MMCGOWAN wrote:
Next time email me direct or post your snide BS under your user name so we can all know who you are
Wow... just wow. We're suddenly "disabled" because we have a prescription for a CPAP? An "assistive device" could reasonably be interpreted to mean a device assisting with mobility such as a walker, wheelchair, walking cane, etc. If it were a flight where sleep was reasonably expected (long flight, not a 2 hour one), then I can see it too. But when push comes to shove, if we're going to sit around and whine "poor me, I'm disabled", then I can see why folks would make fun of us. And to even consider a CPAP as a "respirator" or ventilator, well, I'm just calling BS. FURTHERMORE, I believe it's a very fair argument that unless you have a method of powering the device (such as a battery), then calling it an "assistive device" when you can't even USE it on-board the plane is disingenuous.
I posted this under my username. I'm not sure how you missed that. See where it says "ractar28" right there next to the post? That's me, hi, how are you?
If the below is truly how you feel and you have paid good hard earned cash for your stuff
then feel free to give it to the baggage handlers to throw it into the belly of the plane with all of the big stuff then toss it on the conveyor belt to travel to the baggage carousel to crash around with all of the other goodies.
Carry on is strictly fr the protection of the equipment abd that is far from idiocy, most normal inteligent people will figure this out
Must be nice to be rich and afford one of these every time it is broken
See, here's what I'm not understanding. I NEVER said you shouldn't be allowed to carry the device on-board. I NEVER said you SHOULD check it with other baggage. What I said is that what you quoted of the rules seems to be a stretch of the rule. Below is what you posted as the relevent rules which you believe REQUIRE the airlines to allow you a THIRD CARRY-ON BAG for your xPAP device.
14 CFR Section 382.41:
(b) Carriers shall permit qualified individuals
with a disability using personal
ventilators/respirators to bring
their equipment, including non-spillable
batteries that meet the requirements
of 49 CFR 173.159(d) and any applicable
FAA safety regulations, on
board the aircraft and use it.
(d) Carriers shall not, in implementing
their carry-on baggage policies,
count toward a limit on carry-on
items any assistive device brought into
the cabin by a qualified individual with
a disability.
We agree with that, right? That's the part you're quoting as being the reason why "the militant TSA and airlines need to wise up we do have rights", correct?
"qualified individuals
with a disability using personal
ventilators/respirators to bring
their equipment,"
Okay, first, prove you're qualified (I'm not sure how to do that), but we're picking apart the rules, right? Then you have to prove you have a disability. THEN you have to prove it's a ventilator/respirator, which an ordinary xpap device is not.
Part B says you can bring it on-board, agreed? That's after you've proven to be qualified, disabled AND have proven the device to be a ventilator/respirator. Not only can you bring it on-board, you can even use it on-board. That's very nice to people using a REAL ventilator who would die without it.
Now, let's go to part D.
"Carriers shall not, in implementing
their carry-on baggage policies,
count toward a limit on carry-on
items any assistive device brought into
the cabin by a qualified individual with
a disability."
So, if your device is covered by part B, then the airline can't count the item against your carry-on baggage, correct? However, you're back to having to PROVE that it's a respirator/ventilator. Furthermore, part B even allows for wheelchairs to be forced into the cargo area if there's no suitable area available in the cabin.
So, prove you're disabled (I don't have a placard or handicapped tag for my car because of my xPAP), that you're a "qualified individual", and that you're carrying a respirator/ventilator, and you're golden. However, my argument is that you're taking some pretty serious "loose interpretations" of "disabled" and "respirator/ventilator".