There's long been a rule that disabled people can't sit in escape rows, because they'd potentially block the escape, and this is fair concern for the safety of other passengers. And I can see this being extended legitimately to aisle seats, which would block the escape of other passengers. Is Air France really trying to say that this is the first time they have ever encountered the needs of people affected by thalidomide? That group of people are now in their forties. Many of them are parents, most of them play a full part in society. The airline should have been prepared for such a situation and trained its staff accordingly. And the problem isn't exactly insoluble - what's wrong with seating this woman by a window, where she's not in anyone's way? And why couldn't they simply ask her to sign a waiver (no lame remarks about "no arms" please) with respect to reasonable assistance in an emergency? :m: Peace.
I'll be honest: every time I look at this topic I get a picture of Todd Flanders stuck in my head: "I'm a torso!" (The Simpsons, #5F06) I'll try again when the visual echo goes away.
"Last night ... Lois was the man!" Okay, okay. Now that I'm done being silly about this ... wait, no, I'm not. Part of the problem is they just showed the Freak Strike episode of South Park, which actually helps explain the problem I'm having. There's a line in there when the police go to break the freaks' picket line: "It's not that we think your union isn't important. It's just ... you're not people." Or some such. "Thalidomiders are banned, accept it - you're just a torso," is pretty much the same thing. It's just that if I had the chance to stand before the person who said that, it would probably look like something out of a comedy, maybe Family Guy. I would just shake my head and try to scold the person, and no words would come out, and after a moment I would just pick up a baseball bat and courteously stoop to his or her level in order to make the point clear. So every time I think about it, something cycles me back to cartoons. Todd Flanders. Stewie Griffin. Leopold Stotch. It's so absurdly wrong that I feel like I'm stuck in a television comedy when I think about it.
Air travel is more than just a service, it's an activity. It requires a specific kind of participation, and that participation requires limbs. When people are disabled, there are some things they just can't do. Certain actions are required as part of riding on an airplane, and if you don't have limbs, you simply can't do the things that are a part of air travel. Thus, people without limbs shouldn't fly for the same reason they shouldn't skateboard. Thalidomiders are a risk to other passengers on the plane, and the airline was right to ban them for the safety of everybody else. As far as not being allowed to fly, the airline cannot be expected to individually accommodate every individual's situation -- they deal with huge number of passengers, and as a result a certain level of passenger activity is required. If she can't do it, she can't do it. If she can, but only with assistance or special accommodations, she should, as with any other activity, have to cope with the cost of that assistance (and the overhead of arranging it in advance). Beyond the potential loss of this single passenger, it is not (or shouldn't be) the airline's problem if a person is not in a physical condition to participate in this activity. The airline employee's comment, while it seems harsh, sounds like the last line of a long argument. I'd like to hear exactly what Ms. Price said to provoke that response. After a long enough argument, the employee has to say something to get across the message "No, and that isn't going to change."
