14 C.F.R. § 382.95

What are carriers' general obligations with respect to boarding and deplaning assistance?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As a carrier, you must provide or ensure the provision of assistance requested by or on behalf of passengers with a disability, or offered by carrier or airport operator personnel and accepted by passengers with a disability, in enplaning and deplaning. This assistance must include, as needed, the services of personnel and the use of ground wheelchairs, accessible motorized carts, boarding wheelchairs, and/or on-board wheelchairs where provided in accordance with this part, and ramps or mechanical lifts.

(b) As a carrier, you must, except as otherwise provided in this subpart, provide boarding and deplaning assistance through the use of lifts or ramps at any U.S. commercial service airport with 10,000 or more annual enplanements where boarding and deplaning by level-entry loading bridges or accessible passenger lounges is not available.

[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2004-19482, 73 FR 27665, May 13, 2008, as amended by DOT-OST-2022-0144, 89 FR 102442, Dec. 17, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2021 · leading case: Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways (2011) ca2 “” See 14 C.F.R. § 382.95 (a). Regarding Lopez’s experiences on July 10, 2009, JetBlue denied any wrongdoing and the DOT was unable to determine whether JetBlue had violated any regulations in those instances.”

Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc. (2010) ca3 “” A “straight back” is similar in form to a hand truck. . When referring to the ACAA-implementing regulations hereafter, we will simply say “the ACAA regulations.”

Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc. (2010) ca3 “[3] During his deposition, Lavoie stated that he had told Elassaad about the availability of a wheelchair (though Elassaad denies this), but not about the availability of an electronic lift or a "straight back." A "straight back" is similar in form to a hand truck.”

Armstrong v. Southwest Airlines Co (2021) txnd · cites it 2× “¶ 12 (“After carefully reviewing and considering 14 C.F.R. § 382.95 again, . . . Plaintiff believes that Defendant may be correct in their argument that a violation of this particular regulation cannot be negligence per se under Texas law.”

Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc. (2010) ca3 “39(a) that are pertinent to this case currently appear in 14 C.F.R. § 382.95 (a) (2009), and impose requirements that are substantively identical to the former § 382.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.