screening

 Security requirements for persons with disabilities shall be no different from those for other

passengers. Security searches of persons with disabilities shall be conducted in the same
A-11

manner as for other passengers. Persons with disabilities shall not be subject to private

security screenings more frequently or for different reasons than other passengers.77

 Passengers traveling with assistive devices shall not be subject to a special screening if their

devices clear the security system without activating it. Security personnel may, however,

examine any device that in their judgment may conceal a prohibited item.78

 Requests for a private screening will allow sufficient time for the passenger to enplane. If

the air carrier’s security system can conduct an appropriate screening without a physical

search, a private screening need not be provided.79

Communicable Diseases

 Air carriers may take any of the following actions with respect to a person having a

communicable disease or infection, only if the individual’s condition poses a direct threat to

the health or safety of others:

ù Refusal to provide air transportation; 

ù Requirement to provide a medical certificate; or 

ù Imposition of conditions or restrictions not imposed on other passengers.80

 "Direct threat" means a significant risk to the health and safety of others that cannot be

eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of

auxiliary aids or services.81

 Air carriers shall not subject a passenger to any of the above restrictions solely on the basis

that the person has a communicable disease or infection.82

 Whether an individual poses a direct threat is determined by an individualized assessment

based on reasonable judgment, relying on objective evidence and current medical

knowledge, to ascertain the risk of harm to others, and if the risk can be mitigated.83
A-12

 Air carriers shall select the least restrictive alternative from the viewpoint of the person

having the communicable disease, consistent with the safety and health of others.84

 Unless doing so is not feasible, air carriers shall provide air transportation to passengers

with a communicable disease or infection who have a medical certificate in which the

conditions necessary to prevent transmission of the disease or infection to others in flight

are set forth.85

 Air carriers shall provide a written explanation of any action taken within 10 days of the

passenger’s request.86

 When a passenger’s travel is postponed because of a determination of posing a direct threat

to others, the air carrier shall permit the passenger to travel within 90 days at the same fare

and without penalty, or at the passenger’s discretion, to receive a refund for any unused

flights.87

Medical Certificates

 Air carriers shall not require a medical certificate of any passenger with a disability unless

he or she

ù is traveling on a stretcher or in an incubator;88

ù needs medical oxygen in flight;89

ù has a medical condition so serious that a reasonable doubt exists as to whether he 

or she can safely complete the flight without extraordinary medical assistance;90

or 

ù has a communicable disease or infection that could be transmitted to others during

the flight.91
A-13

 A valid medical certificate is a written statement signed by the passengers physician, dated

within 10 days of the flight, stating that the present condition of the passenger’s

communicable disease or infection would not pose a risk of transmission to others during

the flight.92 The certificate shall state any conditions or precautions necessary to prevent

transmission to others during the flight.93

Advance Notice

 Air carriers shall not require a passenger with a disability to give advance notice of his or

her disability either as a condition for air transportation or to receive any services or

accommodations required by Part 382.94

 Air carriers may require up to 48 hours advance notice and one hour advance check-in for a

passenger who requires the following services, equipment or accommodations:

ù transportation of an electric wheelchair on an aircraft with fewer than 60 seats;95

ù provision of hazardous materials packaging for wheelchair or assistive-device 

battery;96

ù accommodation for a group of 10 or more persons with disabilities who make

reservations and travel as a group;97 and

ù provision of an on-board wheelchair on aircraft lacking an accessible lavatory.98

 If an air carrier makes the following services available on a given flight, up to 48 hours

advance notice and one hour advance check-in may be required for passengers requesting

the following services, equipment, or accommodations:

ù medical oxygen for in-flight use;99

ù incubator;100

ù respirator hook-up to the aircraft’s electrical power supply;101 or
A-14

ù stretcher accommodation.102

 Air carriers are required to make a reasonable effort (without delaying the flight) to

accommodate passengers who do not meet the above advance notice or check-in

requirements.103

 Air carriers shall ensure that reservation and other administrative systems operate to

effectively record and transmit advance notice requests to the operating employees

responsible for providing the accommodations.104

 Air carriers are required to ensure that accommodations requested with the proper advance

notice are provided.105

Attendants

 With specific exceptions, air carriers shall not require a passenger with a disability to travel

with an attendant as a condition for air transportation.106

 Air carriers may require passengers meeting the following criteria to travel with an 

attendant:

ù when an attendant is determined essential for safety;

ù persons traveling on a stretcher or in an incubator; the attendant must be

capable of meeting their in-flight medical needs;107

ù persons with mental disabilities rendering them unable to understand or respond 

appropriately to mandatory safety instructions;108

ù persons unable to assist in their own evacuation from an aircraft because of severe

mobility impairment;109
A-15

ù persons who are both severely visually and hearing impaired, when

communication with air carrier personnel adequate to transmit mandatory safety

instructions cannot be established.110

 Air carriers requiring a passenger who is mentally disabled, mobility impaired or deaf-blind

to travel with an attendant contrary to his or her own self-assessment shall not charge for

the attendant’s transportation.

 Air carriers requiring a passenger to travel with an attendant shall deem the attendant to

have checked in at the same time as the passenger. If a passenger is denied boarding

because a seat for his or her required attendant is unavailable, air carriers shall provide

denied boarding compensation in accordance with 14 CFR part 250.111

Service Animals

 Air carriers shall

ù permit dogs and other animals serving persons with disabilities to accompany

them on a flight at the seat where the passenger is sitting, unless the animal

obstructs an area that must remain unobstructed for emergency evacuation.112

ù accept any credible physical or verbal evidence that an animal is a service

animal;113 and

ù provide to any passenger traveling with an animal (including service animals) to a

foreign destination on their airline, whatever special information applies

concerning the transportation of animals outside the continental United States.114
A-16

1

 §382.21(a)(1) (i), (ii)

2

 §382.21(a)(2)

3

 §382.21(a)(3)

4 Id.

5

 §382.21(a)(4)(i)

6

 §382.21(a)(4)(ii)

7

 §382.21(b)(2)

8 1992 Exemption for ATR and ATP aircraft from the requirement for an onboard wheelchair, 57 FR 12872

(April 14, 1992).

9

 §382.21(a)(4)(iii)

10 §382.21(c)

11 §382.21(e)

12 §382.21(f)

13 §382.21(a)(1)(iii)

14 §382.21(b)

15 49 CFR§27.71(b)

16 14 CFR §382.23(e) (1996) and 49 CFR §27.71(e) (1996)

17 14 CFR §382.31(a)

18 14 CFR §382.31(d)

19 14 CFR §382.31(c)

20 14 CFR §382.31(b)

21 14 CFR §382.31(e)

22 14 CFR §382.23(c) (1996) and 49 CFR §27.7(c) (1996)

23 14 CFR §382.23(d) (1996) and 49 CFR §27.71(d) (1996)

24 14 CFR §382.23(f) (1996) and 49 CFR §27.71(f) (1996)

25 49 CFR §27.71(g) (1996)

26 14 CFR §382.39(a)(1)

27 14 CFR §382.39(a)(2)

28 14 CFR §382.40 (1996)

29 14 CFR §382.40(c)(1) (1996)

30 14 CFR §382.40(c)(2) (1996)

31 14 CFR §382.40(c)(1) (1996)

32 14 CFR §382.40(c)(2) (1996)

33 14 CFR §382.40(c)(6) (1996)

34 14 CFR §382.40(c)(3) (1996)

35 Id.

36 14 CFR §382.40(c)(4) (1996)

ENDNOTES

 
A-17

37 14 CFR §382.40(c)(5) (1996)

38 14 CFR §382.49(a)(2) (1996)

39 14 CFR §382.40(d) (1996)

40 14 CFR §382.33(f)

41 14 CFR §382.37(a)

42 14 CFR §382.37(b)

43 14 CFR §382.37(c)

44 14 CFR §382.39(b)

45 14 CFR §382.39(c)

46 14 CFR §382.41(b)

47 14 CFR §382.41(c)

48 14 CFR §382.41(e)(1)

49 14 CFR §382.41(g)(5)

50 14 CFR §382.41(d)

51 14 CFR §382.41(e)(2)

52 Id.

53 14 CFR §382.41(e)(3)

54 14 CFR §382.41(f)(3)

55 14 CFR §382.41(f)(2)

56 14 CFR §382.41(f)(3)

57 14 CFR §382.41(f)(1)

58 14 CFR §382.41(g)(2)

59 14 CFR §382.41(g)(3)

60 14 CFR §382.43(a)

61 14 CFR §382.41(g)(4)

62 14 CFR §382.43(b)

63 14 CFR §382.43(c)

64 14 CFR §382.45(a)(1)

65 14 CFR §382.45(a)(2) (1996).

66 14 CFR §382.45(a)(3)

67 14 CFR §382.45(a)(4)

68 14 CFR §382.45(b)(1), (2)

69 14 CFR §382.45(b)(3)

70 14 CFR §382.45(b)(4)

71 14 CFR §382.45(c)

72 14 CFR §382.45(d)

73 14 CFR §382.47(a)

74 14 CFR §382.47(b)

75 14 CFR §382.47(b)(1), (2)

76 14 CFR §382.47(c)

77 14 CFR §382.49(a)
A-18

78 Id.

79 14 CFR §382.49(b), (c)

80 14 CFR §382.51(a)

81 14 CFR §382.51(b)(2) (1996)

82 14 CFR §382.51(a)

83 14 CFR §382.51(b)(3) (1996)

84 14 CFR §382.51(b)(4) (1996)

85 14 CFR §382.51(c)

86 14 CFR §382.51(b)(6) (1996)

87 14 CFR §382.51(b)(5) (1996)

88 14 CFR §382.53(b)(1)(i)

91 14 CFR §382.53(b)(1)(ii)

90 14 CFR §382.53(b)(1)(iii)

91 14 CFR §382.53(c)(1)

92 14 CFR §382.53(b)(2)

93 Id.

94 14 CFR §382.33(a)

95 14 CFR §382.33(b)(5)

96 14 CFR §382.33(b)(6)

97 14 CFR §382.33(b)(7)

98 14 CFR §382.33(b)(8)

99 14 CFR §382.33(b)(1)

100 14 CFR §382.33(b)(2)

101 14 CFR §382.33(b)(3)

102 14 CFR §382.33(b)(4)

103 14 CFR §382.33(c)

104 14 CFR §382.33(d)

105 14 CFR §382.33(e)

106 14 CFR §382.35(a)

107 14 CFR §382.35(b)(1)

108 14 CFR §382.35(b)(2)

109 14 CFR §382.35(b)(3)

110 14 CFR §382.35(b)(4)

111 14 CFR§382.35(d), (e)

112 14 CFR §382.55(a)(2)

113 14 CFR §382.55(a)(1)

 114 14 CFR §382.55(a)(3)
B-1

APPENDIX B

Summary of Complaints Filed Directly with a Major Air Carrier

(January 1993%November 1996)*

Total Complaints: 5072

 

DAF Disabled Dissatisfied W/ Aircraft Facilities 74

DAF Closed captioning 23

DAF No onboard wheelchair (aisle chair) 7

DAF Restrooms inaccessible 8

DAF Equipment mishandling 1

DAF Widen aisles 2

DAF Lack of assistance/information 11

DAF Oxygen undelivered/mishandled 6

DAF Connecting times too short 1

DAF Wheelchair miscellaneous 4

DAF Passenger injury during transfer/transport 1

DAF No movable armrests 1

DAF Bulkhead seating complaint 1

DAF Miscellaneous/no explanation 10
B-2

CONT Contract Employee Complaint 305

DCONT Abandoned W/O assistance/assistive device 51

DCONT Long wait time for assistance/transport 11

DCONT Refused assistance to transport/transfer 25

DCONT Separated from travel companion(s) 3

DCONT Unsafe transfer/injury during transfer/transport 46

DCONT Staff incompetent/untrained 19

DCONT Mistreated 28

DCONT Tipping solicited/demanded/scoffed 18

DCONT Lost and/or missed connecting flight 44

DCONT Burned on W/C/broken W/C 8

DCONT Refused W/C use 22

DCONT Refused W/C use W/O deposit 2

DCONT Security complaints misc. 9

DCONT Theft 5

DCONT Refused restroom stop 1

DCONT Andy Frain complaints 5

DCONT Charged for service van 1

DCONT Non-English-speaking 6

DCONT Damaged items 1

DCONT Miscellaneous cont complaints/no explanation 30
B-3

DCSAH Disabled Passenger Assistance by Customer 

Service Agent 1258

DCSAH Boarding/deboarding complaints 71

DCSAH Denied/challenged W/C assistance 338

DCSAH Refused/challenged need for assistance 198

DCSAH Mistreated/rude/incompetent staff 132

DCSAH Seating complaint 54

DCSAH No aisle chair/mishandling 36

DCSAH Miscellaneous CSA complaints/no explanation 208

DCSAH W/C misc. 20

DCSAH Oxygen mishandling/overchg/no delivery 55

DCSAH Injury during transfer/transport 33

DCSAH Missed connection/misboarded/wrong gate 100

DCSAH Lost/abandoned without assistance 72

DCSAH Non-English speaking/no assistance 9

DCSAH IV Hookup not set up 1

DCSAH Property mishandled/lost 9

DCSAH W/C damage 2

DCSAH Delayed assistance/W/C arrival 21

DCSAH Forced to check assistive device before gate 39

DCSAH No jetway/no lift 17

DCSAH Solicited tip 3

DCSAH TTY not available/not easily located 2

DCSAH ACAA violation complaints 15

DCSAH Denied cart for transfer/transport 14

DCSAH Moveable armrest complaints 6

DCSAH Denied service animal onboard 1

DCSAH Denied travel 1

DDDWC Damaged Wheelchair 71

DDWC Delayed Wheelchair 1871

(Delayed W/C, denied W/C assistance, denied W/C

attendant, no aisle chair)

DFAC 72
B-4

DFAC No access/accommodations for disabled 8

DFAC Restrooms inaccessible to disabled 2

DFAC No TTY 8

DFAC Delayed/denied W/C assistance 4

DFAC No elevator/lift 7

DFAC Miscellaneous/no explanation 3

DFAC Facility complaint 10

DFAC Misconnection/missed flight/misboard 3

DIFAT Lack of Flight Attendant Assistance 

with Disabled Passenger 322

DIFAT Mistreatment/rude/discriminatory/incompetent 63

DIFAT Refused/challenged need for assistance 140

DIFAT Denied preboard/preferential deboard 10

DIFAT Oxygen mishandled/not delivered 8

DIFAT Seating complaint/refusal to reseat 27

DIFAT Safety complaints/no safety info to blind/deaf 13

DIFAT No lift 2

DIFAT No W/C assistance/aisle chair operation 34

DIFAT Miscellaneous F/A complaints 32

DMISC DISABLED MISCELLANEOUS 225

DMISC Restrooms inaccessible 1

DMISC Left abandoned without assistance 3

DMISC Mistreated/rude/incompetent 6

DMISC Misconnection/misboard/wrong gate 5

DMISC No W/C assistance 26

DMISC Miscellaneous disabled complaints 37

DMISC Oxygen mishandling/overcharge/no delivery 67

DMISC Refused/challenged/not offered assistance 11

DMISC Injury 12

DMISC Misc. non-disability related complaints 30

DMISC No dialysis onboard 1

DMISC Captioning for onboard videos 3

DMISC Theft alleged 1

DMISC Transport bus inaccessible 2

DMISC No cart assistance 2
B-5

DMISC Forced to check assistive device before gate 1

DMISC Seating complaint 5

DMISC Refused assistance with medications 3

DMISC No TTY 2

DMISC No preboard/preferred deboard 2

DMISC Longer connecting times 1

DMISC No accommodations for oversized individuals 4

DMISC Property damage 1

DMISC Charged for W/C use 2

DPB Disabled PAX Preboarding 63

DPRO Agent Unfamiliar with Disabled Procedures 79

DPRO Oxygen procedures mishandled 7

DPRO Preboarding procedure mishandled 1

DPRO Wheelchair not provided 3

DPRO Escort fees 3

DPRO No lift 2

DPRO Forced to check assistive device before gate 5

DPRO Charged to check assistive device 1

DPRO No onboard stowage of assistive device 4

DPRO Unfamiliar with transfer procedures 3

DPRO Assistive device not returned at gate 2

DPRO Check in complaints for assistive device 2

DPRO W/C Battery procedures 6

DPRO Injury to PAX during transfer 3

DPRO Miscellaneous 5

DPRO W/C Mishandled/requirements 2

DPRO Non-attentive staff/non-assistive 5

DPRO Staff untrained 2

DPRO No service animals allowed onboard 2

DPRO Unfamiliar with Moveable Armrests 3

DPRO ACAA complaints 2

DRR Lack of Res. Assistance W/Disabled PAX 123
B-6

DSEAT Disabled PAX Seating Problems 524

DSEAT Refused aisle/bulkhead/exit row seating 217

DSEAT Nondisabled seated in bulkhead 36

DSEAT Preassigned seat request denied 22

DSEAT Separated from companion 34

DSEAT Disabled in restricted (middle) seat 42

DSEAT Disabled seated at rear of plane 73

DSEAT Nondisabled complaints of disabled as 17

Obstruction/safety hazard in aisle seats

DSEAT No movable armrests 16

DSEAT No preboard/boarding assistance 15

DSEAT No seating near restrooms 4

DSEAT Disabled seated on upper deck of plane 2

DSEAT No aisle chair/delay 5

DSEAT No reclined seating 4

DSEAT Other 107

DTIPS Disabled PAX Solicitation of Tips 20

 

DUNAT Disabled PAX Left Unattended 65

*

Note: The major category headings are listed verbatim from the airline’s file. The

numbers in bold type are the total complaints in each of the major categories. The
B-7

subcategories have been created from the brief narrative description provided for each

complaint. Multiple problems identified in the narrative have been coded into the

appropriate subcategories. Thus, subcategory totals may exceed the total number of

complaints recorded for the major category heading. 

W/ = with

W/O = without

W/C = wheelchair

MISC = miscellaneous

CSA = customer service agent

TTY = teletype

ACAA = Air Carriers Access Act

F/A = Flight attendant

PAX = passenger
C-1

APPENDIX C

Summarized Selected Complaints from the Consumer Protection Division

Complaint

Basis/Disability

Type 

ComplaintFormat

Complaint Information 

Failure to provideassistance/otherhandicapped

Other PAX (66-year-old woman with unspecified disability) requested special

assistance at the airport. No assistance was given, forcing her to stand forhours.

Assistive device(storage/loss/damage/delay/waiver)/otherwheelchair

Letter PAX’s W/C completely demolished. Airline replaced, but refused to pay

more than $300. PAX given no choice regarding replacement. PAX toldthat air carrier’s consumer affairs office would direct baggage dept. tocontact her directly regarding unsatisfactory replacement W/C. 

Failure to provideassistance/otherwheelchair

Telephone Multiple complaints alleging repeated failures to provide adequate

assistance throughout PAX’s flights. PAX to send a follow-up summaryletter to DOT. PAX had called airline earlier and received a $100voucher, a gesture PAX found insulting. Concerned that airline take stepsto prevent similar treatment to other passengers with disabilities. Nofollow-up letter found. 

Assistive device(storage/loss/damage/delay/waiver)/oxygen

Letter PAX provided advance doctor’s notice of need for medical oxygen inflight. Oxygen supply in-flight was insufficient and attendants failed to

notify EMS of needed oxygen upon landing. Airline attendant told PAXthat gate personnel were "union," so she could not guarantee assistance. Airline sent letter of apology¬hing else. 

Seat assignmentrestriction/otherhandicapped

Other PAX requested bulkhead seating to relieve pain in leg. Bulkhead seat was

changed at flight time.
Complaint

Basis/Disability

Type 

ComplaintFormat

Complaint Information 

C-2

Failure to provideassistance/otherwheelchair

Letter (notin file)

No W/C, cart, or other assistance provided to PAX’s elderly, disabledmother. Very last seats in the plane assigned on the final segment of trip.

Failure to provideassistance/hearingimpaired

Letter (notin file)

Group of deaf PAXs who requested assistance didn’t get any. Two lettersof apology, including offers of vouchers, from airline. Complaint marked

as potential enforcement action.

Assistive device(storage/loss/damage/delay/waiver)/oxygen

Telephone PAX barred from carrying on her husband’s oxygen "concentrator." 

Wanted to use during connecting stops and to ensure safety from damageas checked baggage. Airline analyst determined device not a safetyproblem; device could be placed in overhead storage or in closet if PAXpreboards. When DOT complaint analyst requested copy of airlineanalyst’s assessment of the device, airline’s customer servicerepresentatives refused, saying replies on 382 issues are "confidential andcan’t be shared with DOT." Eventually DOT analyst got a copy of thereport and faxed it to the PAX. The next time the PAX flew on airline,she presented the letter when she boarded the aircraft and was againrefused. DOT complaint analyst spent much time attempting to resolvethis matter. No letter documenting the complaint was in the file.

Seat assignmentrestriction/other W/C

Telephone/(letter infile)

PAXs are husband and wife; both have multiple sclerosis. Both requestedadvance assignment of bulkhead seating and were refused. DOT analystsent copy of NPRM on bulkhead seating and explained current situation. Airline response states that bulkhead seats are held until the day ofdeparture and they can only have them if no PAXs with infants/bassinetsneed them.
Complaint

Basis/Disability

Type 

ComplaintFormat

Complaint Information 

C-3

Seat assignmentrestriction/otherhandicapped

Letter PAX is elderly, disabled woman who walks with two crutches/canes. 

Refused seating near the front of the plane when her flight was changed. Airline agent told her she had to reserve a front row seat 130 days inadvance and at midnight. Agent said that the policy of reserving front rowseats for persons with disabilities had been up for review, and seats wereno longer being held. File contained a response letter from the airlinesaying, "[we are] sorry to learn of your disappointment<." Letter said that

present policy is to hold seats near the front of the cabin for PAXs withdisabilities until 48 hours before departure. Letter also said PAX shouldadvise agent of special needs when booking the reservation, and "ifavailable, the representative will assign the seat to you."

Failure to provideassistance/otherhandicapped

Letter (notin file)

73 year old PAX with emphysema assigned a seat at back of plane andgiven no assistance. PAX sent a letter of complaint first to airline and thento DOT. Airline apologizes for PAX’s discomfort and says that (1) PAXhad no advance seat assignment; (2) the flight had been oversold; 93) inoversold situation, final closeout of seat assignments does not begin until10 min. before departure ("orderly process must be followed"); and (4)under the circumstances, the airline was pleased they were able totransport her and provide W/C assistance.

Failure to provideassistance/otherhandicapped

Telephone Attorney called to register complaint on behalf of client. Client is

seriously ill with cancer and was treated very rudely by an airline agent. Requests for information/ assistance were responded to with "Sit downand shut up."
Complaint

Basis/Disability

Type 

ComplaintFormat

Complaint Information 

C-4

Failure to provideassistance/otherwheelchair

Other (letterin file)

Severely physically disabled elderly woman was told to get out of theW/C at the elevator. Left without walker or any kind of assistance to getherself and carry-on bag to the baggage claim area. PAX was sofrightened she became incontinent. Airline apologized for the incidentand personnel handling of the situation. 

Failure to provideassistance/otherhandicapped

Letter (notin file)

Husband and wife were both PAXs needing W/C assistance. None wasprovided. In response letter, airline apologizes for incident and fordisagreement regarding airline compensation to PAXs for incident. Letterdoes not address the specific complaint; says the "station managers" havebeen alerted.

Failure to provideassistance/hearingimpaired

Other Deaf PAX explained need for special assistance to agent. Agent attached

a prominent "handicapped" sticker to ticket. Airline response letterapologizes, but doesn’t address the sticker issue. 

Failure to provideassistance/otherhandicapped

Other PAX has degenerative arthritis and requested assistance that she did not

receive on two separate occasions. Airline apologizes and offers voucher. Complaint identified for potential enforcement action.

Assistive device(storage/loss/damage/delay/waiver) / oxygen

Letter PAX requested medical oxygen in-flight. PAX complained about the

price of the canisters and sought a refund for one that had not been used atall during the flight. Two airline response letters stated that the price ofoxygen, while high, was within the industry standard. Neither letteraddressed her request to refund the cost of unused oxygen. 

Failure to provideassistance/Otherwheelchair

Letter (noletter in file)

PAX in W/C was left at the airport for 18 hours after his flight wascanceled. When he recovered W/C, it had been mishandled and thebattery damaged. Rude treatment by the airline attendant who informedthem about Part 382. 
Complaint

Basis/Disability

Type 

ComplaintFormat

Complaint Information 

C-5

Failure to provideassistance/visionimpaired

Blind PAX not given assistance at the airport. PAX missed flight andended up wandering on the taxiway until a baggage handler stopped andhelped him back to the terminal. No assistance was given inside theterminal to get him another flight, and he finally took a bus. Airlineresponse offers apology and three domestic vouchers, plus refund ofunused tickets and difference between air and bus fare.

Failure to provideassistance/oxygen

PAX complained about cost of oxygen during a 1997 flight. Price hadnearly tripled from $50/canister in 1995. Airline response did not addressthe price discrepancy, but indicates carrier’s intent to reduce the cost andthe necessity for changing cylinders between flights by switching to largeroxygen cylinders. Airline agreed to reimburse PAX for the multiplecylinders of unused oxygen with a $150 check and travel coupons forvarious in-flight amenities. 

R

PAX = passengerW/C = wheelchairDOT = Department of TransportationEMS = emergency medical serviceNPRM = notice of proposed rulemaking
D-1

APPENDIX D

Glossary of Acronyms

ACAA&Air Carrier Access Act

ADA&Americans with Disabilities Act

ATA&Air Transport Association of America

CAB&Civil Aeronautics Board

CRO&Complaint Resolution Officer

DOJ&Department of Justice

DOT&Department of Transportation

DREDF&Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

EEOC&Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FA Act&Federal Aviation Act of 1958

FAA&Federal Aviation Administration

FTE&Full-time Equivalent

IDEA&Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

NCD&National Council on Disability

NPRM¬ice of proposed rulemaking

OGC&Office of General Counsel

OST&Office of the Secretary of Transportation
D-2

PVA&Paralyzed Veterans of America

Reg Neg&Regulatory negotiation

TTY&teletype
E-1

APPENDIX E

14 CFR 302.3 Filing of Documents

[Docket No. 82, 50 FR 2384, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 16701, 

May 11, 1988; Doc. No. OST-96-1436, 61 FR 29284, June 10, 1996]

Subpart A—Rules of General Applicability

Sec. 302.3 Filing of documents.

 (a) Filing address, date of filing, hours.

Documents required by any section of this part to be filed with DOT [Department of

Transportation] shall be filed with the Documentary Services Division of DOT, Washington, DC

20590. Such documents shall be deemed to be filed on the date on which they are actually

received by DOT. Documents must be filed between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., eastern standard

or daylight saving time, whichever is in effect in the District of Columbia at the time, Monday to

Friday, inclusive, except on legal holidays.

 (b) Formal specifications of documents. 

(1) Documents filed under this part must be on white paper not larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches,

including any tables, charts, and other documents that may be included. Ink must be dark enough

(but may not be green) to provide substantial contrast for scanning and photographic

reproduction. Text must be double-spaced (except for footnotes and long quotations, which may

be single-spaced), using type not smaller than 12 point. The left margin must be at least 1 1/2

inches; all other margins must be at least 1 inch. The title page and first page must bear a clear

date, and all subsequent pages must bear a page number and abbreviated heading. To facilitate

automated processing in document sheet feeders, documents of more than one page should be

held together with removable metal clips or similar retainers. Original documents may not be

bound in any form or include tabs, except in cases assigned by order to an Administrative Law

Judge for hearing, in which case the filing requirements will be set by order. Section 302.31

contains additional requirements as to the contents and style of briefs.

(2) To facilitate indexing, a filer should include in or provide with each document the following:

the docket title and subject; the relevant operating administration before which the application or

request is filed; the identity of the filer; the title of the specific action being requested; and the

name and address of the designated agent, and so identified, on file for official service. The

Docket Management Facility has an Expedited Processing Sheet that filers can use to expedite

this index input.
E-2

(3) Reproduction of documents. 

Papers may be reproduced by any duplicating process, provided all copies are clear and legible. 

Appropriate notes or other indications shall be used, so that the existence of any matters shown

in color on the original will be accurately indicated on all copies.

 (c) Number of copies.

 Unless otherwise specified, an executed original, along with the number of true copies set forth

below for each type of proceeding, must be filed with the Docket Management Facility. 

The copies filed need not be signed, but the name of the person signing the original document, as

distinguished from the firm or organization he or she represents, must also be typed or printed on

all copies below the space provided for the signature.

Airport Fee 9 copies

Agreements

 International Air Transport Association (IATA) 6 copies

 Other (under 49 U.S.C. 41309) 9 copies

Complaints Enforcement 5 copies

Mail Contracts 4 copies

Rates, Fares, and Charges in Foreign Air Transportation 6 copies

Unfair Practices in Foreign Air Transportation (49 U.S.C. 41310) 7 copies

Employee Protection Program (14 CFR 314) 7 copies

Exemptions

 Computer Reservation Systems (14 CFR 255) 8 copies

 Other (under 49 U.S.C. 40109) 7 copies

 Tariffs (under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 415 or 14 CFR 221) 5 copies

 Foreign Air Carrier Permits/Exemptions 7 copies

 International Authority for U.S. Air Carriers (certificates, 

 exemptions, allocation of limited frequencies, or charters) 7 copies

 Mail Rate Proceedings 4 copies

 Name Change/Trade Name Registrations 4 copies

 Suspension of Service (14 CFR 323) 4 copies

 Tariff Justifications to Exceed Standard International Fare Levels 6 copies

U.S. Air Carrier Certificates

 (involving Initial or Continuing Fitness) 6 copies

Other Matters 3 copies
E-3

Filers are encouraged to submit one of the required true copies (except for counterparts of

Agreement CAB 18900) in electronic form on a 3 1/2 inch floppy disk, labeled to show the filer’s

and representative’s names, the docket number (if known) or space for it, and document title. The

electronic submission must be in one of the following formats: Microsoft Word (or RTF),

WordPerfect, Excel, Lotus 123, or ASCII text. The disk must be accompanied by a signed 

certification that it is a true copy of the executed original document.

 (d) Table of contents. 

All documents filed under this part consisting of twenty or more pages must contain a

subject-index of the matter in such document, with page references.

 (e) [Reserved]

 (f) Official docket copy. 

With respect to all documents filed under this part that are scanned, the electronic scanned record

produced by DOT shall thereafter be the official docket copy of the document and any

subsequent copies generated by DOT’s electronic records system will be usable for admission as

record copies in any proceeding before the department.
F-1

APPENDIX F

List of Interviews and Consultations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERSONNEL

Office of the Secretary

Office of General Counsel

Nancy McFadden, Esq., General Counsel

Charlotte S. Boeck, Administrative Officer

Robert Ashby, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement

Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings 

Dayton Lehman, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

 Proceedings

Hoyte B. Decker, Assistant Director for Aviation Consumer Protection

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

Don Trilling, Director, Office of Environment, Energy, and Safety

Ira Laster, Senior Program Coordinator

Departmental Office of Civil Rights

Ronald Stroman, Director

April Marchese, Acting Deputy Director

Julie Zirlin, Acting Chief, External Policy and Program Development Division

Federal Transit Administration

Michael Winter, Associate Administrator, Office of Budget and Policy
F-2

MISCELLANEOUS CONSULTATIONS

Michele Anderson, Esq., Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown University Law Center

David A. Berg, Assistant General Counsel, Air Transport Association of America

Steve Gold, Esq.

Marilyn Golden, Senior Policy Analyst, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

Robert Herman, Esq., Advocacy Attorney, Paralyzed Veterans of America

Frederick Isler, Assistant Staff Director, Office of Civil Rights Education, U.S. Commission on 

 Civil Rights

Kleo J. King, Esq., Program Counsel, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association

Scott Marshall, American Federation of the Blind

Maureen McCloskey, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, Paralyzed Veterans of 

America

Sharon G. Miller, Esq.

Douglas Parker, Esq., Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown University Law Center

Albert H. Prest, Vice President Operations, Air Transport Association of America

Jim Weisman, Esq., Program Counsel, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association

Ronald J. Welding, Director, Operations Standards, Air Transport Association of America

Nadja Zalokar, Ph.D., Senior Economist, Office of Civil Rights Education, U.S. Commission on 

 Civil Rights