2012-4-15

 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

On the Thirteenth day of April, 2012

Frontier Airlines, Inc. Docket OST 2012-0002

Violations of 49 U.S.C. §§ 41705 and 41712

and 14 CFR Part 382 Served April 13, 2012

CONSENT ORDER

This order concerns violations by Frontier Airlines, Inc., (Frontier) of the requirements of 

14 CFR Part 382 (Part 382), the Department of Transportation’s (Department) regulation 

implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. § 41705, with respect to its 

transportation of an individual with a disability (Mr. M1

). Violations of Part 382 also 

violate the ACAA, and violations of the ACAA and Part 382 also constitute an unfair and 

deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. This order directs Frontier to cease 

and desist from future violations of Part 382 and the ACAA and assesses the carrier 

$50,000 in civil penalties.

BACKGROUND

The investigation by the Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

(Enforcement Office) into Frontier’s compliance with Part 382 and the ACAA with 

respect to its transportation of Mr. M began when a denied boarding incident occurred on 

June 19, 2011, at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. 

Mr. M is a quadriplegic who has no use of his arms, legs, and torso. Due to his disability, 

Mr. M is unable to sit upright in an aircraft seat without appropriate support and restraint. 

In June 2009, Mr. M traveled roundtrip on Frontier flights between Denver, Colorado, 

and Chicago, Illinois. The Enforcement Office found that, after Mr. M boarded the 

outbound flight, Frontier staff provided him with three seatbelt extenders that he used to 

 

1 Identification of the individual involved in this incident is unnecessary for purpose of this consent 

order and is withheld for privacy reasons. 

 
2

 

keep his body in an upright position. The Enforcement Office further found that, on his 

return trip from Chicago to Denver, Mr. M requested seatbelt extenders from Frontier 

staff in order to secure himself in the same way he did on his outbound flight, and a 

Frontier flight attendant complied. 

In April 2011, Mr. M made roundtrip reservations to travel on a Frontier flight between 

Denver and Dallas, Texas, departing on June 17, 2011, and returning on June 19, 2011. 

Mr. M’s mother, who was accompanying Mr. M on this trip, informed Frontier that Mr. 

M needed Frontier’s “Meet And Assist” service, which included assistance by Frontier 

attendants within the airport terminals as well as during boarding and deplaning. On June 

17, 2011, Mr. M was assisted by Frontier attendants through the security checkpoint at 

Denver airport and to the boarding gate area. He was the first to board the aircraft with 

the assistance of two Frontier attendants, who were necessary to jointly lift Mr. M from 

his personal wheelchair to an aisle chair and, once onboard the aircraft, from the aisle 

chair to his aircraft seat. After being seated, Mr. M again requested three seatbelt 

extenders to secure himself in an upright position in his seat, and a Frontier flight 

attendant complied. 

On June 19, 2011, Mr. M and three members of his traveling party arrived at the Dallas 

airport to take Frontier flight 227 to return to Denver. Mr. M was assisted by one 

Frontier attendant through the security checkpoint and arrived at the boarding gate area 

approximately two hours before the scheduled departure time. The attendant then left the 

gate area. Mr. M’s mother approached the Frontier gate agents multiple times to notify 

them that Mr. M required pre-boarding and the boarding assistance of two attendants and 

an aisle chair. Frontier's gate agents paged Frontier’s third-party service vendor for 

wheelchair assistance. Approximately 30 minutes before the scheduled departure time, 

the Frontier gate agents announced pre-boarding for Frontier mileage program elite 

members, passengers traveling with young children, and passengers who needed extra 

time to board. However, no wheelchair attendants were provided to pre-board Mr. M and 

Frontier’s gate agent began boarding other passengers. After nearly all the passengers 

had boarded the aircraft, a Frontier employee came to assist Mr. M, stating that, while he 

was handling baggage on that day, he was called upon to assist Mr. M because the 

Frontier-contracted attendants failed to respond to page calls. This Frontier employee 

transported Mr. M down the jetway in Mr. M’s personal wheelchair. When it was time to 

transfer Mr. M from his wheelchair to a Frontier-provided aisle chair, this employee was 

physically assisted by Mr. M’s mother and a family friend. The aisle chair used for 

transporting Mr. M also did not have an adequate occupant restraint system and was 

missing one workable restraint strap. Once on board, the Frontier employee, with the 

assistance of Mr. M’s mother and the family friend, transferred Mr. M from the aisle 

chair to his aircraft seat. 

After Mr. M was seated, Mr. M’s mother asked a Frontier flight attendant for seatbelt 

extenders to use as restraint devices for his upper body. After consulting Frontier’s 

Flight Attendant Manual (FAM) approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

and other flight attendants about the legality of using seatbelt extenders to secure Mr. M 

to the back of the seat, the flight attendant informed the captain of Mr. M’s request. After 
3

 

the captain consulted Frontier’s Chief Pilot and other senior officials, he determined that 

the seatbelt extender method of restraint as used by Mr. M during his previous trips did 

not comply with the safety requirements of the FAA and Frontier’s FAA-approved FAM. 

Because Mr. M was unable to sit upright during taxi, takeoff and landing and did not 

have an acceptable alternative device to support him, the captain ordered that Mr. M be 

removed from Frontier flight 227. Two Frontier customer service agents provided the 

deplaning assistance with an aisle chair that was missing restraints to properly secure Mr. 

M. As a result when Mr. M was transferred down the aisle, he fell onto a passenger 

sitting in an aisle seat. In addition, Mr. M’s hand was caught between the aisle chair and 

that seat and one of his shoes fell off. Mr. M and the rest of his traveling party were 

accommodated on the next available Frontier flight back to Denver, and once again Mr. 

M was allowed by Frontier to use the seatbelt extenders as a restraint device 

notwithstanding that this method was not approved by the FAA.

APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF 14 CFR PART 382

The ACAA and Part 382 prohibit discrimination in the provision of air transportation 

against qualified individuals with disabilities. Of the numerous provisions contained in 

Part 382, there are three sections of the rule that are relevant to this case. These sections 

address situations in which carriers must provide flight-related information to qualified 

individuals with a disability, must offer pre-boarding to passengers with a disability and 

must provide boarding and deplaning assistance including adequate personnel and 

functional equipment.

Pursuant to 14 CFR 382.41(c), any passenger who states that he or she uses a wheelchair 

for boarding must be provided with any aircraft-related, service-related or other 

limitations on the carrier’s ability to accommodate passengers with a disability even if the 

passenger does not explicitly request the information. 

Section 382.93 requires that carriers must offer pre-boarding to passengers with a 

disability who self-identify at the gate as needing additional time or assistance to board or 

to be seated. 

Under section 382.95(a), carriers must promptly provide or ensure the provision of 

assistance requested by or on behalf of passengers with a disability in boarding and 

deplaning. The assistance must include, as needed, the services of personnel and the use 

of ground wheelchairs, boarding wheelchairs, and/or on-board wheelchairs. 

ANALYSIS

Mr. M has severe mobility impairments that substantially limit major life activities such 

as walking and sitting upright without support. Frontier received multiple advance 

notices of Mr. M’s status as a qualified person with a disability and his need for 

assistance prior to his June 19, 2011, flight. Frontier entered records in its reservation 
4

 

system noting that Mr. M requires “Meet And Assist” service including assistance in 

lifting him out of his personal wheelchair and into his aircraft seat. Frontier was 

informed again of Mr. M’s specific requirements by his mother over the telephone, at the 

airport check-in counter, and at the gate area. 

After investigating the incident, the Enforcement Office determined that Frontier violated 

section 382.41(c) by failing to inform Mr. M, on at least three occasions, of the carrier’s 

limitations in accommodating his disability. In June 2009, Frontier allowed Mr. M to use 

the seatbelt extender strapping method to secure his body in an upright position. Then, 

later that same month and again on June 17, 2011, Frontier’s crew permitted Mr. M to 

use this same method to secure himself despite this method not being approved by the 

FAA. As a result of Frontier’s accommodation of Mr. M’s disability on prior flights, 

particularly the outbound flight on June 17, 2011, Mr. M was unprepared with an 

alternative restraint method when, on June 19, 2011, Frontier disapproved the restraint 

method that he was allowed to use on previous flights, including his outbound flight, 

resulting in his embarrassment and eventual removal from flight 227. 

Frontier also violated sections 382.93 and 382.95 by failing to provide pre-boarding and 

adequate enplaning assistance to Mr. M on June 19, 2011. Mr. M’s numerous requests to 

pre-board were unsuccessful, and Mr. M was forced to wait until virtually all of the other 

passengers had boarded. It appears that Frontier’s failure to pre-board Mr. M was a result 

of its wheelchair assistance vendor failing to respond to Frontier’s call for service. 

Pursuant to 14 CFR 382.15, Frontier is responsible for ensuring that its contractors 

providing services to the public meet the requirements of Part 382. Frontier was 

ultimately able to obtain two of its own disability-trained employees (one of whom was 

working at baggage handling that day) to assist Mr. M but that assistance, the 

Enforcement Office found, was inadequate as evidenced by the fact that individuals 

traveling with Mr. M had to be asked to participate in the lifting of Mr. M to ensure the 

safety of the transfer. Furthermore, by providing enplaning and deplaning assistance to 

Mr. M with malfunctioning aisle chairs, Frontier also violated section 382.95. The first 

aisle chair that Frontier used to enplane Mr. M had its left shoulder strap completely 

detached from the chair. The second aisle chair that Frontier used to deplane Mr. M also 

had multiple straps missing. Due to the lack of proper restraint on the chair, Mr. M fell 

onto another passenger and was subject to further embarrassment and endangerment. 

MITIGATION

In mitigation, Frontier states that it takes its responsibilities to its customers with 

disabilities very seriously. It also maintains that the above description is not consistent 

with the company’s own investigation of the matter. For example, Frontier states that it 

interviewed the flight attendants on the June 2009 flights and that they do not recall 

permitting Mr. M to use seatbelt extenders and would not have authorized him to use 

them for support purposes. 

Frontier states that the Department is not alleging that it discriminated on the basis of Mr. 

M’s disability, because Frontier’s refusal to transport Mr. M was authorized under 
5

 

Section 382.19 based on the captain’s determination that transporting Mr. M would be 

inimical to safety and would violate the Federal Aviation Regulations and Frontier’s 

FAA-approved Flight Attendant Manual.

In terms of pre-boarding assistance, Frontier states that it timely and continuously called 

its third-party provider of wheelchair services in order to assist with Mr. M, but the 

vendor failed to respond to Frontier’s calls. In terms of boarding assistance, Frontier 

maintains that two properly trained and experienced Frontier employees assisted Mr. M 

with boarding. 

Frontier further states that it has a solid and respectable record regarding assistance to 

passengers with disabilities. Frontier points out that it has received accolades over the 

years from passengers, politicians, regulators, non-profits, and hospitals for its 

exceptional efforts on behalf of travelers with disabilities. Frontier states that it has also 

engaged in substantial outreach efforts as well, such as permitting Craig Hospital to use 

Frontier’s facilities and an aircraft mock-up to provide patients and their families with 

hands-on practice for, and details about, aisle chair transfers, boarding, onboard weight 

shifts, and take-off/landing procedures; donating equipment that Craig Hospital uses in its 

on-site version of this “mock-up”; launching and maintaining an email hotline (advertised 

via its website and by reservations representatives) to provide one-on-one service for 

people with disabilities; providing cargo transportation, without charge, for a number of 

customers with assistive devices being donated to hospitals and/or new owners; training 

and supporting its Scout organization, a group of 180 dedicated Frontier employees at the 

Denver airport whose sole purpose is to provide accommodations for passengers with 

special needs; and hosting a simulated flight for children with autism, so that the children 

and their families could have a “dress rehearsal” to prepare them for future travel.

Finally, Frontier has agreed to settle this matter without admitting to violations to avoid 

the burden and expense of litigation. Frontier believes that the interests of Frontier and 

the Department are better served through settlement of this matter.

DECISION

After carefully considering all the known facts in this case, including those set forth 

above by Frontier, we believe that enforcement action is warranted. 

In order to avoid litigation, Frontier has agreed to settle this matter with the Enforcement 

Office and enter into this consent order to cease and desist from future similar violations 

of 14 CFR Part 382 and 49 U.S.C. §§ 41705 and 41712. This order directs Frontier to 

cease and desist from similar violations in the future and assesses a civil penalty of 

$50,000. This assessment is appropriate considering the nature of the violation described 

herein and serves the public interest. It establishes a strong deterrence to future similar 

unlawful practices by Frontier and other carriers.
6

 

This order is issued under the authority contained in 49 CFR 1.57a and 14 CFR 385.15.

ACCORDINGLY, 

1. Based on the above discussion, we approve this settlement and the provisions of 

this order as being in the public interest;

2. We find that Frontier Airlines, Inc., violated 14 CFR 382.41(c) by failing to 

provide information regarding any aircraft-related, service-related or other 

limitations on its ability to accommodate a passenger with a disability;

3. We find that Frontier Airlines, Inc., violated 14 CFR 382.93 by failing to offer 

pre-boarding to a passenger with a disability who self-identified as needing 

additional time or assistance to board the aircraft and to be seated;

4. We find that Frontier Airlines, Inc., violated 14 CFR 382.95 by failing to provide 

prompt and adequate assistance requested by a passenger with a disability in 

enplaning and deplaning;

5. We find that in the instances described in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, Frontier 

Airlines, Inc., violated the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41705, and 49 

U.S.C. § 41712; 

6. We order Frontier Airlines, Inc., and its successors and assignees to cease and 

desist from further violations of 14 CFR Part 382 and 49 U.S.C. §§ 41705 and 

41712, as described above; 

7. Frontier Airlines, Inc., is assessed $50,000 in compromise of civil penalties that 

might otherwise be assessed for the violations found in paragraphs 2 through 5 of 

this order. This shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date of the 

issuance of this order. Failure to pay the penalty as ordered shall also subject 

Frontier Airlines, Inc., to the assessment of interest, penalty, and collection 

charges under the Debt Collection Act; and

8. Payment shall be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve 

Communication System, commonly known as “Fed Wire,” to the account of the 

U.S. Treasury in accordance with the attached instructions.
7

 

9. This order will become a final order of the Department 10 days after its service 

date unless a timely petition for review is filed or the Department takes review on 

its own motion.

BY:

ROSALIND A. KNAPP

Deputy General Counsel

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at

www.regulations.gov