[Journalists] Advance Text Next Column

[GL Norman]

The below should be the genesis of my next column at the legal newspaper here in Md. I am sure they will at least slightly revise the below. It should "run" next week.

Fight for Your Right to Party, or at Least to eat bad Peanuts at 30,000 feet

By: Gary C. Norman, J.D.

I recently rewatched the movie Meet the Fockers, reflecting upon the protagonists mishaps with airline travel. As Americans, including those with disabilities who pay taxes, we recently subsidized the survival of the airlines as these private public entities cried post pandemic woe. One should easily forecast his struggle, if he had been a person, who works with a service animal, wanting to fly and enjoy foul snacks at thirty thousand feet.
The U.S. Department of Transportation promulgated a Final Rule, in December 2020, that has its pros but more so many cons for independent travel by service animal handlers. The Final Rule does arguably not address the longstanding inaccessibility, even biased situations encountered by people with disabilities or the non-disabled public with some sort of temporary medical problem who have dealt with rude, unhelpful, TSA agents.
The Final Rule aligns the definition of a service animal that can board an aircraft with the amended U.S. Department of Justice ADA regulations of 2010. The Final Rule defines service animals as Only including dogs Individually trained to perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability. This excludes all non-tasked animals, including, service animals in training. Therefore, Emotional Support Dogs will no longer receive the same kind of access as they once did. When transitioning from my second to third guide dogs, I encountered a plethora of random dog related distractions at airports because of emotional support dogs flying on airlines. The Final Rule prohibits airlines from refusing to transport a service animal solely on the basis of its breed.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has implemented a new PDF form, not unsurprisingly punting the ultimate usability of the form on the airlines. As a dog handler, I may be required to complete a form forty-eight hours in advance of my flight attesting as to behavior and training of my furry sidekick. Allegedly, under the Final Rule, there is a "grace period," if I need to book a flight before this timeframe. Yet the incorporation of this new form seems to differ across airlines, requiring a uniform, but accessible and usable approach that does not exist. Airlines may arguably be inclined simply to alleged that a form is accessible by whatever standard they are told they meet without actually having a form blind or visually impaired people can complete. That is the difference among accessibility and usability.
The PDF form allegedly meets international standards for web accessibility. Yet an engineer who invented electronic books, and who happens to be blind, even struggled with the inane paperwork. To the extent the PDF form could be more accessible or usable; this will be the role of airlines, who are not equipped to deal with this issue uniformly. Our policymakers should not negatively disadvantage private-public sector entities, such as airlines, in a way that widens disparities in our society.
Does a mishap with a dog mean I am banished to airline "jail" if I suffer a stomach problem or if Bowie somehow falls ill due to no fault of his own or training? One may easily forecast what will happen if a service animal team encounters an unhappy airline worker, who felt empowered under this Final Rule. Specifically, travelers with service animals must acknowledge - without choice -- that if the animal demonstrates behavior showing it "has not been properly trained to behave in public," it will be treated as a pet and subject to fees and other pet requirements. A service animal handler must also attest that their sidekick can sustain a flight that is more than eight hours without having an accident. Then again, if one has ever tried to utilize the toilet on an aircraft, how many of us can "hold it" on flights longer than eight hours? Well to answer my reflective query, I have encountered more than my proportional share of discriminatory behavior by members at various levels of the air industry. Once, when my wife and I awaited on a connecting flight, my second guide dog vomited at the airport gate. While we cleaned this accident, one speculates an empowered gate officer and their reaction. Certainly, the Final Rule provides no due process or other forms of appeals for the handler of service animals.
This Final Rule serves as a cautionary tale as to the regulatory process and individual rights. Language may exist deep within regulatory promulgations requiring the public to be vigilant in their reading.

Reasonable: A reasonable statement in the Final Rule indicated that a passenger, including a person with a disability and their "large service animal," is only entitled to that space they purchase.
Troubling: A service animal handler could always avail the option of purchasing an additional seat for their "large service animal" when booking a flight.
In sum, take heed. Turbulence in the air travel of service animal handlers will be ahead for that basic freedom so many non-disabled Americans enjoy. Hopping an airplane with skimpy and old snacks and lackluster wine.