<p> 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?</p><p>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.</p><p>For more information, contact Jonathan Lazar at 410-704-2255 or [email protected]</p><p>Abstract</p><p>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 one- third 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. </p><p>1. Introduction</p><p>1.1. Accessibility and the Web</p><p>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 </p><p>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). </p><p>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):</p><p>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)</p><p>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 </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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 </p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p>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 round- trip 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 </p><p>7 also note that Southwest and Hawaiian airlines did not offer equipment or detailed flight information to any users, regardless of disability. </p><p>Table 1 Results of accessibility evaluation of airline websites, alphabetically by airline name</p><p>Airline Accessibility evaluation Overall Home Links made Detailed flight Comments page accessible sense out of info was context accessible AirTran Airways X X X Alaska Airlines X X Flight information was in an inaccessible pop-up American Airlines X X X Could not get detailed seat information, but everything else was accessible Continental Airlines X X X Delta Airlines X X X Had a text-only link, and claimed to meet WCAG and Section 508 Hawaiian Airlines X X NA Equipment and detailed information wasn’t available to any users JetBlue Airlines Lots of meaningless links, you were required to use a pointing device to select the destination city, you could not even select a flight Southwest Airlines X X NA Equipment and detailed information wasn’t available to any users United Airlines Flight information was in an inaccessible mouseover, lots of meaningless links USAirways X X Flight information was in an inaccessible pop-up</p><p>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 </p><p>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 non- accessible websites. For simplicity’s sake, only round-trip flights were selected as sample itineraries. </p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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 </p><p>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. </p><p>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 </p><p>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. </p><p>Charged above the fare Refused to waive the Rate of failures to quoted on the web call center fee comply (out of 15 calls to the airline) Alaska Airlines 0 2 2/15 (13.33%) Jetblue Airlines 1 0 1/15 (6.67%) United Airlines 0 5 5/15 (33.33%) USAirways 2 5 6/15 (40%)* Table 2: Rates and types of failures to comply with DOT regulations by airline. *One call to USAirways resulted in two violations, so there were seven total violations that took place in six phone calls. </p><p>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 </p><p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p>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 </p><p>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). </p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p>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</p><p>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 </p><p>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. </p><p>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 </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>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 e- government websites in the United States. Journal of Government Information, 30(4), 518- 533. Jaeger, P. (2006). Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government websites: A multi- method, 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.</p><p>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-i1- art8.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 Mid- Atlantic 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. </p><p>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.</p><p>23</p>