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.