A Torso Cannot Possibly Fly On Its Own

[Rog]

So Air France ‘bounced’ a woman who suffers from the effects of thalidomide to the extent that she has neither arms nor legs.

 

 

‘A wheelchair-bound woman with no limbs has sued Air France for discrimination, alleging she was kept off a flight by a gate agent who told her a "torso cannot possibly fly on its own." ‘

 

http://news.airwise.com/stories/2004/08/1092426924.html

 

Air France refused to allow her to board a trans Atlantic flight on the basis that she was totally incapable of autonomous actions in the case of an emergency even to the extent of fitting her own oxygen mask in the event of loss of cabin air.

 

Was this such an unreasonable thing for them to have done? I think not. They were not refusing her passage, just passage without a companion to cater for her exceptional needs.

 

But oh dear how she has got herself into a state – she is actually seeking compensation from the airline. First thoughts are that if she has paid her fare then she has bought unconditional passage as she alleges that she made it clear at the time of booking that she was disabled But that's just first thoughts. For example did she make it clear that her disability amounted to total incapacity? I doubt it as I can not eee even a French ticket agent acceopting such a massive degree of incapacity.

 

To me what amounts to ‘a torso with attitude’ is more than someone who is disabled, They're also a positive encumbrance on all those around them, but hey – that’s just my view.

 

This case set me to thinking of all the other times that I have seen people crippled to various degrees being ‘assisted’ onto and off aircraft and to question if we as a society go a bit too far to cater for everyone irrespective of their physical needs to do something or gain access to somewhere and to hell with the costs let alone the possible consequences.

The costs, incidentally, that the rest of us have to bear one way or another.

Need to equip offices with wheelchair access? Who do you think pays – the rest of us. Need to provide facilities for wheelchair users to get into the cinema? Who pays? You guessed it. Joe ‘Muggins’ Public.

 

Now I don’t have a big issue with providing reasonable extra facilities to allow those people with some degree of disability to live a reasonably normal life insofar as having access to some shops, offices, and places of entertainment, but what I DO have an issue with is the legislation now on the statute books that says such people must have access to ALL public places including private shops and establishments.

 

If I want to open a shop and have steps leading into it then that should be my prerogative and not something that some do-gooder socialist ‘inclusivity for all’ loud mouthed individual dictates to me. As a result of the latest UK legislation, I would soon face prosecution for not providing an alternative means of access for those who can not climb steps.

 

(I don’t know if the same laws are in place or are about to be put in place on the Island.)

 

Market forces work. I like market forces. If I decide to accept the loss of some sales by precluding a section of the public that should be a decision that I alone make and should not face prosecution for having taken.

 

But back to the Air France issue – an issue incidentally that has echoes of a case recently in the press involving Ryan Air who not unreasonably changed a disabled passenger who wanted wheelchair access at Stanstead – something incidentally that Ryan Air would have had to pay for themselves and then inevitably pass on to the rest of their passengers, but that’s another can of worms.

 

Is it really so wrong to set limits on the degree of physical disability that someone has where access to public transport is involved? I think not. Apart from anything else consider the safety hazard that a paraplegic, let alone a quadriplegic, represents in the event that an emergency evacuation of an aircraft is required. At the very least people with significant disabilities should have a section of the aircraft designated as some form of cabin ‘cripple-zone’ so that they not only do not get in the way of the majority but also could be assisted in a designated and appropriate manner by trained cabin staff using a practised evacuation procedure for disabled people should the need for emergency evacuation ever arise.

 

I think Air France were absolutely correct in their actions and that this case indicates how far the ‘all-inclusive diversity-worshipping’ nanny state is heading and how important it is that a line is drawn in the sand and drawn damn soon.

 

And preferably some considerable distance back from where we now are.

[When Skies Are Grey]

can...worms....open...

[magneto]

Outrageous

[Static]

Two words spring to mind here to describe you Rog - heartless bastard!

 

This woman was born a "cripple" (your words) because of some drug company who caused her disabilities. Why shouldn't she be able to access what you and I take for granted? I would actually agree that a carer should have been paid to go with her but they should have been paid for by the company who caused her condition in the first place.

 

What would you suggest Rog - put her down at birth so that she wouldn't invonvenience people?

[Bill Posters]

At the very least people with significant disabilities should have a section of the aircraft designated as some form of cabin ‘cripple-zone’

 

 

So ignorance and bigotry are still alive and well then. I am surprised, from some of your previous postings, that you can have such an attitude to another human being.

[ans]

Static, do you not realise you've just agreed with Rog's view? He has no problem with her flying, just with a proper carer. Which is what you said.

 

Does that make you a heartless bastard too?

[loaf]

There is probably a blanket policy with regard to severe disabilities that draws a line in the sand as to how much assistance the airline can provide before the person in question needs to be accompanied by a carer or nurse.

 

In reality, I think this is just a case of sales staff making an ill-informed decision as to how the airline can cater for disabled travellers, in which case, sue away.

 

One proviso is that she should know that she is an exceptional case far more than any ticket sales staff. I would say that she would have to have written to the airline to document her needs and discuss her journey first before she has a leg to stand on, so to speak.

[Kelly]

absolutely and totally disagree with you Rog. in fact if these are your real opinions then it just shows that you are so unevolved as to be still 'scared' by 'different' people, just like a cat will fight a 3 legged cat or a seagull will pick on an ill seagull. Most of us have evolved to be more tolerant though.

I have some sympathy with your saying that you shouldnt be prosecuted for not providing access to your own shop, but I bet you dont even have a shop do you so its a mute point.

I feel sorry for anybody disabled reading this who might think this is a popular view and want to say it isnt.

 

do you know what the word SOCIETY means rog.

[Guest Rox]

What would you suggest Rog - put her down at birth so that she wouldn't invonvenience people?

 

You see Rog, this is one of the difficulties I have always had with your views. I wish I had the skills to explain it properl;y but in very simple terms here's how I see it.

 

To me, what you hint at many times in your posts is the very same views that were held by Germany and other European countries in the 1930's and 1940's. Ok - so you don't come right out and say it - but your inference is that anyone who doesn't fit 'your' interpretation of what a decent human being should be - anyone who may be outwith the 'norm' (in your view) should be a subject of your subtle and sometimes not so subtle opinion that they should somehow be treated differently to 'your' idea of your perfect chosen society.

 

I can't explain it without being subjective even though I do not wish to do so.

 

You are a Jew. You are old enough to have experienced some of the prejudice toward those who are thought, by some, to be 'inferior'. And I find that difficult to stomach. And I find it even more difficult given your personal background. Surely you of all people should see how potentially dangerous this kind of talk is? Ok - I know about freedom of speech and the right for you to say what you think but - don't you ever wonder how persecution begins? For the ten people who will jump up and down about your post - there may be a handful of others who agree entirely. A handful who may go on to think that the world would be a better place with out the disabled, the non- white, the Jews?

 

Can you not see even just a bit of what I''m trying to say? You have a responsibility toward your fellow man. All I can see is a man embittered and, in my mind, a man no better than his persecutors. It's very very sad.

[Speckled Frost]

I don't think Rog's views can be dismissed so readily.

 

'The world would be better without disabled people' sounds cruel

but what if you say: 'The world would be a better place if no one was disabled' - sounds about right.

 

I agree with Rog on the Air France issue - the woman can't assume someone else will look after her.

 

But then Rog, as is often the case just goes a little too far.

Providing wheelchair access can't be compared with market forces.

 

By not providing access you are barring someone from the shop not merely failing to attract them with the right goods, offers and advertising.

[monkey_magic]

A torso would definitely need some assistance to fly. Like a catapult, for example.

[Minnie]

I think the question about whether the airline were right in refusing to let the lady fly depends on if she did let them know the extent of her disabilities when she booked the flight. If she did then the airline are at fault for not either accomodating her in a way so that she could fly safely ie with extra precautions set in place by the cabin crew etc or by being accompanied by a carer. If she failed to let them know the extent of her disabilties then I believe they were right to refuse her passage on this occasion. I realise that disabled people may feel even more of an "outcast" in society by having to explain their disabilities, they should after all be treated as any other human being, but her situation is obviously very rare and extreme and she should've made this clear.

 

As for your further comments regarding what lengths we as a society should go to to accommodate disabled people, Rog, I disagree. Cost factor should be irrelevant when considering disabled access to public places such as offices, shops and cinemas. These are human beings we're talking about, people who need to work, shop and socialise as we "normal" people do. They shouldn't be seen as a hindrance and a drain on society or be set aside in a "cripple-zone".

[ans]

A torso would definitely need some assistance to fly.  Like a catapult, for example.

 

I will MS paint your torso flying through the air with a catapult!

[Speckled Frost]

We should have a 'tipple-zone' though for all those drunken idiots prone to air rage.

[Rog]

At what point do you draw the line and say that a person is crippled to a degree that it is unreasonable to adapt the environment to make everything accessible to them? There has to be some point. Equally at what point do you say that a cripple is going to be a hazard to the rest of us in the event of an incident on an aircraft? Again, there has to be some point.

 

This is not a question of ‘putting down at birth’ nor about being some form of ‘untermenshen’ but about practicalities and the impact on the rest of us. There can be no question that this woman should be refused passage simply because she is severely crippled but I believe that it is entirely reasonable to impose conditions on her carriage and also that such extra facilities and care that she would need should not fall onto the rest of us.

 

And to answer the point raised by Static as to why she should not be allowed to access what is available to the rest of us – quite simply because she is physically incapable of so doing witjhout quite exceptional support. I feel pity for her and others in her situation and think that it is right and proper that reasonable facilities and resources should be made available to her but to the extent that EVERYTHING is accessible? No. That simply doesn’t make sense.

 

And don’t forget that she and the others who were damaged by Thalidomide were paid a massive sum in compensation. As to it being sufficient and as to if some form of life-time pension should have been set up by Distillers Ltd. And even if the compensation has been correctly and adequately administered – that’s another matter but compensation was paid. It is NOT the responsibility of the rest of us to carry on paying directly or indirectly for what is neither our fault nor our responsibility.

 

And to Bill Posters. What is WRING with having a designated cabin area for people with severe physical disabilities? It is a win – win situation. In the event of an incident they would not hinder the rest of us and what is more they could have special evacuation procedures set up to take account of the inevitable lack of mobility that such people have.

 

To Kelly, not ‘scared’ in the least and what’s more I don’t for a single instant think of people who happen to be cripples in some way as being different – simply crippled. Unable to be able to move as fast or with the same agility as the rest of us.

 

Now to Rox. I do understand the point that you make. My opinion is not based on those who are different as being inferior but recognition that they are different. Let’s face facts, in some way we are ALL different. It’s when that difference is in some way substantially actually or potentially damaging to the majority that there is a problem.

 

Remember, the Nazis were a minority who conned a nation.