The Accessibility Dilemma: Overcoming Cognitive Dissonance in the Airline Industry

In one of my discussions with airline executives, I proposed a hypothetical scenario to help them understand the disconnect between their desire for profitability and their discomfort about accessibility. I suggested that to create more seating opportunities and maximize profit—something they were all deeply focused on—removing a lavatory could free up valuable space. This, in turn, could allow us to add more seats to the cabin, directly increasing capacity and revenue.

The response was telling. Instead of focusing on the fact that this could lead to more seats and profit, the executives immediately balked at removing the lavatory. “No lavatory?” one of them asked, almost appalled. “How could we do that?”

What was happening here wasn’t a resistance to the loss of seats—it was a deeper discomfort with the reality that wheelchair users often don’t have access to a lavatory. By removing the lavatory, we would be creating a space that mirrored the experience of those with disabilities, and that was something they couldn't bring themselves to accept. The lavatory wasn’t just an amenity but a symbol of equality and comfort for all passengers. Taking it away seemed to them like creating an unequal, less comfortable experience similar to wheelchair users.

This is where the cognitive dissonance came in. The airline executives were caught between two conflicting beliefs: they wanted to increase profits through higher seating capacity, but they also didn’t want to face the reality of what wheelchair users experience, which often involves flying without access to a lavatory. The thought of removing an amenity like the lavatory, even if it meant higher profits through more seats, made them uncomfortable because it forced them to confront that uncomfortable truth.

The lesson here isn’t just about the design or the financials—it’s about understanding that the cognitive dissonance lies in the refusal to acknowledge the unequal experience that many passengers with disabilities face. By framing the removal of the lavatory purely in terms of profit—increasing seat numbers and, therefore, revenue—I was able to highlight the disconnection. The airlines wanted to make more money, but they couldn’t face making that trade-off when it came to the experience of a wheelchair user.

To overcome this cognitive dissonance, we must help decision-makers realize that accessibility doesn’t have to be sacrificed. It’s about shifting the conversation away from the fear of "losing" amenities and recognizing that creating a more inclusive experience doesn’t mean sacrificing comfort for anyone—it means rethinking the cabin layout in a way that works for everyone. It’s about making the uncomfortable truth of accessibility something that aligns with the airline’s profit-driven goals, not in spite of them.