So, at this point what does it take? Before you fly, do you need to go to a federal court and get an order to be allowed to board and take your flight, and bring a couple US Marshals to the gate with you for enforcement? Would air crew still insist that they possess an absolute authority taking precedence over it? Could the pilot be arrested and dragged off for contempt?
When people defend airline crew making up policies on the spur of the moment with "well, you have to comply, nothing bad happens until you don't comply", do they think about the extremes they're going to push people to sooner or later? Or does this kind of stuff just not enter their minds?
I suspect this violates one or another aspect of the ADA. Especially as the OP followed the carrier's and the TSA's instructions and was given (verbal, but apparently authoritative) approval in advance.
If we had an Administration actually interested in these things: A first step would be to require the carrier to transmit written, authoritatively-signed approval in advance for all such accommodations granted. Yes, this will cost them something. At this point, let them eat that cost. If it were possible, I'd require them to create a separate accounting bucket for such expenses that can only be charged against gross profit and, to the best extent possible, cannot be charged back to ticket prices and therefore other customers' fares.
If their institution is so fucked up that they cannot properly and accurately accommodate legally-mandated behavior, then they should pay for this -- out of their own pocket, not the customers'.
This is a case where "hit them in the pocket" is quite appropriate. And, maybe it will have to come out of customers' pockets, ultimately. I see it as akin to Walmart, where the workforce is only sustainable because of substantial government program payouts -- tax dollars -- that subsidize it.
If United, et al.'s making money requires this level of disfunctional organization, then they need to find a better business model.
> We don’t even allow Samsung phones, we definitely won’t allow that.
This is pure gibberish to me: what does a policy on Samsung phones have anything at all to do with Segways?
Is it just me or does those post read like an advertisement for the cruise and the segway-like device?
For someone complaining, the post goes on and on into the minutiae of features!! Suspicious
OP from Medium should sue airline pilot for ADA Violations.
OP from Medium should name and shame the fools that caused this problem.
The ghost of continental strikes again
I have to say, a company has to try really hard to somehow come out worse than the TSA in a customer dissatisfaction story.
The customer does research online and contacts both United and the TSA to get pre-approval of bringing the device onboard.
At the airport, the TSA allowed it through their checkpoint. But he gets stopped at the gate because his itinerary actually reads: "passenger was advised he would NOT be allowed to board with device, and the device will not have to be checked, provided he can place device in overhead without crew assistance. Transferred passenger to TSA for clearance of device through security." As the author noted, one could read the itinerary note and work through the logic to recognize that it was likely a typo.
Now, I can understand the gate agent being somewhat skeptical. After all, he deals with dozens of cases each day and doesn't have all the context of every situation so he probably falls back on past decisions to deny approval. So the author gets United's Special Needs Services on the phone to reaffirm that the device was fine and that he should be let on. The gate agent delegates to the manager. Again, without full context, the manager simply assumes the item can't be brought on despite what was mentioned by Special Needs Services.
So in hopes of getting the answer he wanted, the manager contacts the TSA, and the TSA representative says device is perfectly fine. At this point, anyone could think to themselves, "okay those are two authorities who give the green light. I think that's perfectly fine."
But no! The manager then elevates it to the authority of the pilot, who acts all polite in person but then eventually communicates that he won't allow the device onboard. Manager gets the verdict he desires and the author is screwed.
First of, I would imagine that a special needs representative is far more adept at know which electronic devices would be safe onboard a vehicle than a pilot who is probably unlikely to know about every single new assistive device out there. But even if that were not 100% true, I think getting approval from the first two sources should've been good enough.
Secondly, life is already really hard for those with physical disabilities. Especially when traveling, where there's a lot of stress on top of the unpredictabilities of the environment. So to be humiliated and endure additional physical pain for spurious reasons is quite inhumane, even for an airline.
Third, before the topic gets onto the economics of airlines (as it always gets to when it comes to customer experiences), I'd like to underline that the manager literally had to go out of his way to find a reason to deny the special needs of this individual. This isn't a case where the manager had to make a quick decision and had go with previous experiences, this is a person who disregarded explicit approvals from other agencies in order to validate their own belief.
I think he was discriminated against because he was gay.
Given how well United handles anything (or Republic for that matter) soon you will be required to beg for mercy before boarding. Why would anyone in their right mind fly United any more? An airline with no clue about customer service whatsoever, nor for that matter even following their own procedures. If the TSA and your own airline department in charge of such things says its OK you really don't have a leg to stand on when you get sued. Much less the court of public opinion.