davidgillon | Can't Do, or Shan't Do?

I stumbled onto the replies to the UK CAA's request for comments on how the implementation of EC 1107/2006 was going. (EC 1107/2006 'the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air' is the European Law governing the rights of disabled passengers flying into, out of, or within the EU). The results are collated into a CAA report at Accessible Air Travel.

Being interested in disability rights at the same time as having 20-odd years of experience in the aircraft industry this is a subject pretty close to my heart and it annoys me whenever I hear about the airlines and airports failing yet another disabled passenger, particularly when it is something, as it usually is, that half a second of common sense could have and should have solved. Unfortunately some of the replies here suggest the problem isn't just lack of sense, but a positive desire not to help.

It's not all bad, some of the replies from airports and handling companies suggest they've got a reasonable idea of what they should be doing, sadly the same can't be said for some of the other entries, and in particular the two from law firms. International civil aviation operates under a special limited liability scheme known as the Montreal Convention, which is specifically designed to limit airline liability in the event of a crash, where US-sized settlements could conceivably drive them out of business. Our esteemed legal brethren (sic) are trying to argue that this limited liability, which I'll repeat is specifically intended for air crashes and accidents, should also apply to mistreatment of and discrimination against disabled passengers. Amongst other things the Montreal Convention excludes compensation for 'injury to feelings', therefore they are arguing that no airline should ever be liable for discrimination, no matter how egregious their behaviour (and there have been some pretty damned egregious examples reported over the years).

The Montreal Convention also limits liability for lost luggage to approximately $1,500. This may be reasonable in the case of a non-disabled passenger, but is unreasonable in the case of a disabled passenger, particularly wheelchair users. A modern lightweight manual wheelchair may easily have cost £2000, a powerchair can go well north of £5000. The airline industry is notorious for frequently damaging wheelchairs during transit, sometimes beyond repair, and occasionally loses one completely. A wheelchair user 's wheelchair is not comparable to other luggage, it is their mobility and their independence and they do not have the option of travelling without it. EC 1107/2006 rightly charges the airlines with the responsibility for repair or replacement and the provision of a temporary substitute. To argue, as one of the the law firms does, that the Montreal Convention should supersede EC 1107/2006 to be a get out of jail free card for the continuing failure of the airlines to adequately transport wheelchairs without risk of damage shows a clear intent to limit the liability of their clients, no matter the cost to the individual disabled person or the culpability of the airline. Profit 1 - Equality 0.

The same set of lawyers then argues that because a power chair may exceed the safe lifting limits of a single person under health and safety law the airlines should be able to refuse to carry them. It's unclear whether the lawyers truly fail to understand the interaction of health and safety law with other laws, or whether they are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. I have considerable sympathy with the idea that no baggage handler should be hurt in carrying out EC 1107/2006's requirement to transport a wheelchair, but to suggest that allows the airline to refuse to carry heavy powerchairs is a clear failure to understand the law. If law A says you must do something, but law B says doing it your normal way would be unsafe, then you are required by law to find a new way to do it, not simply say it is impossible. We are talking about a piece of equipment designed to move around under its own power, why is anyone trying to lift it in the first place? Is it truly beyond the capability of the aviation industry to use a small powerlift to bring a powerchair level with the baggage hatch so that it can be wheeled on under its own power, or is it simply a case that they don't want to pay for the service*. In the worst case of a powerchair with a fixed back and headrest that exceed the vertical dimensions of the baggage hatch, a trolley able to tilt the chair is not exactly hard to conceive. Fortunately the CAA seem to share my opinion, using this as an example of an unacceptable airline position in the final document.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed; we proclaim ourselves as a 'can do' industry, but as soon as disability rights comes into the picture certain people seem to switch automatically to 'shan't do'.

* There's a complication in using a wheelchair's own power to get it aboard in that certain types of battery must be disconnected and transported in approved containers, but nothing that couldn't be easily dealt with by appropriate training. The unspoken issue is that airlines don't want to contemplate anything that might delay a turnaround, no matter if that means discriminating against disabled passengers. The one legitimate case for refusing carriage of a wheelchair, which is provided for in EC 1107/2006, is for the smallest commuter aircraft where a wheelchair may exceed the dimensions of the entire baggage compartment, never mind the hatch.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

For completeness I shall park my well-aired feelings here also. I am the owner of one of those powerchairs that costs a darned fortune. I have found a reasonably effective way of stopping people actively throwing it like idiots is to actually TELL them I paid money for it. Most assume they are provided by the NHS (yeah) and that they cost at most about £800. When I asked him how he would feel if I came around and threw his car up against a wall and scratched it whether it would still be "just a little scratch" we finally reached consensus on a repair obligation. Incidentally, this was them trying to use the regulation which I assume is part of Montreal that they are not liable for damage to any of the outside of a luggage article. It's meant to protect them from paying for a busted zip or a smashed suitcase wheel, not for them to be allowed to throw a wheelchair and smash it to pieces.

So on to the next problem. I now travel with an embarassing laminated photo-help tied to the back of my chair stating it should be returned airside (someone once lifted it onto a baggage belt, health and safety became a major problem in trying to remove it from a circulating baggage belt inside the terminal, thank goodness I was there to tell the guy not to attempt to lift it, he didn't realise it would be heavy - chair ignorance again).

But anyway, I do this because despite it being a very large chair when assembled, the Alber has the beauty of being capable of being disassembled without any tools and within the space of 10 minutes and placed into the boot of a standard Group B rental car. Yet they often claim it cannot travel because of its total size and weight. No single piece weighs more than 35kg either. But in any case, there is such a thing as a cargo loading belt. Most airlines now use these for reasons of speed. You push the chair under manual power (circumventing problems with the battery disconnection) onto the belt, apply brake, push it off again at the top, apply brake.

Of course, most do not read the helpful guide, which I will repeat comes with annotated pictures, telling them how to apply and remove the brake.

Thing is, are we disabled passengers located in a sealed room without benefit of communication facilities or are we sitting in a departure lounge about 50m from the aircraft? If you are having a problem then why not pick up the darned PHONE and ask for my help? You don't have to be an expert or a hero or a macho man, radio to the gate and I will tell you which switch to push in order to pull the back off entirely and your problem is solved. Easy. Quick.

And please can wheelchair owners be the inventors of the tilting mechanism? Too many US airlines turn a powerchair on its side and then leave it there in transit. You don't have to be a genius to realise that the wheels are designed to take the weight, the armrest is not. Sadly, you also do not have to be a genius to work in baggage handling!

Amazing what a little common sense can do! And an interesting point about perceived lack of value to wheelchairs, which is rather startling from our side of the equation. (Disability not being understood by the general public? Say it ain't so!)

The pictorial guide is a good idea and echoes a suggestion I saw in the US FAA's discussion of updating the Air Carrier Access Act that travellers could attach the manual of their wheelchair. But as you say, that presumes someone bothering to read it.

I've got a nasty suspicion a lot of airlines and baggage handling companies would far rather spend 30 seconds throwing a chair about than a couple of minutes talking to someone to do the job properly. The focus on turnaround-time, particularly on the low cost carrers, is brutal. Inconveniencing the odd disabled passenger doesn't show up so prominently in their logs as missing a departure slot

Can't Do, or Shan't Do?

Hello

Re: Hello