Woman in wheelchair forced to crawl into airplane to get to her seat

[dismal]

Maybe they'll start considering what's important to federal law.

Who is "they"?

The people that bought the needed ramp, made sure it was at the boarding gate at the appropriate time, and provided the personnel to assist with boarding?

 

[laughing dog]

Air stairs have railings--she could have used them for support if it was merely a problem with standing.

I didn't realize you were familiar with her medical condition. What exactly are her medical problems.

Even then it would not be a safe thing to do to help her on the stairs. It would take a very strong person indeed to avoid a tumble if she stumbled while being helped--and a tumble on stairs is a bad thing.

What you are missing is that the stairs are too narrow for two people to go abreast. A helper would be above or below her, both of which are very poor positions to be helping someone from.

Sorry, been there and done that. If the airline employee had wanted to help her get on the plane, that employee would have found a way, even if it meant calling for help.

 

[ksen]

Maybe they'll start considering what's important to federal law.

Who is "they"?

The people that bought the needed ramp, made sure it was at the boarding gate at the appropriate time, and provided the personnel to assist with boarding?

Yes.

 

[PyramidHead]

I didn't realize you were familiar with her medical condition. What exactly are her medical problems.

Even then it would not be a safe thing to do to help her on the stairs. It would take a very strong person indeed to avoid a tumble if she stumbled while being helped--and a tumble on stairs is a bad thing.

What you are missing is that the stairs are too narrow for two people to go abreast. A helper would be above or below her, both of which are very poor positions to be helping someone from.

Sorry, been there and done that. If the airline employee had wanted to help her get on the plane, that employee would have found a way, even if it meant calling for help.

I agree partly with Loren here, from their perspective, trying to help/carry her up the stairs would have been a lot worse for them if something went wrong. Easy pickings for a lawsuit if she was physically injured in any way. That said, she could have easily been injured crawling up the stairs on her own, and that would have been the airline's fault too.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

How long does it take to put the wheelchair ramp in place anyway (assuming it's already there)?

aa

 

[Malintent]

No it doesn't.

Besides . . .

http://khon2.com/2015/06/05/airline...chair-bound-woman-forced-to-crawl-onto-plane/

This was the first time she had flown American Airlines. She says she let them know ahead of time that she would need a ramp and was shocked when they told her it was too late to do it.

“There was a ramp right next to the plane and she was like, ‘Oh, it’s too late,’ so I was like ‘Okay, so we can’t just, the ramp is right there. Can’t you guys just push it right here so I can get on?’ and she’s like, ‘Oh, I’m sorry,” Purcell said.

She claims she called ahead requesting a ramp. There was a ramp right next to the plane.

And that doesn't really answer my question about if there was no time to get a ramp why was there time to wait for her to crawl up the stairs and to her seat?

She may have indeed gotten very poor customer service and the gate agent may have indeed broken with company policy. Workers are not always the saints some people imagine them to be.

No. They were in violation of CFR 14 Part 382 (http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/382short.pdf), a Federal Regulation, not a 'company policy'.

Who's "they"?

American Airlines. It is a corporate entity. Who did you think "they" was a reference to, The Society of Fatties (SoFat)?

As far as I can tell American Airlines provided all the equipment and personnel that were necessary. This one gate agent elected not to use it.

and the gate agent was employed by whom? hint: it's "them". It is called respondeat superior liability. Unless this agent brought an uzi to work and started shooting people, with no criminal background or any indication that they would do so, AA is liable for this employee's performance of her duties.

Added:

and IF this agent DID start shooting people instead of 'simply' not performing their required duties, AND she DID have a criminal background.. AA would likely be liable for the injuries / deaths. She would still go to jail.. but there would be a civil suit against AA that would have significant merit for failure to perform an adequate screening during the hiring process.

 

[dismal]

No it doesn't.

Besides . . .

http://khon2.com/2015/06/05/airline...chair-bound-woman-forced-to-crawl-onto-plane/

This was the first time she had flown American Airlines. She says she let them know ahead of time that she would need a ramp and was shocked when they told her it was too late to do it.

“There was a ramp right next to the plane and she was like, ‘Oh, it’s too late,’ so I was like ‘Okay, so we can’t just, the ramp is right there. Can’t you guys just push it right here so I can get on?’ and she’s like, ‘Oh, I’m sorry,” Purcell said.

She claims she called ahead requesting a ramp. There was a ramp right next to the plane.

And that doesn't really answer my question about if there was no time to get a ramp why was there time to wait for her to crawl up the stairs and to her seat?

She may have indeed gotten very poor customer service and the gate agent may have indeed broken with company policy. Workers are not always the saints some people imagine them to be.

No. They were in violation of CFR 14 Part 382 (http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/382short.pdf), a Federal Regulation, not a 'company policy'.

Who's "they"?

American Airlines. It is a corporate entity. Who did you think "they" was a reference to, The Society of Fatties (SoFat)?

As far as I can tell American Airlines provided all the equipment and personnel that were necessary. This one gate agent elected not to use it.

and the gate agent was employed by whom? hint: it's "them". It is called respondeat superior liability. Unless this agent brought an uzi to work and started shooting people, with no criminal background or any indication that they would do so, AA is liable for this employee's performance of her duties.

I thought you said this was a criminal matter earlier as some statute had been broken.

But that aside how does it help to punish American Airlines if the problem is the non-compliant actions of this one rogue employee?

It seems like that would teach them no lesson but "don't have employees" if you can help it.

I imagine they'd seriously consider firing all their gate agents and outsourcing the work to Gate Agents-R-Us LLC.

 

[Malintent]

No it doesn't.

Besides . . .

http://khon2.com/2015/06/05/airline...chair-bound-woman-forced-to-crawl-onto-plane/

This was the first time she had flown American Airlines. She says she let them know ahead of time that she would need a ramp and was shocked when they told her it was too late to do it.

“There was a ramp right next to the plane and she was like, ‘Oh, it’s too late,’ so I was like ‘Okay, so we can’t just, the ramp is right there. Can’t you guys just push it right here so I can get on?’ and she’s like, ‘Oh, I’m sorry,” Purcell said.

She claims she called ahead requesting a ramp. There was a ramp right next to the plane.

And that doesn't really answer my question about if there was no time to get a ramp why was there time to wait for her to crawl up the stairs and to her seat?

She may have indeed gotten very poor customer service and the gate agent may have indeed broken with company policy. Workers are not always the saints some people imagine them to be.

No. They were in violation of CFR 14 Part 382 (http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/382short.pdf), a Federal Regulation, not a 'company policy'.

Who's "they"?

American Airlines. It is a corporate entity. Who did you think "they" was a reference to, The Society of Fatties (SoFat)?

As far as I can tell American Airlines provided all the equipment and personnel that were necessary. This one gate agent elected not to use it.

and the gate agent was employed by whom? hint: it's "them". It is called respondeat superior liability. Unless this agent brought an uzi to work and started shooting people, with no criminal background or any indication that they would do so, AA is liable for this employee's performance of her duties.

I thought you said this was a criminal matter earlier as some statute had been broken.

But that aside how does it help to punish American Airlines if the problem is the non-compliant actions of this one rogue employee?

It seems like that would teach them no lesson but "don't have employees" if you can help it.

I imagine they'd seriously consider firing all their gate agents and outsourcing the work to Gate Agents-R-Us LLC.

.. then "Gate-Agents-are-us would be "them". What you seem to be missing is that fact that, in the United States, the law protects individual employees and places the responsibility on the company. As it should. It does not matter that the employee failed to do their job perfectly... not to the employee, not to the civil courts, and not to any other court. The company is responsible for the eployees actions while they are performing their job.. even if they are performing it badly. My silly example about the uzi was meant to show how drastically the employee would have to be diverting from company procedures for personal liability. a better example is if you are a pizza delivery guy and after work you steal (not given) the company van and drive drunk and kill people. The company will simply need to show that they performed due diligence in the screening process of hiring that person in the first place. Was he a dui with a revoked license when you hired him to deliver pizzas in a 1 ton truck? then ya, the company would be liable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't realize you were familiar with her medical condition. What exactly are her medical problems.

Even then it would not be a safe thing to do to help her on the stairs. It would take a very strong person indeed to avoid a tumble if she stumbled while being helped--and a tumble on stairs is a bad thing.

What you are missing is that the stairs are too narrow for two people to go abreast. A helper would be above or below her, both of which are very poor positions to be helping someone from.

Sorry, been there and done that. If the airline employee had wanted to help her get on the plane, that employee would have found a way, even if it meant calling for help.

She crawled up. That basically says she can't stand even with help. It also says it's not a problem simply with weakness because then she couldn't have crawled up. Thus we can conclude her legs are basically useless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I didn't realize you were familiar with her medical condition. What exactly are her medical problems.
Sorry, been there and done that. If the airline employee had wanted to help her get on the plane, that employee would have found a way, even if it meant calling for help.

She crawled up. That basically says she can't stand even with help. It also says it's not a problem simply with weakness because then she couldn't have crawled up. Thus we can conclude her legs are basically useless.

So you are just assuming you know something then. Understood.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't realize you were familiar with her medical condition. What exactly are her medical problems.
Sorry, been there and done that. If the airline employee had wanted to help her get on the plane, that employee would have found a way, even if it meant calling for help.

She crawled up. That basically says she can't stand even with help.....

No it doesn't, as anyone who has raised a toddler fully understands. In other words, you have no clue as to her capabilities, and are confusing your assumptions with fact.

 

[Malintent]

If you read the linked article, and follow the original story linked therein, along with AA's extensive response (that includes an admission of wrong-doing), you wouldn't need to guess or assume what her affliction is, or what the legal position of either party is.

She can't walk due to a bone disease. The specific condition is named and plenty of information about the disease is available. Her doctors allegedly told her she would not live past the age of 18. She is now 33.

I hate it when people argue over documented, evident facts. Argue over opinions. Look up facts and move on.

 

[dismal]

No it doesn't.

Besides . . .

http://khon2.com/2015/06/05/airline...chair-bound-woman-forced-to-crawl-onto-plane/

This was the first time she had flown American Airlines. She says she let them know ahead of time that she would need a ramp and was shocked when they told her it was too late to do it.

“There was a ramp right next to the plane and she was like, ‘Oh, it’s too late,’ so I was like ‘Okay, so we can’t just, the ramp is right there. Can’t you guys just push it right here so I can get on?’ and she’s like, ‘Oh, I’m sorry,” Purcell said.

She claims she called ahead requesting a ramp. There was a ramp right next to the plane.

And that doesn't really answer my question about if there was no time to get a ramp why was there time to wait for her to crawl up the stairs and to her seat?

She may have indeed gotten very poor customer service and the gate agent may have indeed broken with company policy. Workers are not always the saints some people imagine them to be.

No. They were in violation of CFR 14 Part 382 (http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/382short.pdf), a Federal Regulation, not a 'company policy'.

Who's "they"?

American Airlines. It is a corporate entity. Who did you think "they" was a reference to, The Society of Fatties (SoFat)?

As far as I can tell American Airlines provided all the equipment and personnel that were necessary. This one gate agent elected not to use it.

and the gate agent was employed by whom? hint: it's "them". It is called respondeat superior liability. Unless this agent brought an uzi to work and started shooting people, with no criminal background or any indication that they would do so, AA is liable for this employee's performance of her duties.

I thought you said this was a criminal matter earlier as some statute had been broken.

But that aside how does it help to punish American Airlines if the problem is the non-compliant actions of this one rogue employee?

It seems like that would teach them no lesson but "don't have employees" if you can help it.

I imagine they'd seriously consider firing all their gate agents and outsourcing the work to Gate Agents-R-Us LLC.

.. then "Gate-Agents-are-us would be "them". What you seem to be missing is that fact that, in the United States, the law protects individual employees and places the responsibility on the company. As it should. It does not matter that the employee failed to do their job perfectly... not to the employee, not to the civil courts, and not to any other court. The company is responsible for the eployees actions while they are performing their job.. even if they are performing it badly. My silly example about the uzi was meant to show how drastically the employee would have to be diverting from company procedures for personal liability. a better example is if you are a pizza delivery guy and after work you steal (not given) the company van and drive drunk and kill people. The company will simply need to show that they performed due diligence in the screening process of hiring that person in the first place. Was he a dui with a revoked license when you hired him to deliver pizzas in a 1 ton truck? then ya, the company would be liable.

So, given it appears the company took all reasonable measures to provide the service in question your argument depends on there being some failure to screen or train this one particular gate agent properly? Do you have any evidence of that?

 

[laughing dog]

If you read the linked article, and follow the original story linked therein, along with AA's extensive response (that includes an admission of wrong-doing), you wouldn't need to guess or assume what her affliction is, or what the legal position of either party is.

She can't walk due to a bone disease. The specific condition is named and plenty of information about the disease is available. Her doctors allegedly told her she would not live past the age of 18. She is now 33.

I hate it when people argue over documented, evident facts. Argue over opinions. Look up facts and move on.

I also hate it when people don't bother with the facts. For example, there is nothing in the article or about the disease that claims people suffering from Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease cannot walk without aid (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/charcot-marie-tooth-disease/basics/definition/con-20029920). Without knowing the specifics of her situation is simply not possible to ascertain whether she could have been easily helped onto the plane. However, it is helpful that you pointed out that American Airlines admits its employee acted inappropriately. Apparently at this point, this dispute is about the amount of compensation Ms. Purcell ought to receive.

 

[Togo]

No it doesn't.

Besides . . .

http://khon2.com/2015/06/05/airline...chair-bound-woman-forced-to-crawl-onto-plane/

This was the first time she had flown American Airlines. She says she let them know ahead of time that she would need a ramp and was shocked when they told her it was too late to do it.

“There was a ramp right next to the plane and she was like, ‘Oh, it’s too late,’ so I was like ‘Okay, so we can’t just, the ramp is right there. Can’t you guys just push it right here so I can get on?’ and she’s like, ‘Oh, I’m sorry,” Purcell said.

She claims she called ahead requesting a ramp. There was a ramp right next to the plane.

And that doesn't really answer my question about if there was no time to get a ramp why was there time to wait for her to crawl up the stairs and to her seat?

She may have indeed gotten very poor customer service and the gate agent may have indeed broken with company policy. Workers are not always the saints some people imagine them to be.

No. They were in violation of CFR 14 Part 382 (http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/382short.pdf), a Federal Regulation, not a 'company policy'.

Who's "they"?

American Airlines. It is a corporate entity. Who did you think "they" was a reference to, The Society of Fatties (SoFat)?

As far as I can tell American Airlines provided all the equipment and personnel that were necessary. This one gate agent elected not to use it.

and the gate agent was employed by whom? hint: it's "them". It is called respondeat superior liability. Unless this agent brought an uzi to work and started shooting people, with no criminal background or any indication that they would do so, AA is liable for this employee's performance of her duties.

I thought you said this was a criminal matter earlier as some statute had been broken.

But that aside how does it help to punish American Airlines if the problem is the non-compliant actions of this one rogue employee?

It seems like that would teach them no lesson but "don't have employees" if you can help it.

I imagine they'd seriously consider firing all their gate agents and outsourcing the work to Gate Agents-R-Us LLC.

.. then "Gate-Agents-are-us would be "them". What you seem to be missing is that fact that, in the United States, the law protects individual employees and places the responsibility on the company. As it should. It does not matter that the employee failed to do their job perfectly... not to the employee, not to the civil courts, and not to any other court. The company is responsible for the eployees actions while they are performing their job.. even if they are performing it badly. My silly example about the uzi was meant to show how drastically the employee would have to be diverting from company procedures for personal liability. a better example is if you are a pizza delivery guy and after work you steal (not given) the company van and drive drunk and kill people. The company will simply need to show that they performed due diligence in the screening process of hiring that person in the first place. Was he a dui with a revoked license when you hired him to deliver pizzas in a 1 ton truck? then ya, the company would be liable.

So, given it appears the company took all reasonable measures to provide the service in question your argument depends on there being some failure to screen or train this one particular gate agent properly? Do you have any evidence of that?

Well, we have the airlines themselves admitting they did not take all reasonable measures to provide the service in question, and admitting to doing so in violation of the law.

 

[Malintent]

So, given it appears the company took all reasonable measures to provide the service in question your argument depends on there being some failure to screen or train this one particular gate agent properly? Do you have any evidence of that?

You still are missing the only point that matters:

A person can be 'properly' trained, and still make a mistake, or have a lapse in judgment. Employees are not personally responsible for their quality of work, apart from keeping their job, of course. Let me repeat that... there is no personal responsibility for employees that are simply performing their job (or failing to perform their job), with extremely rare exceptions (like CFO's of publicly traded companies - Sarbanes-Oxley) or mailmen with shotguns.

 

[Malintent]

I also hate it when people don't bother with the facts. For example, there is nothing in the article or about the disease that claims people suffering from Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease cannot walk without aid (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/charcot-marie-tooth-disease/basics/definition/con-20029920). Without knowing the specifics of her situation is simply not possible to ascertain whether she could have been easily helped onto the plane. However, it is helpful that you pointed out that American Airlines admits its employee acted inappropriately. Apparently at this point, this dispute is about the amount of compensation Ms. Purcell ought to receive.

It really does not matter if she theoretically could walk or not. She is a member of a protected group for which federal regulations apply. She did what she needed to do (indicate she was a disabled person at the time of booking), and AA failed to meet their obligations under the law.

 

[dismal]

So, given it appears the company took all reasonable measures to provide the service in question your argument depends on there being some failure to screen or train this one particular gate agent properly? Do you have any evidence of that?

You still are missing the only point that matters:

A person can be 'properly' trained, and still make a mistake, or have a lapse in judgment. Employees are not personally responsible for their quality of work, apart from keeping their job, of course. Let me repeat that... there is no personal responsibility for employees that are simply performing their job (or failing to perform their job), with extremely rare exceptions (like CFO's of publicly traded companies - Sarbanes-Oxley) or mailmen with shotguns.

It seems odd you think I am missing something as this is at the very core of my point. The evidence suggests the company took all reasonable steps. It bought an adequate ramp. it located the adequate ramp at the gate. It hired an employee to operate the ramp. Presumably, or at least no one has offered evidence to the contrary, it trained the employee to perform the appropriate duties.

In spite of all this, the employee failed to perform adequately.

All the company failed to do was ensure the employee was a perfect angel. But it is not reasonable to expect employees will be perfect angels, so it makes little sense to punish the company for not providing something it took reasonable steps to provide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still are missing the only point that matters:

A person can be 'properly' trained, and still make a mistake, or have a lapse in judgment. Employees are not personally responsible for their quality of work, apart from keeping their job, of course. Let me repeat that... there is no personal responsibility for employees that are simply performing their job (or failing to perform their job), with extremely rare exceptions (like CFO's of publicly traded companies - Sarbanes-Oxley) or mailmen with shotguns.

It seems odd you think I am missing something as this is at the very core of my point. The evidence suggests the company took all reasonable steps. It bought an adequate ramp. it located the adequate ramp at the gate. It hired an employee to operate the ramp. Presumably, or at least no one has offered evidence to the contrary, it trained the employee to perform the appropriate duties.

In spite of all this, the employee failed to perform adequately.

All the company failed to do was ensure the employee was a perfect angel. But it is not reasonable to expect employees will be perfect angels, so it makes little sense to punish the company for not providing something it took reasonable steps to provide.

It depends on why the employee didn't use the ramp.

I think the issue is likely a matter of time pressure. In that case it most certainly is the company's fault for using the wrong metric for employee performance.

In recent years we have been seeing a lot of customer service failings on the airlines' part due to judging employees on things like whether the plane got out on time without looking at whether people were treated unreasonably because of this. You hammer one point and don't give them the resources to do everything, what do you expect to happen??

 

[Malintent]

You still are missing the only point that matters:

A person can be 'properly' trained, and still make a mistake, or have a lapse in judgment. Employees are not personally responsible for their quality of work, apart from keeping their job, of course. Let me repeat that... there is no personal responsibility for employees that are simply performing their job (or failing to perform their job), with extremely rare exceptions (like CFO's of publicly traded companies - Sarbanes-Oxley) or mailmen with shotguns.

It seems odd you think I am missing something as this is at the very core of my point. The evidence suggests the company took all reasonable steps. It bought an adequate ramp. it located the adequate ramp at the gate. It hired an employee to operate the ramp. Presumably, or at least no one has offered evidence to the contrary, it trained the employee to perform the appropriate duties.

In spite of all this, the employee failed to perform adequately.

All the company failed to do was ensure the employee was a perfect angel. But it is not reasonable to expect employees will be perfect angels, so it makes little sense to punish the company for not providing something it took reasonable steps to provide.

The distinction you make ("perfect angel") is not relevant. The employee needed to act in a manner compliant with the regulation, not be a "perfect angel". The only relevance of the company taking proper steps to ensure compliance is with regard to punitive damages. They are still in violation, but whether or not punitive damages would ALSO be awarded does depend on those steps and the history of complaints / violations.