HANDICAPPED FREQUENT FLYER CAUSES A DELAY DUE TO REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH REQUESTS THAT SHE SATISFY FAR REQUIREMENTS FOR BLOCKING AISLES.

Narrative

ABOUT 20 MINS PRIOR TO SCHEDULED DEP; THE PURSER ON MY FLT CAME TO THE COCKPIT TO ADVISE ME THAT A HANDICAPPED PAX SITTING IN FIRST CLASS HAD PLACED PILLOWS OR CUSHIONS IN FRONT OF THEIR SEAT IN ORDER TO PROP UP THEIR LEGS WHICH ARE DISABLED. THE PURSER HAD ASKED THE PAX IF THEY WOULD MIND MOVING TO THE WINDOW SEAT SO THAT THE IMPROVISED FOOT REST WOULDN'T BLOCK THE EXIT PATH IN FRONT OF THE SEAT. THE PAX REPLIED THAT THEIR DISABILITY MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO SIT IN THE WINDOW SEAT. AT THIS POINT THE PURSER BROUGHT THE ISSUE TO ME. SINCE WE WERE STILL AT THE GATE; THIS WAS A CUSTOMER SVC ISSUE SO I WENT OUT TO THE GATE AREA TO ADVISE OUR CUSTOMER SVC REPS THAT WE NEEDED TO FIND SOME SOLUTION TO THIS BECAUSE WE COULDN'T HAVE EXIT SPACE IN FRONT OF THIS PAX'S SEAT BLOCKED PER FAR. THE PAX AGENT IMMEDIATELY KNEW TO WHICH PAX I WAS REFERRING AND QUICKLY REFUSED TO DEAL WITH THE PROB BECAUSE 1) THIS PAX WORKS IN A FEDERAL GOV AGENCY AND 2) BECAUSE THE PAX IS AT OUR COMPANY'S HIGHEST LEVEL OF FREQUENT FLYER PROGRAM. THEY SAID THE PAX WAS 'A LAWSUIT WAITING TO HAPPEN' AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED FOR RISK OF THEIR JOBS. A CSR SUPVR WAS CALLED AS WAS A FLT OPS SUPVR TO DEAL WITH THE PROB. WE ENDED UP GOING BACK DOWN TO THE AIRPLANE AND HAD 5 PEOPLE CRAMMED IN THE COCKPIT OF MY B757 (2 PLTS; THE PURSER AND 2 SUPVRS) DISCUSSING WHAT TO DO. ACTUALLY; IT TURNED MORE INTO A NEGOTIATION OF WHAT WE COULD GET AWAY WITH WITHOUT ANNOYING THE PAX. I FINALLY GOT ACROSS TO THE CSR SUPVR THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL TO HAVE THE AREA IN FRONT OF THIS PAX'S SEAT BLOCKED FOR TAXI; TKOF AND LNDG AND THAT THE PAX'S FREQUENT FLYER STATUS AND POS IN THE FEDERAL GOV DIDN'T CHANGE THAT. THE SUPVR THEN WENT BACK AND ASKED THE PAX IF THEY WOULD MIND IF THE CUSHIONS WERE STOWED DURING THOSE CRITICAL PHASES OF FLT AND THE PAX SAID OK AND THAT WAS THE END OF IT; BUT WE TOOK AN 18 MIN DELAY DEALING WITH WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE PROB EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE CSR'S AND THEIR SUPVR WERE MORE FEARFUL OF THE GOVT AND THIS PAX'S HIGH MILEAGE STATUS THAN THEY WERE ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS FAR. I BELIEVE THIS IS GENERALLY REFLECTIVE OF THE SITUATION AT ALL CARRIERS TODAY. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE PAX HAD REFUSED TO ALLOW THE PILLOWS/CUSHIONS TO BE STOWED; I WASN'T GOING TO LEAVE THE GATE LIKE THAT. I NEED TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN THE PURSER WAS ORIGINALLY TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION ON HER OWN WITH THE PAX; THE PAX SAID THAT THEY FLEW A ROUND TRIP FROM ZZZ1 TO ZZZ2 EVERY WK AND THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY HAD SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ISSUE. AT SOME POINT; THE AVIATION INDUSTRY HAS BEEN NUDGED OUT OF AIRLINE OPS AND THE FOCUS HAS TURNED; OUT OF PROPORTION; TO 'DIVERSITY;' ADA ISSUES AND/OR EMPHASIS TO THE EXTREME ON HIGH MILEAGE FREQUENT FLYERS TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S AFFECTING NOT JUST THE GATE PERSONNEL; BUT ALSO FLT AND CABIN CREWS. MY AIRLINE (AND FLT ATTENDANTS) COULD HAVE BEEN VIOLATED EVERY TIME AN AIRPLANE TOOK OFF AND LANDED WITH THIS PAX'S CUSHIONS IN FRONT OF THEM; BUT THE VIOLATION WAS IGNORED UP TO THIS POINT. I ALSO NEED TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DELAY WAS ASSIGNED; IT WAS ALL PLACED ON THE FLT ATTENDANT. WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS MEANT TO BE; I BELIEVE THIS IS AN INTIMIDATING MESSAGE TO SEND AND SPEAKS (NEGATIVELY) ABOUT THE PRIORITIES CURRENTLY AT OUR AIRLINE.