Pre-print version of
Up in the Air: Are Airlines Following the New DOT Rules on Equal Pricing for People with
Disabilities When Websites are Inaccessible?
To be cited as:
Lazar, J., Jaeger, P., Adams, A., Angelozzi, A., Manohar, J., Marciniak, J., Murphy, J. Norasteh, P., Olsen,
C., Poneres, E., Scott, T., Vaidya, N., and Walsh, J. (2010). Up in the Air: Are Airlines Following the New
DOT Rules on Equal Pricing for People with Disabilities When Websites are Inaccessible? Government
Information Quarterly, 27(4), 329-336.
For more information, contact Jonathan Lazar at 410-704-2255 or jlazar@towson.edu
Abstract
This paper details the findings from a study of airline compliance with Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations requiring that persons with disabilities not be discriminated
against in the pricing of airline travel. These regulations mandate that if an airline website is
inaccessible for persons with disabilities, the airline must charge the same price that is available
on the website and may not charge a fee for purchasing tickets over the phone. To evaluate
compliance, the websites of leading airlines were examined for accessibility in terms of the
ability to check flight schedules and order tickets. Among the four airlines with barriers to
accessibility on their websites, a series of phone calls were made by researchers to assess
whether the DOT regulations would be followed. Two of the airlines, USAirways and United,
practiced discriminatory pricing, even after being made aware of the regulations, in over onethird of the phone calls. This paper details the findings from the study and analyzes the data in
terms of website accessibility, civil rights for travelers with disabilities, and policy implications.
1. Introduction
1.1. Accessibility and the Web
1
Equal access to websites for persons with disabilities has been an enormous challenge since
the advent of the World Wide Web. While the pre-Web Internet, as a simple text-based medium,
was relatively accessible for most persons with disabilities who had access to basic assistive
software, the graphics-based World Wide Web poses tremendous access difficulties for persons
with a wide range of disabilities, including visual, mobility, cognitive, auditory, and
developmental (Jacko & Hanson, 2002; Stephanidis & Savidis, 2001). At the turn of the
millennium, there were 54 million Americans and 750 million people worldwide with
disabilities, and the aging of the baby boom generation will likely make the numbers of persons
with disabilities in the United States identified in the 2010 Census considerably larger (Jaeger &
Xie, 2009). With the increasing numbers of persons with disabilities, the equality of access to
websites and other information and communication technologies (ICTs) is an important social,
economic, educational, and governmental issue (Jaeger & Bowman, 2005; Theofanos & Redish,
2003).
Accessibility is of the utmost importance in modern life, as it “allows individuals with
disabilities – regardless of the type of disability they have – to use ICTs, such as websites, in a
manner that is equal to the use enjoyed by others” (Jaeger, 2008, p. 24). Accessibility, however,
is not an absolute concept. An ICT can be accessible, partly accessible, or completely
inaccessible. One ICT may be fully accessible for persons with mobility impairments, and yet
utterly inaccessible to persons with visual impairments. The key to website accessibility is
making sure that the content of the site is equally available to all users. It is not a one time
process, though, as modifications to an ICT over time can lead to increased problems with
accessibility (Hackett, Parmento, & Zeng, 2004; Lazar & Greenidge, 2006). Accessibility also
extends to ensuring that ICTs work with the assistive technologies, such as screen readers, which
more than 17 million people in the United States use to access the Internet (Rich, Erb, & Rich,
2002).
The United States federal government has created numerous laws related to accessibility of
ICTs, however these laws primarily focus on government agencies and entities receiving direct
government funding (Jaeger, 2004). For websites, the most prominent law is Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act, which mandates specific design requirements that reduce barriers to access
for different types of disabilities and promotes compatibility with assistive technologies that
users may be employing. Section 508 has a detailed set of technological and accessibility
2
requirements as well as guidance for implementation (www.section508.gov). Many government
websites are still inaccessible, despite the fact that, by law, the websites were required to be
accessible since 2001 (Cullen & Hernon, 2006; Jaeger, 2006, 2008, Jaeger & Matteson, 2009).
As there is no legal mandate directing accessibility for non-governmental websites, levels of
accessibility on commercial websites tend to be even lower than those of governmental sites. As
a result of both a lack of education about ways to achieve online accessibility and social biases
against persons with disabilities, many studies have demonstrated significant gaps in access and
an accompanying lack of interest on the part of many companies to provide equal online access
to persons with disabilities (e.g., Lazar, Allen, Kleinman, & Malarkey, 2007; Lazar, Beere,
Greenidge, & Nagappa, 2003; Lazar, Dudley-Sponaugle, & Greenridge, 2004; Lazar &
Greenridge, 2006). Perhaps not surprisingly, legal efforts to create equality of access in the
commercial realm have been largely unsuccessful and confused. Courts typically are reluctant to
view websites as being “places of public accommodation” that are covered by social inclusion
legislation like the American with Disabilities Act (Jaeger & Bowman, 2005).
The difficulties with enforcing website accessibility through the courts is amply
demonstrated by a 2006 federal district court opinion that found that the Target website, as it was
closely integrated with physical stores, could be seen as being legally required to have an
accessible website only because of this nexus (National Federation of the Blind v. Target, 2008).
However, the same opinion explicitly limited the holding to only companies with an online
presence that is closely integrated to a physical presence. So, while these issues will likely
continue to be debated in the courts, the current case law says that Target must have an
accessible website, but Amazon.com may not need to worry about accessibility. It also implies
that a company can have both physical and online presences – with the online presence being
inaccessible – so long as the website is not too integrated with the physical presence. Legal
scholars have generally found this holding – with its clear lack of understanding of technology
and its social implications – to make matters more difficult for persons with disabilities seeking
equal access to commercial entities in the online environment (Abrar & Dingle, 2009; Bashaw,
2008; Else, 2008; Kessling, 2009). Some have even suggested that the Target holding will make
it harder to seek equal access to other forms of online content, such as educational websites
(Ogden & Menter, 2009).
3
1.2. Accessibility and airline websites
The inaccessibility of airline websites presents a serious problem for travelers with
disabilities. Most airlines offer lower airfares – often much lower – on their sites as an incentive
to book online, and, in recent years, most airlines now make customers pay an additional extra
amount of money to book a flight over the phone. Thus, if an airline website is inaccessible,
travelers with disabilities are both forced to pay a higher price for their tickets and an extra fee
for booking over the phone. Previous research has found that travel websites tend to have many
accessibility problems, despite the fact that travelers with disabilities spend $13 billion annually
on travel and related services, including more than 17 million hotel visits and 9.4 million airline
flights (Gutierrez, Loucopoulos, & Reinsch, 2005). Due to the many types of access barriers in
traveling, persons with disabilities have to be flexible and able to adapt quickly when they travel
(Daniels, Rodgers, & Wiggins, 2005). Other published research has focused on the general
usability of airline websites, but does not specifically address accessibility (Carstens & Patterson,
2005; Chariton & Choi, 2002; Selvidge, 1999).
In an attempt to rectify this inequality of access that has significant economic impacts on
travelers with disabilities, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued regulations on May
13, 2008. These regulations, in effect since May 13, 2009 (a year after the regulations were
issued), require that if an airline website is inaccessible, users with disabilities must be able to
get the same airfare price over the phone as on the web, and may not be charged extra for using
the call center. The specific text of the regulation is as follows (from section 382.31):
If a carrier charges people who make reservations by phone or in person more
than people who make reservations on the website, this surcharge cannot be
applied to persons with disabilities who must make reservations by another means
because the website is inaccessible to them. Likewise, if there are ‘web only’
discounts or special offers made available to passengers on the carrier’s website,
passengers with disabilities who cannot use the website must be offered the same
terms when they seek to book a flight by other means. (DOT, 2009, p.81)
As such, this regulation intends for airlines to volunteer the web-based price and waive extra fees
the moment a customer self-identifies as having a disability that prevents them from having
4
equal access to the airline website. Customers have six months from the incident in which to
report a violation to the DOT. The customers do not need to provide documentation of their
disability at the time of phone call. On the other hand, if the website of the airline is accessible,
the airline is not required to provide the same fares over the phone. The DOT rules only apply if
the airline has an inaccessible website.
2. Assessing compliance with DOT regulations
In order to begin evaluating levels of compliance with these important DOT regulations, a
study was conducted, first to assess which airlines had inaccessible websites, and second to test
how those airlines with inaccessible websites handled phone calls from people identifying
themselves as having a disability and being unable to use the airline website. The data collection
occurred in November and December of 2009. To begin the study, the first step was to determine
the largest airlines in the United States, as their adherence or non-adherence to the regulations
would impact the largest numbers of travelers with disabilities.
2.1. Airline selection
There are a number of different ways to measure which airlines are the largest in the United
States. These include the number of passengers carried, the number of passenger-miles flown,
and the number of unique destinations to which the airlines fly. Some airlines, such as Southwest
Airlines, fly more passengers for shorter distances, while other airlines, such as American
Airlines, fly fewer passengers, but for longer distances (for statistics, see
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/). Regardless of how “largest airline” is defined, there is no question
that Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, USAirways, and
Continental Airlines would fit on that list. While Northwest Airlines is also on that list, it has
been acquired by Delta Airlines and will shortly be merged into Delta Airlines, making the
accessibility of the Northwestern Airlines site a moot point going forward.
Identifying the largest airlines becomes trickier after that. We decided to include a further 3
from the DOT Top 10 list: Airtran Airways, JetBlue Airlines, and Alaska Airlines were listed by
the DOT in the top 10 list in domestic market share. Because Northwest Airlines is still listed on
the top 10 list but is about to disappear, a replacement was needed. Skywest Airlines was not
listed in the top 10 list by DOT, but it did make a number of the other top 10 lists, including
5
number of destinations. But Skywest Airlines does not have flights of its own; it serves as a
regional airline for AirTran Airways, Midwest Airlines, Delta Airlines, and United Airlines. As
such, Hawaiian Airlines was chosen as the 10th airline for our study. While website aggregators
(such as Expedia and Travelocity) are popular among users, they are not airlines, and therefore
are not covered by the DOT rules. As such, they are not considered in this investigation.
The final list of airlines studied for this research includes, in alphabetical order: AirTran
Airways, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Airlines, Hawaiian
Airlines, JetBlue Airlines, Southwest Airlines, USAirways, and United Airlines.
2.2. Methods for evaluating airline website accessibility
Since most airline websites are filled with hundreds of different pages, it’s not feasible to do
a manual accessibility review of each web page. While automated tools can be used, the results
that they provide are often misleading or incomplete (Jaeger, 2006). Using automated testing
software, Guitierrez, Loucopoulos, & Reinsch (2005) found accessibility problems to be
common on air carrier websites for both U.S. and international airlines. The most important
aspect of an airline website is checking flights and making a flight reservation. If there are
accessibility problems that make it impossible to even check the various flights available, then
the rest of the website is relatively unimportant. These two functions were chosen as being the
key functions for the accessibility assessment of each airline site.
The method employed for this study included the performance of an accessibility inspection
on the airline website by the lead author. There is no definitive agreement in the research
literature on the best way to evaluate a website for accessibility. While companies and
government agencies often use automated tools to test a website, these automated tools often
provide misleading or confusing results (Jaeger, 2006; Lazar, Beere, Greenidge, & Nagappa,
2003; Mankoff, Fait, & Tran, 2005). Furthermore, the automated tools inspect the code based on
a page-by-page basis, but cannot perform task-based inspections, where the accessibility focus is
on the accessibility of a specific task. In a comparison of accessibility evaluation methods, the
most effective method was determined to be the examination of a web page using a screen reader
such as JAWS (Job Access With Speech), followed by an inspection of the code against
accessibility guidelines (Mankoff, Fait, & Tran, 2005). The lead author is a well-published
expert on web accessibility and has years of experience using JAWS.
6
For each of the 10 airlines, the lead author used a screen reader (JAWS 10) to listen to the
entire home page, then followed up by inspecting the home page using the three most common
blind user browsing techniques (links list, browsing headings, and keyword searching) on each
airline website, and then inspecting the homepage code against the Section 508 guidelines. Then,
the researchers as a group attempted to find out flight information about a certain trip (a roundtrip flight on a certain day). When given options for the flights, the researchers attempted to learn
more about the flight, such as food service, type of aircraft, and type of seating. In addition, the
researchers checked to see if the site offered either an accessibility policy or a text-only version
of the site. The accessibility inspection was task-focused, as the researchers were most interested
in determining what accessibility challenges existed in the process of attempting to find out
information about and book a flight. While no accessibility inspection method is perfect, the
method described has been previously used in inspecting government sites and has been
determined to be effective (Lazar, et. al. 2010). Furthermore, this was not a full website
accessibility inspection, as that was not the goal. The goal was to ascertain which websites had
accessibility problems, to determine which airlines would fall under the DOT rules, and
therefore, which airlines should be checked for discriminatory pricing. While at first it may seem
that this approach gives more preference to blind users in the inspection, because there is a focus
on keyboard-only interaction (since blind users can’t effectively use a pointing device), this also
helps evaluate for users with motor impairments, since they often find it difficult or impossible to
use pointing devices (Jaeger, 2008). For instance, if a user with a disability cannot use a mouse,
they may instead either tab through web links, or use a links list (as it is known in JAWS), which
provides a separate list of links. Links must have names that make sense out of context, so for
instance, if the names of the links are “click here, click here, more, more,” these links make no
sense out of the context of where they are located on the web page.
This was not an inspection to determine every accessibility flaw on an airline website, nor
was it an inspection to find general usability flaws. The goal was to attempt to determine if,
technically, the website could be used by someone with a disability to find flight information and
move towards booking a flight, if the individual was patient and persevered. Table 1 provides a
summary of the accessibility violations discovered (or good points noted) for the task-focused
accessibility evaluations. If the note states “home page is accessible,” that indicates that no
accessibility problems were discovered upon the inspection of the home page. It is important to
7
also note that Southwest and Hawaiian airlines did not offer equipment or detailed flight
information to any users, regardless of disability.
Table 1
Results of accessibility evaluation of airline websites, alphabetically by airline name
Airline
AirTran Airways
Alaska Airlines
Accessibility evaluation
Overall Home
Links made
page accessible
sense out of
context
X
X
X
X
Detailed flight
info was
accessible
X
American Airlines
X
X
X
Continental Airlines
Delta Airlines
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hawaiian Airlines
X
X
NA
X
X
NA
X
X
JetBlue Airlines
Southwest Airlines
United Airlines
USAirways
Comments
Flight information was in an
inaccessible pop-up
Could not get detailed seat
information, but everything
else was accessible
Had a text-only link, and
claimed to meet WCAG and
Section 508
Equipment and detailed
information wasn’t available
to any users
Lots of meaningless links, you
were required to use a
pointing device to select the
destination city, you could not
even select a flight
Equipment and detailed
information wasn’t available
to any users
Flight information was in an
inaccessible mouseover, lots
of meaningless links
Flight information was in an
inaccessible pop-up
Four airlines were determined to have accessibility problems on their website: Alaska
Airlines, JetBlue Airlines, United Airlines, and USAirways. Figures 1 and 2 are sample
inaccessible pages from these airlines. JetBlue Airlines had the most severe problems, where
even the flight schedule wasn’t accessible. For the other three airlines (Alaska, United, and
USAirways), the flight schedule was accessible, but detailed information about the flight (such
as equipment and on-time percentage) was not accessible. Therefore, these four airlines became
8
the subject of the study. For the other airlines, if detailed information about the flight was
available, it was accessible. On the website for American Airlines, detailed flight information
was accessible, but the seating chart was not accessible. Because the detailed flight information
was accessible (which was not the case for the other four airlines), we decided not to include
American Airlines in the next phase of data collection, since their problems were not as severe as
some of the other airlines we evaluated. To reiterate, the goal was to determine if the fares being
offered to individuals over the phone were the same as the fares being offered at the website at
the exact same time, which is a requirement of the DOT regulation for airlines with nonaccessible websites. For simplicity’s sake, only round-trip flights were selected as sample
itineraries.
Fig. 1. Inaccessible features on the US Airways website, where detailed flight information, such as the
type of aircraft and on-time percentage, are displayed in a pop-up menu which cannot be viewed or read
by a screen reader.
9
Fig. 2. Inaccessible features on the JetBlue website, where choosing the city to which you want to fly, is
displayed in a pop-up menu which cannot be viewed or read by a screen reader, and there are no other
methods by which to choose your city; therefore, users who cannot use pointing devices would not be
able to choose a city.
2.3. Pilot study
A script was developed for use in phone calls to the airlines. The script had the researcher
identify that they were blind. While the DOT rules apply to any customer with a disability, there
were specific reasons why we had callers identify themselves as blind. First of all, there is no
question that blind individuals are capable of flying (whereas, some individuals with certain
types of cognitive impairments might not be able to fly). Clearly, it might be confusing for a
caller to state that they were deaf (because they might not be able to hear the phone center
operator). If the caller identified themselves as having a physical disability, then the call center
operator might instead try to focus the call on the ways in which the person would get on/off the
airplane and the type of seating that they might need. Blind individuals have no problems
communicating, and there are no challenges to their boarding or exiting the airplane. By having
the callers identify themselves as blind users, the researchers were able to isolate the issue at
10
hand – pricing. Furthermore, because the law does not require documentation of disability in any
way, there is no reason to have callers be someone with an actual disability.
As a part of the script, the researcher (caller) noted to the airline call center that there is a law
that requires that people with disabilities receive the same price on the phone as on the website.
The script then had the researcher ask about a day and general time that they wanted to fly on a
round-trip flight. The researcher did NOT mention the actual flight, just the estimated days/times
that they wanted to fly. In the background, a second researcher was continuously checking the
website of the airline, to check if the flight was the same price on the web as the price being
quoted on the phone (the price was checked multiple times online because the fares online may
change every few minutes).
The pilot study took place with one phone call to each of the four airlines with inaccessible
websites (Alaska, JetBlue, United, USAirways). In the pilot study, it was noted that the order of
one of the questions in the script had to be moved due to the time at which extra fees for making
a phone reservation were mentioned in the course of a typical phone interaction. The phone
center fees tend to be mentioned at the end of the phone call, after the price quote, but in the
original script, the caller mentioned the phone center fees at the beginning of the call, so that
discussion was moved to the end of the script. Also, the researchers discovered that when you
call one airline (United), rather than speaking immediately with a human being, you are placed
into a phone tree, and callers must specifically indicate that they want a human assistant.
Therefore, the script was modified to note that when calling United, you must press a certain key
combination to access a human being. The other three airlines have a human immediately answer
the phone, without first going through a phone tree. In the pilot study, all four airlines actually
quoted the same price on the phone as on the web, and all indicated that they would waive their
phone center charge since the caller had a disability.
3. Results
3.1. Data collection
The main data collection took place with 15 phone calls to each of the four airlines identified
above as having accessibility issues with checking flights and making reservations on their
websites. A specific travel itinerary was decided upon, in advance, for each call. The itinerary
involved a specific date, time, and departing/arriving city. For uniformity, all itineraries were
11
round trip flights, direct flights, within the United States, and did not involve an overnight flight.
As such, a total of 60 travel itineraries were created, and the flight itineraries were designed so
that there was only one logical direct flight from that airline at that given time that met the
criteria. While the specific flight was not indicated to the airline representative on the phone, due
to the scheduling of the itineraries, there was only one flight that met the criteria. That way, the
price of that specific flight could be checked on the airline website, both before and after the
phone call to the airline. If the fare quoted on the website differed only a few cents (less than a
dollar) from the fare quoted on the phone, the fare was not counted as being discriminatory. The
researchers expect that this was due to the website or the airline operator rounding up to the
nearest dollar.
Since the DOT regulations are in place, if a caller identifies themselves as having a disability
and as having trouble accessing the website, they must be given, over the phone, the lowest fare
available at the website at that time. In addition, the caller with a disability may not be charged
extra for calling the phone center or making a reservation online. In either case, once the caller
identifies that there is a regulation that requires either one of those two items, the airline must
comply. Out of 60 phone calls to airlines, there were a total of 15 violations, either where the
airline charged more for the fare on the phone than the fare available on the airline’s website at
the time, or where the airline refused to waive the call center fee. One of the phone calls actually
resulted in two separate violations. Table 2 summarizes the failures to comply with the DOT
regulations across the phone calls by airline.
Charged above the fare
quoted on the web
Refused to waive the
call center fee
Alaska Airlines
0
2
Jetblue Airlines
1
0
United Airlines
0
5
USAirways
2
5
Table 2: Rates and types of failures to comply with DOT regulations by airline.
Rate of failures to
comply (out of 15
calls to the airline)
2/15 (13.33%)
1/15 (6.67%)
5/15 (33.33%)
6/15 (40%)*
*One call to USAirways resulted in two violations, so there were seven total violations that took place in
six phone calls.
Clearly, there were differences by airline, with some performing much better than others.
Alaska Airlines had only 2 failures (13.33%) among the calls, while JetBlue Airlines only had 1
12
(6.67%). Given the significant accessibility problems of the JetBlue site, this level of compliance
with the DOT regulations is very important. USAirways and United Airlines, on the other hand,
had a majority of the violations. One third (33.33%) of calls to United Airlines had failures to
comply. USAirways refused to waive the call center fee 5 times (33.3%) and charged more for
the fare on the phone than on the website 2 times (13.33%). Because one of the phone calls
included both types of violations, the overall violation rate for USAirways could either be
interpreted as 6/15 (40%) or 7/15 (46.67%), depending on how you count multiple violations in
one phone call (which only happened with USAirways). The researchers believe the two separate
violations in the same call should be counted as one incident, meaning six of the fifteen calls
resulted in discriminatory pricing. The reason for this interpretation is that, if there is a violation
anywhere in the call, the end result is a lack of equal access and a violation of the guidelines. In
any call, a traveler with a disability may face discriminatory pricing in paying a higher ticket
price, in paying a call center fee, or in both. As such, each call represents the potential for several
combinations of discriminatory pricing, but any act of discriminatory pricing makes the entire
transaction a violation of the intent of the regulations.
3.2. Specific violations
For Alaska Airlines, two calls resulted in call center fees not being waived:

Alaska #13- The price quoted on the phone and on the website were the same, but the
airline representative said that there would be a $15 fee for using the phone center. When
the caller noted that there is a federal regulation that prohibits this, the airline
representative put them on hold, and then came back and said that they could not waive
the fee “for a visual disability.”

Alaska #15- The fare quoted on the phone was the same as the fare quoted online, but the
airline representative indicated that there would be a fee for using the phone call center.
When the caller noted that there was a federal regulation that required that the fee be
waived, the airline representative said that they cannot waive the fee, and if they want to
get the fee waived, they should ask a friend who did not have a disability to use the
website for them.
13
These two interactions demonstrate both a failure to comply with the regulations and
insensitivity to persons with disabilities. In one call where the fee was eventually waived, the
airline representative asked if the caller lived with anyone who could use the web on their behalf.
JetBlue Airlines only had one interaction that was a direct failure to follow the policy:

JetBlue #4- The price quoted on the phone ($264.20) was different than the price quoted
online ($249.20). When asked, the airline representative indicated that they would waive
the call center fee, but indicated that the price was still $264.20.
In five interactions, United Airlines refused to waive the call center fee as required by the
DOT regulations:

United #6- The airline representative quoted a price for the flight, but wouldn’t give the
specific flight numbers, and indicated that the caller could get those from the automated
response system. The price quoted was actually $7 less on the phone than on the web
($290.20 versus $297.20); however, the airline representative said that they would have
to add a $25 fee for using the call center. When the caller noted that the law prohibits
this, the airline representative put the caller on hold, checked with a supervisor, and came
back and said, “we don’t have that [policy] in place” and they would still need to charge
the $25 phone center fee.

United #7- The fares quoted on the phone and on the website were the same, but the
airline representative said that there would be a $25 fee for using the phone center. When
the caller noted that the website was inaccessible and that they could not use it, the airline
representative suggested calling tech support. When the caller reminded the airline
representative that federal regulations require that the fee be waived, the airline
representative apologized, but noted that they could not waive the fee in any
circumstance.

United #9- The fare quoted on the phone was the same as the fare quoted online, but the
airline representative indicated that there would be a fee for using the phone call center.
When the caller noted that there was a federal regulation that required that the fee be
waived, the airline representative said that they could not waive the fee.

United #13 - The fares quoted on the phone and on the website were the same, but the
airline representative said that there would be a fee for using the phone center. When the
14
caller noted that there is a federal regulation that prohibits this, the airline representative
put them on hold, and then came back and said that they would not waive the fee.

United #14- The fare quoted on the phone was the same as the fare quoted online. When
they indicated that the caller would have to pay the $25 call center charge, the caller
explained twice about the federal regulation in place. The airline representative refused to
waive the fee, and they suggested the caller still use the website to get the lower fare
without the $25 charge.
In two other interactions, the fee was waived, but only with the inclusion of the caveat that it was
not normal airline policy:

United #8- The price quoted on the phone and on the website were the same, but
originally the airline representative said that there would be a fee for using the phone
center. After the caller noted that regulations require that they not be charged the fee,
they were put on hold. When the airline representative came back on the phone, they
indicated that they would waive the fee, but only one time, and only if the reservation
was made immediately.

United #15- The fare quoted on the phone was the same as the fare quoted online, but the
airline representative noted that there would be a fee for using the call center. When the
caller noted that there is a regulation that requires that the fee be waived for people with
disabilities, the airline representative noted that United Airlines does not have a policy
that states that a potential customer with a visual impairment would be allowed a waived
fee. The airline representative noted that they would waive the fee, however, only if they
booked now, as this is not a standard policy. If the caller tried again at a later time, they
would have to ask permission again to get the fee waived – it would not be automatic.
United also provided one of the most depressing interactions that did comply with the law: upon
learning that the caller was blind, the airline representative said, “I feel bad for you. That’s sad.”
Such responses are prone to make persons with disabilities feel disempowered in traveling, as
reactions of pity and condescension to disability have long been shown to have a significant
marginalizing impact on persons with disabilities (e.g., Breckenridge & Vogler, 2001; Charlton,
1998; Frank, 1988; Hunt, 1966; Jaeger & Bowman, 2005; Shapiro, 1993).
15
As with Alaska Airlines and United Airlines, the six failures to comply with the DOT
regulations at USAirways – with one call including a failure to comply with both parts of the
regulation – also demonstrate a certain level of disregard for travelers with disabilities:

USAirways #4 – While the airfare on the phone was the same as the airfare online, when
the airline representative was told about the regulation that they couldn’t be charged extra
for using the phone center, the airline representative said that the fee would only be
waived at the airport.

USAirways #7 – While the airfare on the phone was the same as the airfare online, the
airline representative noted that there is a $25 fee for using the call center. When
reminded about the federal regulations that prohibit someone with an impairment being
charged that fee, the airline representative checked with the supervisor on-duty, came
back, and said that the fee would not be waived, and the caller should just use the
website. When the caller noted that the website is inaccessible and that they could not use
the website, the airline representative told the caller to “call tech support” but that the call
center fee would not be waived.

USAirways #8- The fare quoted on the phone was the same as the fare quoted online.
When the airline representative wanted to charge the call center fee, the caller noted the
law. The airline representative responded that they would not waive the fee, and they
tried to transfer the caller to tech support.

USAirways #10- The price quoted on the phone ($334) was different from the price
available on the website at the time ($313). In addition, when the airline representative
indicated that they would need to add a $25 fee for using the call center, the caller noted
that the regulations require that they not be charged extra. The airline representative then
asked what error message the caller was getting on the website, but did not mention the
call center fee again.

USAirways #11- The price quoted on the phone ($237) was different from the price
available on the website ($218). In addition, when the airline representative indicated that
they would need to add a $25 fee for using the call center, the caller noted that the
regulations require that they not be charged extra. The airline representative said that she
had never heard of the law and would not be able to waive the $25 fee for using the call
center.
16

USAirways #12- The fare quoted on the phone was the same as the fare quoted online,
but the airline representative noted that there would be a fee for using the call center. The
caller mentioned that there is a law that prohibits this. The airline representative put the
caller on hold for 2 minutes, and then said she was unable to verify this law and was
therefore required to charge the call center fee.
The repeated suggestions to talk to tech support serve as evidence of a real misunderstanding of
the issues of website accessibility. Curiously, in one call where the same rate was charged and
the call center fee was waived, upon learning that the caller had a visual impairment, the airline
representative started to speak more slowly and then did not put the caller on hold while the
airline representative then asked nearby co-workers if the fee should be waived.
4. Policy implications and recommendations
The most striking finding from this study is that out of sixty phone calls, there were fifteen
instances of failing to comply with the DOT regulations in fourteen phone calls. At the time this
data was collected, it had been more than 18 months since these regulations had been issued and
they had been in effect for six months. As such, newness was clearly not a barrier to compliance.
While the instances of pricing discrimination were not evenly distributed across airlines, this data
indicates that there is a high likelihood that a traveler with a disability who is educated about the
regulations may still not be treated fairly by an airline with an inaccessible website.
Being an educated traveler in regard to these regulations, however, is not necessarily easy.
Among the several websites developed by the DOT and other government agencies for travelers
with disabilities, scant to no references are made to these rights. Entire sites that are intended to
provide support to travelers with disabilities fail to mention the regulations that dictate equitable
pricing of airfares. Even finding the regulation itself on the DOT site requires a good deal of
searching.
As a result, many travelers with disabilities are likely unaware of these rights that they have.
And if a traveler is unaware of these rights, the traveler will be unable to identify and react to
acts of discriminatory pricing. The law was written to force callers to actively mention their
disability and inability to use the website, rather than having airlines ask callers about these
potential barriers to website use for making reservations. A clear step toward improving the
effectiveness of this policy would be to make the regulations and their requirements more readily
17
available to travelers with disabilities, both through making them easier to find and by actively
promoting these rights to persons with disabilities through relevant government websites.
Another important step would be having airlines clearly state on their websites that any persons
with disabilities having trouble using the site can make their reservations by phone at no extra
cost.
In practice, the discriminatory pricing is likely higher than the data in this study indicates.
While this study clearly shows that awareness of this law is insufficient among airline call
centers, all of the callers knew about their rights under the regulations. In each of the study
phone calls, the callers immediately acknowledged that they had a disability, that they had
difficulty using the website, and that there was a regulation requiring they be charged the same
fare on the phone as on the website. If the airline representative mentioned that there would be a
call center fee, the caller immediately noted the regulation also requires that the fee be waived. In
addition, another researcher was comparing the airfare price on the phone to the airfare price on
the web. In a typical daily situation, a traveler with a disability, facing an inaccessible airline
website, would have no way of knowing whether they were being charged a higher airfare
because they were calling, even if the traveler is aware of these rights.
Without the knowledge to assert these rights, a caller with a disability may face
discriminatory pricing in both paying a higher ticket price and in paying a call center fee. These
findings indicate that any follow-up research should focus on the reactions of airline employees
when the caller mentions a disability and trouble using the website, but does not assert their
rights under the law to equal pricing.
While these findings amply demonstrate a need for better education about the regulations and
their requirements among airline employees, the calls also evidence a need for education about
disability in general among airlines. The large number of airline representatives who sent callers
to tech support or into an automated phone system to respond to an issue with inaccessibility of a
website for a person with a disability shows a genuine lack of understanding of the needs of
travelers with disabilities.
In addition, such education might also address basic human decency toward travelers with
disabilities to limit interactions where the airline representative spoke more slowly or more
loudly to a caller with a visual disability or told them they felt sorry for them. In addition, a
18
number of interactions included an assertion by the airline representative that they did not think
these rights were an actual requirement, but that they would waive the fees out of kindness.
A final key issue raised by the results of these phone calls is the lack of a clear way for
travelers with disabilities to assert their rights when an airline with an inaccessible website does
not charge the same rate as the website and waive the call center fee for a caller. A long-term
problem with rights to persons with disabilities granted by laws and regulations in the United
States is difficulty in enforcing them when they are being violated, a problem that is especially
pronounced in cyberspace (Jaeger, 2004; Jaeger & Bowman, 2005). When an airline refuses to
honor these rights to equitable pricing granted to travelers with disabilities, the traveler is forced
to either find a similar flight on another carrier – if a similar flight is available – or to accept
being charged a discriminatory rate for the flight.
5. Conclusions
The rise of the Internet as the primary means of making travel reservations has coincided
with the homeland security era of heightened airport security. In tandem, these two changes to
the travel environment added many potential obstacles to travelers with disabilities. For example,
though the Transportation Security Administration airport screening manual that was recently
accidentally released online includes provisions for the occasional exemption of wheelchairs and
prosthetic limbs from being removed for screening for explosives (Associated Press, 2009),
many travelers with disabilities have had negative experiences of assistive devices as innocuous
as a mobility cane being mistakenly identified as potential security threats. Such an experience
can lead to feelings of disempowerment or even resistance to flying for a traveler with a
disability.
Fortunately, the Department of Transportation has been implementing regulations that are
intended to increase the accessibility of as many aspects of travel as possible, with the intention
of making travel an overall more accessible experience for travelers with disabilities
(Department of Transportation, 2009a, 2009b). This study, however, shows that the
implementation of these regulations lags behind the intent, at least in the area of preventing
discriminatory pricing in the sale of airline tickets. The findings of this study reveal ways in
which 1) the DOT can work to raise awareness among travelers and airlines, 2) the airlines can
better educate their employees not only about the legal requirements but also about appropriate
19
and effective ways to interact with persons with disabilities, and 3) the airlines can more
frequently and effectively comply with these regulations.
This study also shows that there is a far greater need to study the implementation of
regulations related to accessibility of ICTs and travel. As ICTs become the central part of more
and more daily interactions, the need to ensure that ICTs are accessible – or that there are at least
alternatives that are readily available and equitable – becomes increasingly vital to ensuring that
persons with disabilities are not further excluded by society. Researchers must devote
meaningful attention to monitoring the ways in which laws and regulations meant to increase
equal access to ICTs are being implemented and the ways that such implementation can be
improved.
References
Abrar, A., & Dingle, K. (2009). From madness to method: The Americans with Disabilities Act
meets the Internet. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44, 133-157.
Air Carrier Access Act. 49 U.S.C. § 41705.
Associated Press. (2009). Air security document posted in error on Net. Available:
http://www.msnbc.com
Bashaw, J. (2008). Applying the Americans with Disabilities Act to private websites after
National Federation of the Blind v. Target. Shidler Journal of Law Commerce, and
Technology, 4, 3-25.
Breckenridge, C., & Vogler, C. (2001). The critical limits of embodiment: Disability’s criticism.
Public Culture, 13(3), 349-357.
Carstens, D., & Patterson, P. (2005). Usability Study of Travel Websites. Journal of Usability
Studies, 1(1), 47-61.
Chariton, C.& Choi, M. (2002). User interface guidelines for enhancing usability of airline travel
agency e-commerce websites. In CHI '02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 676-677.
Charlton, J. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
20
Cullen, R. & Hernon, P. (2006) More citizen perspectives on e-government. In P. Hernon, R.
Cullen, & H. C. Relyea, (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on e-government: Serving today
and building for tomorrow. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Daniels, M., Rodgers, E., & Wiggins, B.(2005). “Travel tales”: An interpretative analysis of
constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with physical
disabilities. Tourism Management, 26, 919-930.
Department of Transportation. (2009). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in air travel.
14 CFR 382. Available: http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/Part%20382-2008.pdf
Else, S. (2008). Courts must welcome the reality of the modern world: Cyberspace is the place
under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Washington and Lee Law Review, 65,
1121-1158.
Frank, G. (1988). Beyond stigma: Visibility and self-empowerment of person with congenital
limb deficiencies. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 95-115.
Gutierrez, C., Loucopoulos, C., & Reinsch, R. (2005). Disability-accessibility of airlines'
Websites for US reservations online. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11, 239-247.
Hackett, S., Parmento, B., & Zeng, X. (2004). Accessibility of Internet websites through time.
Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Assistive Technology (ASSETS), 32-39.
Hackett, S. & Parmanto, B. (2009). Homepage not enough when evaluating website accessibility.
Internet Research, 19(1), 78-87.
Hunt, P. (1966). Stigma: The experience of disability. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Jacko, J. & Hanson, V. (2002) Universal access and inclusion in design. Universal Access in the
Information Society, 2, 1-2.
Jaeger, P. (2004). Beyond Section 508: The spectrum of legal requirements for accessible egovernment websites in the United States. Journal of Government Information, 30(4), 518533.
Jaeger, P. (2006). Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government websites: A multimethod, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities. Government
Information Quarterly, 23(2), 169-190.
Jaeger, P. (2008). User-centered policy evaluations of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act:
Evaluating E-Government websites for accessibility. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,
19(1), 24-33.
21
Jaeger, P. T., & Bowman, C. A. (2005). Understanding disability: Inclusion, access, diversity, &
civil rights. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Jaeger, P. T., & Matteson, M. (2009). E-government and technology acceptance: The
implementation of Section 508 guidelines for e-government websites. Electronic Journal of
E-Government, 7(1), 87-98. Available: http://www.ejeg.com/volume-7/vol7-iss1/v7-i1art8.htm
Jaeger, P. T., & Xie, B. (2009). Developing online community accessibility guidelines for
persons with disabilities and older adults. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 55-63.
Kessling, N. D. (2008). Why the Target “nexus test” leaves disabled Americans disconnected: A
better approach to determine whether private commercial websites are “places of
accommodation.” Houston Law Review, 45, 992-1029.
Lazar, J., Allen, A., Kleinman, J., & Malarkey, C. (2007). What frustrates screen reader users on
the web: A study of 100 blind users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
22(3), 247-269.
Lazar, J., Beavan, P, Brown, J., Coffey, D., Nolf, B., Poole, R., Turk, R., Waith, V., Wall, T.,
Weber, K., and Wenger, B. (2010). Investigating the accessibility of state government
websites in Maryland. In P. Langdon, P. Clarkson and P. Robinson (eds.) Designing
Inclusive Interactions--Proceedings of the 2010 Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access
and Assistive Technololgy. London: Springer-Verlag, 69-78.
Lazar, J., Beere, P., Greenridge, K., & Nagappa, Y. (2003). Web accessibility in the MidAtlantic United States: A study of 50 websites. Universal Access in the Information Society,
2(4), 331-341.
Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenridge, K. (2004). Improving web accessibility: a study
of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 269-288.
Lazar, J., & Greenidge, K. (2006). One year older, but not necessarily wiser: An evaluation of
homepage accessibility problems over time. Universal Access in the Information Society,
4(4), 285-291.
Mankoff, J., Fait, H., & Tran, T. (2005). Is your web page accessible?: A comparative study of
methods for assessing web page accessibility for the blind. Proceedings of the 2005 SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems, 41-50.
National Federation of the Blind v. Target. (2006). 452 F. Supp. 2d 946.
22
Ogden, J. S., & Menter, L. (2009). Inaccessible school webpages: Are remedies available?
Journal of Law and Education, 38, 393-408.
Rich, R., Erb, C., & Rich, R. (2002). Critical legal and policy issues for people with disabilities.
DePaul Journal of Health Care Law, 6, 1-53.
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794d.
Selvidge, P. (1999). Reservations about the usability of airline websites. CHI '99 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 306-307.
Shapiro, J. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. New
York: Times Books.
Stephanidis, C. & Savidis, A. (2001). Universal access in the information society: Methods,
tools, and interactive technologies. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1, 40-55.
Theofanos, M., & Redish, J. (2003). Bridging the gap between accessibility and usability.
Interactions, 10(6), 36-51.
23