In the last two months, including twice in the last week, I have covered three stories involving disabled passengers on Southwest Airlines who were unreasonably removed. Is this all a coincidence or does Southwest have a culture problem in the way it treats disabled passengers?
Does Southwest Airlines Mistreat Disabled Passengers?
Three recent stories highlight that Southwest has little tolerance for disabled passengers, even though federal mask guidelines explicitly exclude such people from its obligatory mask rule.
- Southwest Kicks Off Disabled Man For Not Wearing Mask, Despite Federal Exemption
- Family Denied Boarding On Southwest After Autistic Child Couldn’t Wear Face Mask
- Southwest Kicks Off Family Out Of Fear Three-Year-Old Might Remove Mask During Flight
We cannot even say the common thread in each story was not wearing masks, for just last week Southwest kicked off a family out of fear their disabled three-year-old son would remove his mask (even though he had been in compliance).
As a reminder, the federal mask mandate has three exceptions:
- A child under the age of 2 years
- A person with a disability who cannot wear a mask, or cannot safely wear a mask, because of the disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)
- A person for whom wearing a mask would create a risk to workplace health, safety, or job duty as determined by the relevant workplace safety guidelines or federal regulations.
The U.S. Centers For Disease Control offered further clarification on the disability exemption:
- A person with a disability who, for reasons related to the disability, would be physically unable to remove a mask without assistance if breathing becomes obstructed. Examples might include a person with impaired motor skills, quadriplegia, or limb restrictions
- A person with an intellectual, developmental, cognitive, or psychiatric disability that affects the person’s ability to understand the need to remove a mask if breathing becomes obstructed
There are additional exemptions here.
The CDC suggests, “If travel is pre-scheduled, schedule travel for people who are exempt at less crowded times or on less crowded conveyances.”
While logical in theory, at a time in which most domestic airplane flights are once again full, this is not helpful guidance.
Southwest uses this guidance to make passengers seeking an exemption go through an extremely arduous process including:
- Submit a request form at least seven days prior to travel
- Submit a letter signed by passenger’s medical physician on the physician’s letterhead stating that the passenger with a disability has a recognized medical condition precluding the wearing or safe wearing of a mask because of their disability
- Undergo a third-party medical screening as determined by Southwest Airlines
- Procure a negative COVID-19 viral test not more than 72 hours prior to travel
Southwest also warns passengers they may be booted off their confirmed flight if the flight is full or there is another passenger with a disability onboard:
Southwest requires that a Passenger obtaining a mask exemption travel on a flight with less than 75% capacity at the time of the flight’s departure, and with no other Passengers on board approved for a mask exemption.
If the passenger’s preferred flight ends up being more than 50 percent full on the day of travel, Southwest Airlines will work to reaccommodate Passengers who obtain a mask exemption.
Please note that Passengers may be required to travel on a different date than their scheduled itinerary. That may also require the Passenger to provide documentation of new (updated) test results at the Passenger’s expense in line with Southwest Airlines’ requirements to receive a mask exemption.
Translation: Southwest requires passengers who cannot wear a mask to wait for a flight of Southwest’s choosing, at the passenger’s own expense.
That is simply unreasonable. Southwest may have leeway in how it administers its exemption, but this demonstrates that Southwest’s harsh rules for disabled passengers are of its own making, not handed down by federal fiat.
Thus, the question of reasonableness comes into play. Is the burden disproportionate to the risk? I would argue the answer is a definite YES.
And the practical result remains: disabled passengers are treated with indifference and a lack of empathy. That is not good policy.
CONCLUSION
I’ve been disturbed by the trio of recent stories about disabled passengers being booted from Southwest. We should realize that Southwest’s hands are actually not tied; that this is a voluntary choice. And Southwest should realize that treating disabled passengers as second class citizens by subjecting them to inane requirements or long waits perpetuates a system in which human dignity cannot be enjoyed.
It may be that these cases are outliers. After all, it is bad news, not good news, that tends to make headlines. But even if these three cases are exceptions, they are unacceptable exceptions.
I find your blog regularly has such a negative outlook, I rarely look at it any more. Routinely accusing businesses and people of bad intentions (like Southwest intentionally mistreating people, etc.). I think you would greatly benefit from a positivity class. Try the half glass full approach – its better lifestyle and you may find yourself happier.
There’s a business decision behind that, Dave…people generally don’t read positive stories so my focus tends to be on the negative, of which there is (sadly) always plenty to find and report. Any thoughts on Southwest here? I’m glad you like my positive stories. I enjoy writing them too. Thanks for reading and please don’t confuse my reporting with with my (generally positive, sometimes to my detriment) lifestyle.
I’ll leave very young children out of the assessment because of the smaller certainty of transmitting this virus. But I can’t for the life of me understand the logic that a public health requirement should be waived just because someone is unable to wear a mask. The rule is made with the safety of others in mind. Having a disability doesn’t preclude you from being a disease vector. That someone who is disabled may be unable to fly can be sad, unfortunate, a pity, and many other things. But the results of a the mandate being waived isn’t just a trivial inconvenience (like, say, pre-boarding someone who is disabled).
I don’t disagree that it comes down to proportionality. I happen to disagree with you over the proportionality of waiving the requirement, and that’s fine. But to see it as “abusive” of disabled passengers is over the top absurd. Personally I think WN shoots itself in the foot by even allowing the passenger on a flight of WN’s choosing. That does not exactly follow logic.
Then don’t fly, simple as that! Flying is a privilege, not a right. Get over it and stop being some sort of a martyr.
And if your father dies more than 500 miles away and you cannot travel in a car for many hours then you cannot attend his service? Sorry I cannot agree with you statements. I will go through the all it takes to get to hour my father with my family members.
On another note educate yourself.
God Bless
I agree with you, this is a distressing trend. Southwest is picking on people who are already burdened for so many everyday functions in life that you and I take for granted and who are less able to defend themselves. It is absolutely horrible of them.
Thug blog & its writer are garbage. Read 3 lines. Then. X. Go. To. Other. Bloggers.
If crips delay a flight then we don’t need their business.
Why are you even here commenting if you detest it so much? You must be a riot at a party.
I hope!, all those siding with the the airline, aren’t the usual Christians that say to follow the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, for the detriment of humanity, it is this hippocrates that practically always are the selfish and the ones lacking in generosity and compassion.
I support your comments. I am ashamed at SWA’s lack os compassion of innocent children with neurological disorders and their caretakers/parents. It’s a lifelong battle with few respites. I’m saddened by the selfish hardened responses as well. Thank you for your blog on all subject areas.
Having to use a cane to get around, I have found Southwest to be extremely accommodating. That is WITHOUT me flagging my ticket as needing assistance, and WITHOUT me requesting or taking pre-boarding. Hopefully these incidents you are bringing up are not the complete story. As a rule, I find their employees to be quite compassionate in comparison to a few other un-named airlines. It would be interesting to get the other side of those stories.
I, too, have found Southwest to do a highly praise-worthy job of accommodating all passengers, especially the disabled of which I am one. On one flight I remember the effort put into accommodating a “nervous service dog” unable to fly near a window. I willingly traded away my aisle seat; problem solved. How many parents expect any airline to do their homework for them with regard to children? This would include documentation for exceptions coupled with common sense. These stories of persecution often seem to arise after an exhaustive time at a theme park in California or Florida, and frequently end with a parent driving the few hours home. Could it be that the parents expected the flight attendants to child sit while they napped? Common sense includes common courtesy for all – passengers and crew.
To some extent I agree, but I have seen so many that say they can’t do this or that and get away with lies. Handicap parking and no ticket saying handicap, or the handicap person doesn’t even get out of the auto. So much bs,