[Travelandtourism] Air Travel and the Blind from the Aug/Sept 1985 Braille Monitor

Wed Jul 31 20:57:16 UTC 2013

just did

Disabled Entrepreneur of the Year 2012 of NY StateLeading the Way in Independent Travel!
Cheryl Echevarria, Ownerhttp://www.echevarriatravel.com631-456-5394reservations@echevarriatravel.comhttp://www.echevarriatravel.wordpress.com
Affiliated as an independent contractor with Montrose TravelCST - #1018299-10 FL CST T156780Your old car keys can be the keys to literacy for a blind child.  Donate your unwanted vehicle to us by clicking https://nfb.org/vehicledonations or call 855-659-9314.Echevarria Travel has partnered with Braille Smith. http://www.braillesmith.com for all her braille needs.Gail Smith is the Secretary of the NFB of Alabama

> From: margo.downey at verizon.net
> To: travelandtourism at nfbnet.org
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:52:49 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Travelandtourism] Air Travel and the Blind from the Aug/Sept	1985	Braille Monitor
> 
> Cheryl, forward this to Andrea so she knows history repeats itself.  Now you
> know, don't you?  I kind of shuddered when I read this story. Thanks for
> finding it and putting it out there.  
> 
> Margo and Arrow
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Travelandtourism [mailto:travelandtourism-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of cheryl echevarria
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:41 PM
> To: travelandtourism
> Subject: [Travelandtourism] Air Travel and the Blind from the Aug/Sept 1985
> Braille Monitor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello all with the issues we have recently posted on the list, and the
> e-mail that I sent through David Andrews. These are not the first instances
> of Southwest and United doing this stuff.
> Also the Travel Survey from the National Office will be send out once again
> starting tomorrow August 1, 2013 on the Imagineering Our Future e-mail. This
> is also the e-mail that comes from Mark Riccobono. I would ask that all of
> you whether or not you had any issues with your travels to the National
> Convention, please fill it out.
> Thank you very much.
> 
> I was talking with Margo Downey, who is not only the Secretary of this
> Division, but hold many positions within the NFB such as Board Member of
> NAGDU - National Association of Guide Dog Users, President of the NY Chapter
> of NYAGDU, she is also with the Seniors Division and many other areas of the
> NFB.
> Who has experienced other forms of harassment from Southwest back in 1985 on
> her way to National Convention.
> This story is from the Aug/September Braille Monitor from 1985 that is  28
> years ago, and these airlines still do this to us.
> Is it uncaring, not educated, etc.
> Here is the story.
> Your sister in the NFB
> Cheryl Echevarria, PresidentNFB Travel and Tourism
> Division631-236-5138www.nfbtravel.orginfo at nfbtravel.org
> Air Travel and the BlindAn Address Delivered by Marc MaurerAt the Convention
> of the National Federation of the Blind Louisville, Kentucky, July 3, 1985
> Within the past year two blind people, Judy Sanders and Russell Anderson,
> have been arrested on airplanes. Neither of them was causing a disturbance,
> and neither of them was intoxicated. Their only offense was that in the
> random seat selection process they had taken seats in emergency exit
> rows--and that they are blind.	When airline officials demanded that they
> move and accept different seats (something not required of others), they
> refused.
> This year the incidents leading to arrest involved exit row seating. In
> years past, as the blind of the nation know, the reasons trotted out by the
> airlines have been different. Sometimes the blind have been removed from
> planes because they would not give up their canes. Sometimes arrest has come
> because blind people with dog guides would not submit to segregated seating
> in the bulkhead row. The reasons put forward by the airlines for their
> treatment of the blind have changed, but the pattern of intimidation has
> not. The blind want the same freedom that others have--to travel without
> restriction, without hindrance, without embarrassment, without
> confrontation, and without discrimination. It has been inordinately
> difficult to achieve this eminently simple and reasonable wish.
> Whenever a restriction is placed upon the blind or whenever a special rule
> is created for the ostensible benefit of blind passengers, there is always a
> predictable rationale advanced by the airlines. It is not, the airlines tell
> us, discrimination or segregation--it is only a matter of "safety." The
> Federal Aviation Administration (the FAA) is charged with creating safety
> rules for the airlines. Several years ago the FAA tried to write rules for
> the handicapped through the governmental rulemaking process, subject to
> public scrutiny and the safeguards of due process. Apparently the FAA
> couldn't make such rules. Instead, it adopted a regulation at 15 CFR
> 121.586, which turned this function over to the airlines. This regulation,
> published under the revealing title: "Authority to Refuse Transportation,"
> states that an air carrier may not deny transportation to the handicapped--
> unless the airline has previously adopted a rule which authorizes the
> denial. Predictably, the airlines  responded by making of this "carrying the
> blind" passenger mysterious and complex.
> The airlines wrote restrictive policies and sent them to the FAA. The FAA
> approved the policies and sent them back. Then, the airline tells its blind
> passengers that it (the airline) is required to take certain steps and
> required to impose certain restrictions, because this is in accordance with
> FAA regulations. It has become tiresomely familiar to the blind that both
> the airlines and the FAA attempt to dodge responsibility for the restrictive
> and discriminatory rules which are practiced against the blind. The FAA says
> that there are no federal regulations restricting the carriage of the blind.
> However, airline policies approved by the FAA include such practices as
> required preboarding, required seating in bulkhead row seats, required
> seating only in window seats, required seating in the rear of the aircraft,
> required postboarding, and exclusion from emergency exit row seats. The
> airlines say that the Federal Aviation Administration required them to adopt
> rules for carrying blind  passengers, and the Federal Aviation
> Administration approved the rules they adopted--and it's only a matter of
> safety.
> These rules are adopted despite the complete lack of evidence substantiating
> the claims of airline officials. There has never been an incident in which a
> blind person contributed to an injury on a plane or delayed an evacuation.
> The basic assumption upon which these rules are based is completely
> erroneous. All of the available evidence shows that blind people handle
> themselves in emergency evacuations as well as sighted people do.
> These cases involving arrest of blind people are the most egregious, but
> there are dozens of others. People Express Airlines, one of the carriers
> which insisted that blind people be arrested, told Mary Ellen Reihing that
> she could be seated only in a window seat. People Express made it clear. By
> placing blind people in the window seat, they will always be the last to
> evacuate in an emergency. This makes it safer for the sighted.
> Then, there is Southwest Airlines. Because Southwest wants to insure that
> blind passengers are seated in the proper place, it has adopted a policy
> which requires blind people to board ahead of other passengers. They said it
> was simply a matter of following Federal Aviation Administration
> regulations. In order to keep aisleways clear, they said they must board
> blind people before everyone else. Do they really mean it? Would any airline
> adopt, let alone enforce, such a regulation? Can the time of boarding really
> have anything to do with safety? The airline made its answer in an incident
> which occurred to Margo Downey and Harvey Heagy less than a year ago.
> Southwest Airlines requested that they preboard, and they declined. Margo,
> who uses a dog, and Harvey, who carries a cane, told Southwest that they
> would board with the other passengers. When it came time for the passengers
> to board, Margo and Harvey were forcibly prevented from stepping onto the
> jetway. Southwest told them that  Southwest policies required preboarding.
> Failure to preboard meant that they could not fly. And, again, it is only a
> matter of "safety."
> If a plane crashes, survival may depend very largely upon the speed of the
> evacuation. If there is fire inside the cabin, seconds count. Blind people
> are kept out of emergency evacuation rows, because the airlines say that the
> blind will slow down the evacuation. If the assumption is true, then the
> rule is reasonable. If the assumption is false, then the rule is
> discrimination. What is the basis for the assumption?
> Until April 3, 1985, no empirical data had been gathered about the capacity
> of the blind to evacuate aircraft. The airlines and the FAA conducted
> certain tests to see if blind people could evacuate safely. In these tests,
> were there any blind people? No. Blind people were not evacuated, because
> they might be injured. Instead, simulated blind people were used. The bias,
> which assumes that the blind are less competent than the sighted, is so much
> a part of airline thinking that even when the tests were conducted to
> determine the capacity of the blind, a disadvantage was built in. The
> officials conducting these evacuations conducted the tests in such a way
> that they guaranteed poor results. No person can be blindfolded for a moment
> or an hour and expect to possess the skills of the ordinary blind person. It
> is true that the ordinary blind person can do the ordinary job in the
> ordinary place of business as well as his or her sighted neighbor if he or
> she has training and opportunity.
>  However, a blind person who has become blind just ten minutes ago has no
> training, no understanding, and no experience with blindness. Such a person
> is very likely to regard blindness as synonymous with helplessness. It is as
> reasonable to think that a blindfold will teach the skills of blindness as
> it is to think that a pilot's uniform will teach the skills of flying.
> On April 3, 1985, an event occurred which demonstrates the capacity of blind
> people to handle themselves in an evacuation. Thirty people, twenty of them
> blind, went to the Baltimore-Washington International Airport and boarded a
> DC10. These people went through an evacuation. When this evacuation was
> complete, the demonstration was made. Blind people handle an evacuation in
> the same way sighted people do. There was the same amount of nervousness and
> anxiety, the same willingness to help, the same desire to get it right, and
> the same characteristics of physical coordination and athletics that are
> shown in the population at large. One airline official who observed the
> evacuation remarked that it appeared to be the same as all others. Blind
> people are not slower, less capable of handling themselves, or a greater
> danger than others. This is what the demonstration taught.
> But it taught something else. The problem with the demonstration was not
> with the blind but with the sighted airline officials. Those airline
> officials, who had charge of the DC-10, told blind people that the
> evacuation would be conducted in exactly the same way that the evacuation
> would have been conducted if only sighted people were involved. However,
> when the actual evacuation got under way, this was simply not the case.
> Sighted airline officials attempted to help blind people more than they
> would have helped the sighted. They got in the way. Blind people were
> prevented from reaching the exit, because (in their attempts to help)
> airline officials blocked the space. Although the evacuation time for the
> blind was good, it could have been better still. By getting in the way and
> offering more help than was necessary, the airline officials slowed the
> evacuation and prevented the participants from getting out as fast as they
> would have without interference. In other words, the age-old  stereotype of
> blindness prevented this demonstration from being an accurate measure of the
> capabilities of blind people to evacuate from a plane. Even when these
> airline officials sought to have a completely objective demonstration of the
> capabilities of blind people in exiting, their prejudices about the
> abilities of the blind betrayed them. The members of the National Federation
> of the Blind who participated in this evacuation did well. The airline
> officials, who brought their prejudices with them, did not. Most of the
> arguments which are made can be characterized as idiotic.
> Blind people will not block an emergency exit or have more trouble than
> sighted people. The blind, after all, are not wider than the sighted.
> However, there is one argument which has some superficial appeal. It is
> this: If a blind person were seated in an emergency exit row, and if the
> plane went down, and if there were fire or smoke outside the emergency exit,
> a blind person might not know this. That blind person might open the
> emergency exit, permitting smoke or fire to enter the cabin. This would
> increase the danger to the passengers inside. According to airline
> officials, an emergency exit was once opened when there was smoke or fire on
> the wing outside. The exit was opened by a sighted person.
> If a blind person is seated in an emergency exit row and if there is an
> emergency, there are circumstances in which blindness would be an advantage.
> At least half of the time it is night. Planes fly whether it is dark or
> light. If it is dark or there is smoke inside the cabin, the blind person
> will be able to handle the emergency better than a sighted person.
> It is reported that there will be smoke inside the cabin in approximately
> fifteen percent of the emergency situations requiring evacuation. The danger
> to passengers has been greatly increased because they were unable to see in
> the smoke. Despite the fact that blind people are far more capable of
> working competently in darkness than the sighted, the airlines persist in
> saying that the blind may not sit in emergency exit rows--and it is only a
> matter of safety.
> Of course, this misses the whole point. The airlines' protestations that
> this is simply a matter of "safety" are not true. Safety is not the prime
> concern of the airlines. Of more importance to them are their profits and
> their status. They want a glowing image in the mind of the public, and they
> want to make money. If the airlines were really concerned with safety, they
> would not sell liquor to passengers in emergency exit row seats.
> Jeff and Zena Pearcy are blind people from Texas. Within the last year they
> boarded a plane and sat in an emergency exit row. Airline officials came and
> told them they must move from their seats. They refused. After considerable
> discussion, the airline officials backed down, and Jeff and Zena Pearcy
> remained in their emergency exit row seats. They were seated in the aisle
> and the middle seats of the emergency exit row. A sighted man sat in the
> window seat. He had been drinking heavily. Indeed, he had drunk so much that
> he had lost consciousness and could not be roused. In fact, this sighted man
> slept through his stop. He continued on the flight to another city, although
> he had no wish to go there and although he had no ticket. This man,
> insensible with drink and immediately next to the emergency exit, was not
> told to move. The Pearcys, because of their blindness, were instructed that
> they must move.
> It is not a matter of safety. It is something much worse and much uglier. It
> is the old need to assert superiority and strive for status. The drinking
> public cannot be dominated. There are too many people who drink. There are
> not as many blind people. Perhaps, in the minds of airline officials, they
> think it is easier to dominate us. The question remains: What shall the
> blind do? We have written to the airlines, we have discussed this problem
> over and ever again. We have faced harassment and belittlement. There has
> been confrontation. Some of us have been arrested. There are several
> lawsuits pending. We have talked about shutting down an airline. We had a
> demonstration at Washington National Airport against V.S. Air. U.S. Air
> flies to Louisville, where this convention is being held. It would be no
> problem to bring the force of the Federation to bear against this airline.
> When Russell Anderson was arrested, a suit was brought against U.S. Air. In
> responding to some of the papers, U.S. Air said: "This whole business was a
> pretext for publicity over a trivial incident." This demonstrates the
> mammoth misunderstanding of the airlines.
> When the independence of the blind is seized, and when control of the lives
> of blind people is demanded, this is not trivial. Take away independence,
> and you take away with it the possibility of a good job and a free life.
> The airlines cannot continue to take authority over the lives of the blind.
> Domination and control will not be tolerated. I hope that reason can replace
> prejudice and that fairness can replace bias in our dealings with the
> airlines. There is one thing I know. The blind will not forever tolerate
> arrogance, insensitivity, and presumption.
> 
> Disabled Entrepreneur of the Year 2012 of NY StateLeading the Way in
> Independent Travel!
> Cheryl Echevarria,
> Ownerhttp://www.echevarriatravel.com631-456-5394reservations@echevarriatrave
> l.comhttp://www.echevarriatravel.wordpress.com
> Affiliated as an independent contractor with Montrose TravelCST -
> #1018299-10 FL CST T156780Your old car keys can be the keys to literacy for
> a blind child.  Donate your unwanted vehicle to us by clicking
> https://nfb.org/vehicledonations or call 855-659-9314.Echevarria Travel has
> partnered with Braille Smith. http://www.braillesmith.com for all her
> braille needs.Gail Smith is the Secretary of the NFB of Alabama
>  		 	   		  
> _______________________________________________
> Travelandtourism mailing list
> Travelandtourism at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/travelandtourism_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Travelandtourism:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/travelandtourism_nfbnet.org/margo.downey%4
> 0verizon.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Travelandtourism mailing list
> Travelandtourism at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/travelandtourism_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Travelandtourism:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/travelandtourism_nfbnet.org/cherylandmaxx%40hotmail.com