International Working Group on Special Service Request Codes

Table of contents

PDF iconRead the pdf (492 KB)

Report No: LTR-FRL-2022-0029
Date: March 31, 2022

Author(s): Shelley Roberts & Caidence Paleske

Aerospace

Executive Summary

Beginning in 2021, in collaboration with the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) mobilized an International Working Group to target the current challenges associated with the use of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Special Service Request (SSR) codes in the air travel industry. This initiative included three virtual meetings that invited a wide variety of stakeholders to discuss the various factors that may be influencing issues related to SSR codes, and work together to produce recommendations and future research. The International Working Group members included disability rights organizations and advocacy groups, airlines, airport representatives, regulators and government representatives, travel agents, ground handlers and other interested stakeholders. The International Working Group had many areas of common agreement and identified issues that require additional discussion and research. The six areas of agreement for recommendations on improving SSR codes and associated processes hold a central theme; increase passenger empowerment through raised awareness of the assistance services. The recommendations are:

  • the reduction in variability of SSR code interpretation and application;
  • enhance training materials related to SSR codes and the accessibility services they are associated with for employees;
  • improve website accessibility and usability for information pertaining to available accessibility services;
  • improve real time access to accessibility related resources for passengers;
  • reduce repetitive submission of passenger information related to services required; and
  • improve communications within industry regarding accessibility services requested throughout the travel journey.

The group also identified further research with the intention of gaining a deeper understanding of the issues revealed.

Now is a critical time to consider how accessibility in airline operations may be improved. The onset of COVID-19 has had severe operational impacts on the air sector and, as a result, prompted a need to modernize and rethink operations and services provided to passengers with disabilities (PWD). This has also caused significant resource constraints on the industry and should be considered in the implementation of changes to operations and services to improve accessibility. Providing the best possible travel experience for all will be important for attracting and retaining this segment of the travelling public.

Background

The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) is Canada's federal independent, expert tribunal, and regulator that oversees the Canadian transportation system. The activities of the CTA support the economic and social well-being of Canadians as one of their core mandates is to ensure that transportation services are accessible to PWD. In 2016, the CTA launched the Regulatory Modernization Initiative to update its regulations and tools to keep pace with changing business models, user expectations and best practices in the regulatory field including accessibility. In order to create its new accessibility regulations – the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (ATPDR) – the CTA held consultations at various stages and received input from PWD, industry, members of the CTA's Accessibility Advisory Committee, and the general public.

Through CTAs various consultations, one of the issues that surfaced was related to the systems used by air carriers to book and execute travel. Given their current design, the systems used to book and execute travel are complex, often long-existing or “legacy” systems, and may not be flexible enough to ensure a seamless and accessible travel experience for PWD. When travelling by air, PWD may require services and assistance to facilitate their travel experience. Airlines take requests from passengers with disabilities for special accommodation and input that information into airline systems such as SITA (Société internationale de télécommunications aéronautiques) using the International Air Transport Association (IATA) standardized codes, known as SSR codes, both at the time of booking and thereafter until the passenger’s flight is finalized.

As a result, the National Research of Canada of Canada (NRC), in collaboration with the CTA, launched an initiative that included the formation of an international working group (IWG). The mandate of the IWG was to develop recommendations and research for possible future action related to SSR code use and associated services. This initiative included three meetings that took place in 2021 to discuss the various factors that may be impacting issues related to SSR codes and work together to produce recommendations and future research. The IWG members included disability rights organizations and advocacy groups, airlines, airport representatives, regulators and government representatives, travel agents, ground handlers and other interested stakeholders. Each meeting served as a catalyst for follow up dialogue and innovation by the IWG members in each of the subsequent meetings.

Introduction

In 2016, the CTA launched the Regulatory Modernization Initiative to update its suite of regulations and tools to keep pace with changing business models, user expectations and best practices in the regulatory field including accessibility. In order to create its new accessibility regulations – the ATPDR – the CTA held consultations at various stages and received input from PWD, industry, members of the CTA's Accessibility Advisory Committee, and the general public. Since then and through CTAs various consultations, one of the issues that surfaced was the systems used by air carriers to book and execute all travel - specifically these systems are very complex and may not be as flexible as needed to ensure a seamless travel experience for PWD.

When travelling by air, PWD may require services and assistance to facilitate their travel experience. Today, airlines and travel agents process requests from PWD for special accommodation services and transmit those requests in the form of international standardized special service codes, referred to as IATA SSR codes both at the time of booking and thereafter until the passenger’s flight with the airline is finalized. The global IATA industry Resolution 700 “Acceptance and carriage of passengers requiring special assistance” governs this process.

Carriers and travel agents use SSR codes available to add services into an electronic profile for passengers know as an IATA Passenger Name Record (PNR). Although travel processes are regulated by global standards and protocols some airlines and travel agents may use additional codes not included in the IATA Resolution 700. These additional codes are not standardized and therefore may not be recognized and processed by other airlines’ and ticket agents’ systems. This can result in inconsistencies in the service provided by different airlines.

The smooth functioning of the air travel chain network requires a carefully coordinated approach to standardization of certain basic functions, such as airport and airline codes, reservations, ticketing, and passenger handling. Carriers and all other actors in the travel chain rely on the correct application of IATA SSR codes; proper and consistent use of the codes should ensure that passengers receive the service(s) required. It is important to note that despite the use and implementation of SSR codes are not regulated, these are globally and universally agreed upon communication standards used between travel agency systems and airline systems as well as between different airlines.

The CTA has received feedback from PWD and airlines that the service and/or SSR codes may not be working as intended, which in turn, negatively affects the passengers travel experience and airlines operations.

During consultations, the CTA heard repeatedly from PWD that they may receive different services from carrier to carrier during international travel, which can cause them discomfort and frustration. For example, the wrong usage or interpretation of the SSR code may lead to misapplication of assistance service. Although the pain points related to SSR codes from the perspective of PWD are at the forefront, it should be noted that major carriers also have voiced their own challenges with the application of SSR codes. Namely, the lack of a consistent use of the service associated with SSR codes makes it difficult to seamlessly deliver accessibility requirements for passengers, particularly when the passenger travels through multiple airports during a single journey. Issues such as this lead us to believe that there is a possibility that the SSR codes may not be used consistently and that the information regarding the accommodation or services needed does not always fully transfer between carriers, between the travel agent to the carrier or consistently applied by airport services. This issue could partly be caused by a misunderstanding with respect to these codes and the information captured between the various actors in the travel chain. Moreover, there is a possibility that SSR codes may require some modifications or additions to better represent certain situations and ensure that proper services are delivered consistently through the PWD journey.

Now is a critical time to consider how accessibility can be improved in airline and airport operations. The onset of COVID-19 has had severe operational impacts on the air sector and has caused significant resource constraints on industry that must be considered in the implementation of changes to operations and services to improve accessibility. In this context, as the industry rebuilds in a new, post COVID-19 pandemic era, it is important to ensure that accessibility is considered at all steps of the travel process and that information is reliable. In addition any novel implementation needs to continue to reflect safety and the ability of industry as it rebuilds. Providing the best travel experience possible will also be important for attracting and retaining this segment of the travelling public.

Objective

The NRC’s Centre for Air Travel Research (CATR) was tasked by the CTA to convene the IWG that would include interested stakeholders with the goal of developing recommendations that will enable the industry to improve services provided to PWD associated with SSR codes.

The IWG explored the challenges faced by both PWD and industry related to SSR code use and services, and supported many interactions with PWD and various stakeholders from the air industry to participate and share their knowledge and experience. The IWG considered the entire passenger journey, and as a result, collaboratively formulated recommendations and elements of future research for further consideration that address many of the identified challenges and pain points.

The project activities included:

  • Convening an IWG made up of Canadian, and international organizations to explore issues related to SSR code use.
  • Planning and facilitating three forums of the IWG;
  • Planning and facilitating smaller individual meetings for members of the IWG;
  • Planning and facilitating a poll regarding recommendations, future research, and prioritization of the identified recommendations; and
  • Preparing project documentation, including a final report that discusses the issues associated with SSR code use and services provided, in addition to recommending possible solutions and elements of future research for the aviation industry, the community of persons with disabilities, and government.

Formation of the International Working Group

The NRC was first tasked by the CTA to form the IWG. SSR codes and their associated services impact many stakeholders. Therefore, it was important to have representation from all impacted groups so that the recommendations were as holistic as possible. The IWG included representatives from Canadian and international disability rights organizations and advocacy groups, Canadian and foreign airlines, Canadian and foreign airline organizations, members from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the IATA, the US Department of Transportation (DOT), Global Distribution Service (GDS) providers, travel agencies, and other government departments. Annex 1 contains a list of organizations represented on the IWG membership.

IWG Meetings

Three IWG meetings were held remotely in 2021. The three meetings included;

  1. Meeting 1 - Project Launch and Issues
    • A project launch meeting with the IWG was held on June 7th, 2021 where the project team was introduced, objectives and terms of reference were explained, and an initial discussion of issues related to SSR code use from all perspectives was had.
  2. Meeting 2 – Recommendations Discussion
    • On June 22nd, 2021, NRC presented the amalgamated issues that were collected in the first meeting and the IWG discussed potential solutions and recommendations.
  3. Meeting 3 – Prioritized Recommendations
    • On October 28th, 2021, NRC presented the collected recommendations to the IWG based on Meeting 2, and the members validated and prioritized them into short, medium, and long term recommendations.

Smaller focus groups and one-on-one discussions with IWG members were also held as requested. In addition, a poll was distributed to the IWG members following the final meeting to provide a more inclusive and quantitative way to obtain feedback regarding the final recommendations. The data collected for each meeting is discussed in the following sections, as well as the results of the poll.

NOTE: Within the following section for Meeting 1, information related to challenges from all IWG members was collected. The information provided is in raw format, and therefore reflects the thoughts, feelings and perspectives of each member without any further analysis, changes to their statements, or confirmation as to its factual accuracy. All statements and thoughts were considered and reflected in the final recommendations that have been collaboratively agreed upon and can be found in the final section of this report.

Meeting 1 – Project Launch

A half-day forum with members of the IWG was hosted online via Zoom by the NRC on June 7th, 2021. The meeting provided a venue for the IWG members to share their knowledge and challenges associated with the SSR code system from all perspectives. NRC collected and categorized the challenges discussed by all members, which is listed below in the final section.

Booking Process

  • The booking process can be arduous and inaccessible for some passengers. Knowing where to find information, when to provide specific accessibility requirements and to whom can be unclear.
  • Customers are provided with the ability to request services related to accessibility before they reach the airport, and ideally at the time of booking. Travel agents and/or airlines may then assign a related SSR code to the request and retain certain types of information across each segment until the flight is finalized. The information generally cannot be transferred from a previous booking to a new booking. This opens discourse regarding privacy concerns, information found on the Medical Information Form (MEDIF), eligibility duration, and bookings that require approval by the carrier before the accommodations can be providedNote 1.
  • Available services related to accessibility may not be clear to passengers. A standard service list to select from does not exist and available services may vary from one airline to the next.
  • In Canada, written confirmation of the service requested is determined by direct or indirect booking request: e.g. the party that issues the ticket provides all the notices and information to the customer. When the booking is made through a travel agent portal, airlines rely heavily on the information provided by travel agents/online travel agencies (OTA) to provide the appropriate accessibility service. It is not clear if all stakeholders along the travel chain use the correct code so that the airline may provide the passenger with correct service.

SSR Code Information

  • The codes themselves may not be the problem, but instead how they are interpreted, as well as the services associated with each code.
  • Terminology related to types of disabilities and services offered is inconsistent across borders. This can be the result of varying regulatory definitions across multiple jurisdictions.
  • Differences exist for services offered between nations and air carriers for, often creating barriers to consistent accessibility services associated with each SSR code.
  • SSR codes do not always convey specific needs.
  • SSR codes do not always map directly to a service and this may not be conveyed or known to all stakeholders.
  • Some air carriers and GDSs, can create their own custom SSR codes to use internally. These are not compliant to the IATA Resolution 700 and may create confusion along the travel chain. Although these carrier specific codes are not generally communicated to other stakeholders, they can lead to confusion and misinterpretation of assistance services if they are.

Passenger Awareness

  • Some passengers were not aware that multiple SSR codes could be used per traveller. SSR codes developed by IATA are not meant to be used for communication with the passenger, although some airlines may use them, or codes they developed internally, in this way.
  • Some passengers feel that the information regarding the assistance services requested is not relayed to them in any way or printed on their boarding passes. This leaves them feeling uncertain about whether their needs will be met.
  • SSR codes are shared across different airlines through standardized means under the IATA interline passenger reservation procedures. However, PWD believe that the information regarding their specific assistance request is not consistent across air carriers when they are travelling with multiple stops or connecting flights.

Airline/Airport Staff Awareness

  • There may be a lack of consistency and appropriate application of SSR codes between different carriers and their third party service providers.
  • Once a passenger arrives at the airport, airline/airport staff focus on providing the service without updating the PNR. This means downline airports and airlines do not have the required SSR codes.

Transfer of SSR Code Information

  • Once passengers have provided the service request information to travel agents or booking airline, depending on applicable processes, the information may not always be captured accurately or shared in a timely fashion with airport and ground staff who interact with the passengers along their travel journey.
  • The airlines frequently mentioned that there is a challenge in communicating these codes and requested services between employees and airports, and that there is an opportunity for improving communication and integration of technology across systems used.
  • Some airlines build front end user interfaces for employees that display passenger information only as needed for their function. This means that even though an SSR is added at the check-in counter, the ramp handling team may not be able to see this information.
  • SSR codes can be indicated on the boarding pass, but the interpretation and communication of the actual needs of PWD is not consistent across airlines and airports.
  • The handoff of SSR codes occurs at different times, depending on the carrier and third party service provider involved along the travel journey.
  • It is important to maintain the balance between privacy and access to sensitive medical information, and to ensure that key stakeholders have sufficient information to meet the passenger’s needs. This is particularly challenging for itineraries subject to Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation.

Accessibility of Processes Related to Travel Journey

  • PWD do not feel empowered; it is not clear to PWD where or how they can contact staff at the airport or air carriers when some of their needs have not been met along their travel journey.
  • Passengers who self-identify as deaf-blind do not feel that there is consistent ways to communicate with the staff. For example, consistent and available captioning or messaging systems at the airport or within airlines, leaving them “out of the loop.” The related SSR code should reflect the services required for this type of disability.

Wheelchair Overuse

  • Passengers indicated that airport staff often incorrectly assume the use of a wheelchair for travellers with disabilities. For example, when individuals ask for sighted guidance, oftentimes staff members show up with a wheelchair.

Training

  • Airlines develop their own specific training related to IATA’s SSR codes, and this includes their own interpretation of the services associated with some SSR codes, which may differ in light of different regulatory regimes that govern accessibility requirements, which may be creating some of the inconsistencies.
  • While some carriers include this in their training, there might be the need to better train airport staff to direct their communications with the PWD rather than their travel companion. For example, PWD have experiences that staff address the safety assistant of the PWD who is travelling before they communicate with the PWD.
  • Passengers feel that the industry makes many assumptions about PWD and their needs.
  • Passengers feel that there is a lack of understanding that people with the same disability do not necessarily need the same service or that individuals with specific disabilities require certain assistance rather than asking them about what specific needs they have.
  • May need to reassess the stated training requirements in the ATPDR.
  • Moving towards air transport universal design is crucial.
  • There could be past trauma or passengers may have invisible disabilities, so staff should be aware of this and have training in order to communicate effectively with PWD.

Meeting 2 – Proposed Recommendations

The second half-day IWG forum was held on June 22nd, 2021. At this meeting, NRC presented the amalgamated issues based on the eight categories of pain points that were collected in the first meeting, and the IWG discussed potential solutions and recommendations. The key points listed below summarize the items of discussion at the forum and do not indicate agreement or disagreement by members of the IWG.

Numerous recommendations were identified during this meeting and were later grouped into categories to account for similarity amongst the recommendations and to facilitate the development of holistic recommendations that address multiple pain points. It was noted that each of these recommendations requires additional research to determine how to best implement the proposed changes, and would also be discussed.

The IWG members agreed that the recommendations and proposed solutions should be written in a way that is not prescriptive. In addition, the recommendations listed in this section are not the final recommendations that the IWG arrived at, but are those initially proposed during Meeting 2 when the pain point categories were presented for discussion. Some pain point categories were grouped together to enhance efficiency of communicating the recommendations. The five categories of recommendations are listed below in no particular order of priority.

NOTE: Within the following section for Meeting 2, information related to potential recommendations and solutions from all IWG members was collected. The information provided is in raw format, and therefore reflects the thoughts and perspectives of each member without any further analysis, validation of accuracy, changes to their statements, or reflection of applicability, scope, or feasibility. All statements and thoughts were considered and reflected in the final recommendations that have been collaboratively agreed upon, and can be found in the final section of this report.

Booking Process, Passenger Awareness, and Accessibility of Processes

  • Passengers should receive confirmation of what services they will be receiving at the airport and onboard when they book so that they clearly know what to expect before they travel and can request changes to their request prior to travel if required.
  • Update websites to ensure that the content related to assistive services related to SSR codes is accessible, clear and that it meets usability standards.
  • Passengers would like to know what standards are being upheld by the airlines when it comes to accessibility, and would like to see this clearly stated on websites and documents.

SSR Code Information

  • Standardize a plain language description for services associated with SSR codes, and ensure this is available to all touch points that require the information throughout the travel journey.
  • Work through cultural and regulatory variances in SSR code interpretation and establish minimum standards that service providers can strive to meet.
  • Select SSR codes associated with PWD and ensure that services and expectations match for both the employees and the passengers.

Methods for Communication: Transfer of SSR Code Information, and Airline/Airport Staff Awareness

  • It is key that travel agents and booking airlines use the correct code so that the operating airline and third party service providers may provide the passenger with correct service. Consider establishing a user-friendly method for letting passengers enter and save their requested services for future flights but allow them to update this information as needed, while ensuring that passengers also provide advance notice of certain aspects of the services needed, when special equipment, arrangements, or personnel with particular training are needed (e.g. mobility aid weight, dimensions and battery type to ensure that the carrier has enough time to make arrangements and the mobility aid will fit on the aircraft).
  • Have SSR codes transfer accurately along with the requested assistive service across multiple legs of a travel journey without requiring passengers to provide or request this information multiple times.
  • As best practice, airlines could consider storing SSR codes and mobility aid information (type/weight/height/length/width and battery type) associated with each passenger (e.g., Frequent Flyer program, or stored in their PNR). Where feasible, due to data protection regulations, this methodology would assume that passengers who save their request, have a long-term disability and so will be provided with the same accommodation every time they fly on the airline. Airlines are not qualified to determine or validate whether a disability is temporary or permanent. This means that the passenger has to be empowered and have access to this information so that they can confirm whether such information should be updated, because of a change in their condition or in the mobility aid they use.
  • Investigate systems or applications that would permit access to readily available data associated with SSR codes across the entire travel journey. This would only apply to SSR codes that do not require the completion of a medical form or prior approval by a carrier, such as the provision of an additional seat, or seating for a personal attendant.

Accessibility of Processes

  • Enhance access to real-time resources for passengers beyond assistance with booking. For example, when they have questions about their travel journey while they are waiting at the gate, have a clearly identified method for them to contact someone.
  • Recommend having a liaison officer to ensure that services associated with SSR codes are applied consistently. For example, a ground staff member designated as the “booking champion”.
  • Consider establishing dedicated airport teams of highly trained, experienced personnel to execute transfers and administer to the needs of persons with disabilities where there is a demand to warrant such a resource. Similar teams exist currently, but this is not known to be a current standard practice.
  • Have a way for passengers to contact someone at the airport if they are lost or need wayfinding support when they are travelling.

Training

  • SSR codes should never replace the conversation between the airline and the passenger about what services that passengers’ need.
  • Ensure training material includes best practices of engagement with PWD in development and delivery of training. Sensitivity training emphasizes having conversations with PWD when delivering services and/or establishing experienced dedicated teams where feasible to minimize skill fade and enhance guest experience.
  • Recommend that training has a more hands-on or applied approach.
  • Recommend that staff prioritize having conversations and asking what the needs of passengers are, rather than assuming.

Meeting 3 – Recommendations Discussion

The third and final half-day IWG forum was held on October 28th, 2021, where NRC presented seven amalgamated recommendations to the IWG and members, as well as validated and attempted to prioritize the recommendations into starting within a short (1-3 years), medium (3-5 years), or long term (+5 years) time frame. NRC followed this final meeting with a poll that was distributed to the IWG members with the goal of providing a more inclusive and quantitative way to obtain feedback regarding the recommendations and future research.

NOTE: Within the following section for Meeting 3, information related to thoughts on presented recommendations from all IWG members was collected. The information provided is in raw format, and therefore reflects the thoughts and perspectives of each member without any further analysis, changes to their statements, or reflection of scope. Although in this section the IWG merged closer to the final recommendations, they were not considered final at this stage. The final recommendations that have been collaboratively agreed upon can be found in the final section of this report.

The seven recommendations, their goals, and related pain points are listed below.

  1. Empower the traveller: Ensure that travellers have access to information that allows them to educate themselves on the processes required by the airlines to ensure their specific needs are met, and they have an efficient as well as enjoyable travel experience.
    1. Approach and Outcomes:
      1. Provide information on travel agents, airports and airlines websites that accurately describes the types of assistance services available to travellers
      2. Provide applications/resources where passengers inform themselves regarding what to expect while they are travelling
    2. Related Pain Points:
      1. Booking Processes
      2. Passenger Awareness
      3. Transfer of SSR Code Information
      4. Travel agent/OTA/Airline/Airport Staff Awareness
      5. Accessibility of Processes related to the travel journey (i.e. booking, access to information, confirmation, changes, medical information etc).
  2. Provide real-time access to helplines and information services: Improve access to real-time helplines/information services throughout the travel experience for persons with disabilities, which includes booking as well as onsite assistance at the airport.
    1. Approach and Outcomes:
      1. Quick, accessible resources throughout the travel experience
      2. Examples of onsite resources: direct helpline/telephone number, an in-person or virtual liaison officer
      3. Accessible communication
    2. Related Pain Points:
      1. Passenger Awareness
      2. Accessibility of Processes related to the travel journey (i.e. booking, access to information, confirmation, changes, medical information etc).
      3. SSR Code Information
      4. Travel agent/OTA/Airline/Airport Staff Awareness
      5. Training
  3. Enhance training material and/or methods for airline employees: The following items are recommended if there are training gaps identified in staff training or education related to SSR codes and PWD. Address training outlines and execution for travel agents/OTAs/ airports/ airline employees (e.g., a mix of applied vs. classroom training, stressing the importance of soft skills) so that employees recognize that SSR codes can never fully capture someone’s needs.
    1. Approach and Outcomes:
      1. Hands on training sessions
      2. More frequent training sessions and/or additional formats to prevent skill fade related to accessibility services, or ensure that training materials can be easily accessed by employees on a need- to- know basis
    2. Related Pain Points:
      1. Passenger Awareness
      2. Accessibility of Processes related to the travel journey (i.e. booking, access to information, confirmation, changes, medical information etc).
      3. SSR Code Information
      4. Training
      5. Transfer of SSR Code Information
  4. Reduce variability of interpretation of SSR codes and associated needs/services: Link SSR codes to informative, plain language descriptions for what an associated service might look and feel like for travellers. If descriptions cannot be listed within the system, ensure that employees have access to a ready and available reference.
    1. Approach and Outcomes:
      1. Describe services available for travellers on your website
      2. Ensure that airline staff have accurate descriptions for SSR codes to reduce variability in interpretation
    2. Related Pain Points:
      1. Passenger Awareness
      2. Travel agent/OTA/Airline/Airport Staff Awareness
      3. Accessibility of Processes related to the travel journey (i.e. booking, access to information, confirmation, changes, medical information etc).
      4. SSR Code Information
      5. Training
      6. Transfer of SSR Code Information
  5. Improve website accessibility and accessibility content: Continue to improve website accessibility and ease navigation. Providing clear descriptions of the types of services that travellers can expect (that align with the SSR codes) would allow travellers to educate themselves, and enhance consistency in SSR code interpretation.
    1. Approach and Outcomes:
      1. Webpage is easy to find, accessible, and has descriptions of services available for travellers
      2. Follow current standards for web accessibility
    2. Related Pain Points:
      1. Booking Process
      2. Passenger Awareness
      3. Accessibility of Processes related to the travel journey (i.e. booking, access to information, confirmation, changes, medical information etc).
  6. Create a user profile system: Allowing travellers to securely “store” SSR codes and associated service(s) required on their loyalty profile would remove the need to identify their needs with each flight. It would be crucial that travellers can update/remove information.
    1. Approach and Outcomes:
      1. Passenger Profile
      2. Passport
      3. Updatable
    2. Related Pain Points:
      1. Booking Process
      2. Passenger Awareness
      3. Travel agent/OTA/Airline/Airport Staff Awareness
      4. Transfer of SSR Code Information
  7. Improve software system integration across the industry: Address the challenges associated with sharing SSR code information with multi-leg/multi-carrier flights, in addition to International flights.
    1. Approach and Outcomes:
      1. Aim to improve the ability to share SSR code/service information within and across airlines
      2. Information can be efficiently transferred by the industry at all required points throughout the travel experience
    2. Related Pain Points:
      1. Booking Process
      2. SSR Code Information
      3. Travel agent/OTA/Airline/Airport Staff Awareness
      4. Transfer of SSR Code Information

Finalized Recommendations, Prioritization, and Future Research

Following the final meeting a poll was sent to the IWG. A survey used to poll members of the group (found in Annex 2) helped to prioritize the recommendations and obtain feedback regarding the recommendations and research. The poll was conducted through an online survey platform called Qualtrics and was hosted on a private link. The IWG ranked the seven recommendations, discussed at the October 28th meeting, while considering the impact and resources required to undertake each recommendation. In addition, participants were asked to categorize each as a short (1-3 years), medium (3-5 years), or long term (5+ years) recommendation, with each time frame being the ideal start-time for that recommendation. IWG members also had the ability to add comments throughout the survey to further explain why they selected the recommendation they did, in addition to having the option to provide feedback on four research ideas that related to the recommendations. A total of 29 members attended the October 28th meeting, and a total of 19 members completed the poll. Of those 19 members, there were seven advocacy group members, eight airline representatives, two airport representatives, one travel agent, and one government agency representative.

The seven final recommendations presented below are in the order of priority based on the majority votes from the poll data, in addition to a short write-up that includes discussion points that were highlighted in both the October 28th meeting and the open-ended comment boxes of the poll. Together with the working group meetings, the poll allowed us to provide quantitative evidence that most members agree with the priority of recommendations.

1. Reduce variability of SSR code interpretation and associated services

It goes without saying that all airlines should ensure that they are using existing SSR codes for passenger accessibility as defined by IATA Resolution 700 which governs the process. However, members of advocacy groups mentioned that there are several codes for similar needs, which could be contributing to confusion around how to apply each one, particularly if each definition is unclear. In addition, advocacy group members highlighted that they do not always see consistent application of services, with multiple mentions of wheelchair SSR codes being incorrectly applied to those who do not have a mobility-related disability. Within the industry, which included airline representatives, airport representatives, and travel agents, members highlighted that consistent interpretation and use of SSR codes would enhance the travel experience for passengers and reduce confusion for employees. While there are definitions for each SSR code as stated by IATA, how this information is shared, interpreted, and linked to specific services is currently a source of frustration for many travel agents and other stakeholders.

A total of 11 out of 19 respondents indicated that this is their first priority as a recommendation, and all selected this as a short-term recommendation that can be started within the next 1-3 years. Of the 11 members, there were three advocacy group members, five airline representatives, one travel agent, one airport representative, and one government representative, indicating support across all stakeholder types.

2. Enhance SSR code and accessibility service related training material and/or methods of training for employees

Airlines should ensure the SSR codes defining passenger assistance needs are available to all employee groups who interact with the passenger during their journey to ensure the proper assistance is provided. In addition, consistent recurrent airline employee training on the importance and proper usage of SSR codes to document and provide assistance for passengers who travel with a disability is recommended. A guide regarding the development and implementation of training programs with respect to providing persons with disabilities services is provided in the Canadian Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (ATPDR). This guide explains the obligations of transportation service providers regarding the development and implementation of training programs in respect of persons with disabilities. Specifically the guide states that training must be developed in consultation with PWD (Section 23(2)) and reoccur every 3 years (Section 21). Having stated this, many of the survey respondents from both airlines and advocacy groups offered comments that suggested that there is still room for improvement specifically in relation to SSR codes and accessibility services carriers and airports offer.

Improvements to enhance training on services offered include how the training is structured related to SSR code use, interpretation, and services applied. It was highlighted that this recommendation depends on the first recommendation of reducing the variability of SSR code interpretation throughout the industry. The IWG also highlighted that the development of training, especially “applied” training will require significant input from all stakeholders, including PWD, necessitating substantial time and resources for development.

A total of eight, of the respondents indicated that enhancing the training material and the methods that training is delivered, should be the second priority, with half of those respondents categorizing this recommendation as a short-term, and the other half categorizing this as a medium-term recommendation. Of the eight members, there were three advocacy group members, four airline representatives, and one government agency representative in support of this being the second priority recommendation, again indicating a broad spectrum of support.

3. Improve online access to enable transparency of services offered to meet disability-related needs

IWG members with disabilities stated that finding information related to accessibility services on airline websites is often challenging and varies widely across the industry. Airlines, travel agents and third party booking sites should ensure that the booking process is fully accessible and ensure to maintain accessibility over time as enhancements are made to their systems. Abiding by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 ensures that web content meets current accessibility requirements but does not as readily account for the usability of that content. For example, questions that could go unanswered by not addressing usability in webpage design related to services offered are “how easy is it to find this information on a website or webpage?”, or “Is the layout of the webpage intuitive to navigate?”

It was also highlighted that this recommendation may depend, in part, on the first two recommendations coming to completion. It was also highlighted by the IWG that most regulatory regimes use the WCAG standard for website accessibility so moving the changes through WCAG would be a more effective approach that would improve all websites.

A total of eight respondents indicated that improving website accessibility and usability should be the third priority, with five respondents categorizing this as a short-term recommendation, and the remaining three indicating that it can be a medium-term recommendation. Of those eight, three advocacy group members, four airline representatives, and one airport representative were in support of this recommendation being the third priority.

4. Provide real-time access to resources for passengers

During the working group meeting, many advocacy group members mentioned that having access to real-time communication would significantly reduce anxiety for them during the travel experience. Further, knowing how to contact an airline customer service representative when they need help while at the airport is crucial. Persons with disabilities highlighted that they have had experiences or know of others who have had experiences where a passenger with a disability was left unattended, leaving them with no readily accessible way to notify someone that they need help. Empowering the user to access helplines or virtual assistance applications would be greatly beneficial should a passenger require a service associated with an SSR code. It was highlighted that there is already a United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) requirement for carriers to have a “complaints resolution officer”, or CRO, readily available for passengers with disabilities to address concerns, and that this is an example of real-time access. The look-and-feel of this recommendation could vary widely depending on the size of the airline and/or airport.

A total of eight respondents indicated that enhancing access to real-time resources for passengers should be the fourth priority, with six respondents categorizing this as a medium-term recommendation, and the remaining two indicating that it can be a short-term recommendation. Of those eight, there were two advocacy group members, three airline representatives, one travel agent, one airport representative, and one government agency representative in support of this recommendation being the fourth priority.

5. Reduce the need for passengers to provide accessibility-related information for each booking

During the working group meetings, many persons with disabilities expressed that when they are booking a trip, the process for including services that would be associated with SSR codes often involves them repeating service-related information, especially for multi-carrier journeys. According to the ATPDR (section 59), if “If, on the request of a carrier, a person with a disability provides the carrier with information, including personal health information, in relation to a request for a service referred to in this Part, the carrier must offer to retain an electronic copy of that information for a period of at least three years for the purpose of permitting the carrier to use that information if the person makes another request for a service.” Storing information is different for each airline, and each country or region, with some storing the information within the medical profile of the passenger, and others expressing how it might be worthwhile to include service-related information within a frequent flyer profile so that passengers can easily update their information. Many stakeholders highlighted that transfer of information across multiple airlines is crucial, but also challenging since each airline can choose which reservation system to use. There is also a risk of non-compliance with applicable privacy laws that govern the transfer/processing of sensitive medical data. Exchange of personal data would likely require a data processing agreement to be put in place between multiple airlines and would likely need consent from the customers to share such data. This is not currently possible to do for reservations booked directly with multiple airlines, particularly if the airlines do not have an existing codeshare or interline partnership agreement. The challenge is also exacerbated when passengers book through third‐party agents, which may limit the information shared with airlines, and therefore hampers the ability for airlines to connect past and current bookings or to discuss with the passenger for more information regarding their disability-related needs. Undertaking this recommendation would require significant resources for those in industry and would be dependent on the willingness of third-party agents to cooperate in this endeavour.

A total of five respondents indicated that reducing the need for passengers to provide accessibility-related information for each booking should be the fifth priority, with four respondents categorizing this as a long-term recommendation, and one respondent indicating it as a short-term recommendation. Of those five, there were four airline representatives, and one advocacy group member in support of this recommendation being the fifth priority.

6. Empower the passengers with knowledge of services available

Although the recommendation to ‘empower the passengers with knowledge of services available’ ended up as the sixth priority out of seven, we recognize that this might not be a standalone recommendation. Broad passenger education initiatives by airlines, the disability community, airports and government agencies on the need for passengers to provide advance notice of their accessibility needs to airlines prior to travel. Because the need to continue to empower passengers with knowledge about what to expect during the travel experience is embedded in each of the previous five recommendations, and arguably the seventh recommendation as well, we are proposing that this recommendation be incorporated into each of the other six recommendations rather than acting as a standalone recommendation. During the working group meeting, a variety of ideas and suggestions were mentioned by many stakeholders that hinted that this recommendation could be an aspect of all recommendations, rather than a separate recommendation. For example, better educational resources for passengers during booking can fall within the third recommendation to improve web content. We are open to thoughts and suggestions with this approach.

7. Improve industry communication regarding accessibility services requested to ensure consistency through the travel journey

Enhancing communication between booking agents, carriers and airports at the systems level would improve the transfer of information regarding assistive services requested. Third party booking sites and travel agents should collect passenger needs during the booking process in a manner that the SSR code itself is transparent to the traveler and then transmit that information to the airlines using the SSR codes defined in IATA Resolution 700. It was recognized that improving travel agents/ airports/ airline / third party service provider communication may be a complex undertaking given data privacy concerns, and in some cases when standards are not properly applied or where no standard exists (i.e. information that is not contained in an SSR code). However, the IWG also agreed that striving for a seamless passenger experience is critical. Members of airlines and advocacy groups mentioned that the previous six recommendations may need to be accomplished first and a natural result will likely be an improvement in industry communication.

A total of eight respondents indicated that improving industry communication regarding accessibility services requested throughout the travel journey should be the seventh priority, with five respondents categorizing this as a long-term recommendation, and three respondents indicating it as a medium term recommendation. Of the eight members, there were five airline representatives, two advocacy group members, and one government agency representative in support of this recommendation being the seventh priority.

Additional Research

The following four research ideas and their related questions were included as part of the last working group meeting on October 28th and in the poll. The list below reflects the majority votes on each research idea proposed, listed in order of priority.

  1. Use a data driven approach to select the most used SSR codes related to PWDs for further analysis: Possible questions to be answered include which services do passengers with disabilities request most often? Which SSR codes are associated to these services? The results of this research will facilitate evidence for the most ambiguous codes and services requested so that resources can be directed to create change that will have the most impact.
  2. Assess the similarities and differences of interpretation across travel agents/ airlines/ airports/ ground handlers / third party service providers in how they deliver services associated with each SSR code: This research idea could be conducted in conjunction with the first priority research topic, which was to use a data driven approach to understand SSR code use. Possible questions to be answered include what is the best and most universal interpretation of service provided in relation to applicable SSR codes? Which SSR codes are the most variable in their interpretation across and within airlines in relation to services provided? What services best suit the needs of passengers based on each SSR code?
  3. Conduct additional research to address gaps in knowledge and what access to resources would look like for passengers: This research idea received the same number of votes as the previous research idea to “Assess the similarities and differences of interpretation across airlines in how they deliver services and which SSR code is associated with each service”. Possible questions to be answered include what services or resources cause the most frustration for passengers? Which medium/platforms can be best used to provide access to knowledge and information to passengers? What types of information are requested most by passengers and why?
  4. Conduct a feasibility study to assess integration of information sharing technologies: Possible questions to be answered include what are the gaps in the current systems being used by industry? What tools can be used to better integrate information across the industry? How can information be best transferred from one travel agent to the airline or airport to the next?

Once the feedback from the poll was combined with the feedback from Meeting 3, a final request to provide feedback on the prioritization was requested from the IWG in the form of a short document. Once recommendations and research ideas were prioritized it became clear that the recommendations and research were interwoven and would need to rely on each other in order to make the biggest impact for change. Therefore, the next step for the IWG was to provide a palatable way forward that included a proposed timeline including a path towards change that includes further research and recommendations. The next section contains the final proposed plan of action categorized as short, medium and long term based on impact and resources required.

Summary of Findings and Propose Plan of Action

The following is a list of the six prioritized recommendations and the associated research required to facilitate the recommendation. Throughout all recommendations, it is important to keep PWD at the forefront of change. Empowering the passengers with knowledge regarding what services are available and how to ensure they receive what they need is at the core of all recommendations and research proposed. Further, the need to continue to empower passengers with knowledge about what to expect during the travel experience is embedded in the recommendations. During the working group meeting, a variety of ideas and suggestions were mentioned by many stakeholders that hinted that the recommendation to empower the PWD with knowledge of the services and process (Recommendation #6) must be at the core of all recommendations, rather than a standalone recommendation.

Short Term Recommendations and Research (1 to 3 years)

Recommendation 1: Reduce variability of SSR code interpretation and associated services.

  • Proposed Research 1: Use a data driven approach to select the disability related SSR codes for further analysis. The result of this analysis will provide evidence to improve service where most needed so that resources can be directed to create change that will have the most impact.
  • Proposed Research 2: Assess the similarities and differences in the interpretation across airlines in how they deliver services associated with each SSR code. This research could be conducted in conjunction with the first research topic, which was to use a data driven approach to understand SSR code use and services.
  • Proposed Research 3: Conduct additional research to address gaps in knowledge and what access to resources would look like for passengers.

The IWG believe that variability of SSR code interpretation will not be reduced until we know which codes and services are most ambiguous and have had the greatest negative impact. Therefore, Recommendation 1 and Research Idea 1, 2 and 3 will need to occur in parallel.

Recommendation 2: Improve online access to enable transparency of services offered to meet disability-related needs.

The three research ideas highlighted under Recommendation 1 would contribute to improving online access to services required.

Medium Term Recommendations (3 to 5 years)

Recommendation 3: Enhance SSR code and accessibility service related training material and/or methods of training for employees

Recommendation 4: Provide real-time access to resources for passengers.

The research conducted within the short-term recommendations (i.e., started within the next 1-3 years) would advance the medium term recommendations, and provide concrete evidence for what exactly is needed for enhancing training materials for employees throughout the travel journey and how access to resources can be enhanced for passengers.

Long Term Recommendations and Research (more than 5 years)

Recommendation 5: Reduce the need for passengers with long term disabilities to provide accessibility-related information for each booking. This should be read as a best practice and would entail that the passenger is responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide.

Recommendation 6: Improve communication regarding accessibility services requested within industry to ensure consistency throughout the travel journey.

  • Proposed Research 4: Conduct a feasibility study or hackathon to assess the possibility of integration of information sharing technologies. Possible questions to be answered include what are the gaps in the current systems being used by industry? What tools can be used to better integrate information across the industry? How can information be best transferred from one airline or airport to the next? This research or hackathon could facilitate ways for industry to communicate and share SSR code and associated services requested by PWD including a review of issues related to International policy on privacy and security related to this.

Recommendations 5 and 6 relate to complex communication pathways that are currently embedded within the airline industry. Research Idea 4 would address both of these recommendations and build off the findings from the research conducted in the short-term and medium-term timelines.

Abbreviations

ATPDR
Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations
CATR
Centre for Air Travel Research
CTA
Canadian Transportation Agency
GDS
Global Distribution System
IATA
International Air Transport Association
ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organization
IWG
International Working Group
MEDIF
Medical Information Form
NRC
National Research Council of Canada
PNR
Passenger Name Record
PWD
Passenger(s) with Disabilities
SITA
Société internationale de télécommunications aéronautiques
SSR
Special Service Request

Annex 1

Airlines and Associations

  • Air Canada
  • Air New Zealand
  • Air Transat
  • Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC)
  • Airlines for America
  • Alaska Airlines
  • American Airlines
  • Delta Airlines
  • Ethiopian Airlines
  • International Air Transport Association (IATA)
  • International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
  • National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC)
  • Sunwing Airlines
  • WestJet

Airport Operators

  • Ottawa International Airport

Disability Rights Organizations

  • Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
  • Canadian Association of the Deaf
  • Canadian Council of the Blind
  • Canadian National Institute for the Blind
  • Canadian National Society of the Deaf-Blind
  • Confédération des Organismes de Personnes Handicapées du Québec
  • Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD)
  • Guide Dog Users of Canada
  • Invisible Disabilities
  • National Pensioners Federation
  • Obesity Canada
  • Open Doors Organization
  • Spinal Cord Injury Canada

Government and Advisory

  • Canadian Transportation Agency
  • European Commission
  • Transport Canada
  • U.S. DOT

Travel Agencies

  • Centre Holidays
  • Ozion
  • Travel for All

Annex 2

SSR Code International Working Group Recommendations Feedback

Thank you for your participation in the working group so far. We really appreciate the time, energy, and thoughtfulness that everyone has been putting into their feedback. At our last working group meeting on October 28th, we discussed seven recommendations. In this survey, we would like you to prioritize these seven recommendations.

When ranking the recommendations, please remember to keep in mind both the impact and resources required to undertake each of the recommendations.

When categorizing the recommendations, short term refers to recommendations that could be started within the next 1-3 years, medium term refers to 3-5 years, and long term refers to recommendations that could be started following the completion of the short and medium term recommendations.

  1. Based on our discussion and your own opinion, which of the seven recommendations would you select as the first priority?
    • Empower the traveller with knowledge of services available
    • Provide real-time access to resources
    • Enhance training material and/or methods for airline employees
    • Reduce variability of interpretation of SSR codes and associated needs/services
    • Improve website accessibility and accessibility content
    • Create a user profile system
    • Improve database system integration across the industry
  2. When do you think your first choice (INSERT CHOICE TEXT) could be implemented?
    • Short term (1-3 years)
    • Medium term (3-5 years)
    • Long term (5+ years)
  3. Feel free to add any comments that explain why you selected this recommendation as your first priority: (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)
  4. Please select your second priority:
    • Empower the traveller with knowledge of services available
    • Provide real-time access to resources
    • Enhance training material and/or methods for airline employees
    • Reduce variability of interpretation of SSR codes and associated needs/services
    • Improve website accessibility and accessibility content
    • Create a user profile system
    • Improve database system integration across the industry
  5. When do you think your second choice (INSERT CHOICE TEXT) could be implemented?
    • Short term (1-3 years)
    • Medium term (3-5 years)
    • Long term (5+ years)
  6. Feel free to add any comments that explain why you selected this recommendation as your second priority: (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)
  7. Please select your third priority:
    • Empower the traveller with knowledge of services available
    • Provide real-time access to resources
    • Enhance training material and/or methods for airline employees
    • Reduce variability of interpretation of SSR codes and associated needs/services
    • Improve website accessibility and accessibility content
    • Create a user profile system
    • Improve database system integration across the industry
  8. When do you think your third choice (INSERT CHOICE TEXT) could be implemented?
    • Short term (1-3 years)
    • Medium term (3-5 years)
    • Long term (5+ years)
  9. Feel free to add any comments that explain why you selected this recommendation as your third priority: (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)
  10. Please select your fourth priority:
    • Empower the traveller with knowledge of services available
    • Provide real-time access to resources
    • Enhance training material and/or methods for airline employees
    • Reduce variability of interpretation of SSR codes and associated needs/services
    • Improve website accessibility and accessibility content
    • Create a user profile system
    • Improve database system integration across the industry
  11. When do you think your fourth choice (INSERT CHOICE TEXT) could be implemented?
    • Short term (1-3 years)
    • Medium term (3-5 years)
    • Long term (5+ years)
  12. Feel free to add any comments that explain why you selected this recommendation as your fourth priority: (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)
  13. Please select your fifth priority:
    • Empower the traveller with knowledge of services available
    • Provide real-time access to resources
    • Enhance training material and/or methods for airline employees
    • Reduce variability of interpretation of SSR codes and associated needs/services
    • Improve website accessibility and accessibility content
    • Create a user profile system
    • Improve database system integration across the industry
  14. When do you think your fifth choice (INSERT CHOICE TEXT) could be implemented?
    • Short term (1-3 years)
    • Medium term (3-5 years)
    • Long term (5+ years)
  15. Feel free to add any comments that explain why you selected this recommendation as your fifth priority: (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)
  16. Please select your sixth priority:
    • Empower the traveller with knowledge of services available
    • Provide real-time access to resources
    • Enhance training material and/or methods for airline employees
    • Reduce variability of interpretation of SSR codes and associated needs/services
    • Improve website accessibility and accessibility content
    • Create a user profile system
    • Improve database system integration across the industry
  17. When do you think your sixth choice (INSERT CHOICE TEXT) could be implemented?
    • Short term (1-3 years)
    • Medium term (3-5 years)
    • Long term (5+ years)
  18. Feel free to add any comments that explain why you selected this recommendation as your sixth priority: (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)
  19. Please select your seventh priority:
    • Empower the traveller with knowledge of services available
    • Provide real-time access to resources
    • Enhance training material and/or methods for airline employees
    • Reduce variability of interpretation of SSR codes and associated needs/services
    • Improve website accessibility and accessibility content
    • Create a user profile system
    • Improve database system integration across the industry
  20. When do you think your seventh choice (INSERT CHOICE TEXT) could be implemented?
    • Short term (1-3 years)
    • Medium term (3-5 years)
    • Long term (5+ years)
  21. Feel free to add any comments that explain why you selected this recommendation as your seventh priority: (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)

Thank you for prioritizing and categorizing the seven recommendations.

Research Feedback

At the end of the last meeting, we also presented four research ideas. The next section of the poll is optional, but if you would like to provide feedback on the research ideas, you have the opportunity to do so.

  1. Would you like to provide feedback on the research ideas?
    • Yes
    • No

The following four research ideas and their related questions were included as part of the last working group meeting on October 28th:

  1. Conduct additional research to address gaps in knowledge and what access to resources would look like for passengers.
    • What services or resources case the most frustration for passengers?
    • Which medium/platforms can be best used to provide access to knowledge and information for passengers?
    • What type of information is requested most by passengers and why?
  2. Assess the similarities and differences across airlines in how they deliver services associated with each SSR code.
    • What is the best and most universal interpretation of each code?
    • Which SSR codes are the most variable in their interpretation across and within airlines?
    • What services best suit the needs of passengers based on each SSR code?
  3. Use a data driven approach and select the “top 10” SSR codes for further research.
    • Which SSR codes do passengers request most often?
    • Which SSR codes are the most “unclear”, and why?
  4. Conduct a feasibility study and/or hackathon to assess integration of information sharing technologies.
    • What are the gaps in the current systems being used by industry?
    • What tools can be used to better integrate information across the industry?
    • How can information be best transferred from one airline/airport to the next?

To rank the research ideas, please go to the next page of the poll.

  1. Which of the four research ideas would you select as your first priority?
    • Conduct additional research to address gaps in knowledge and what access to resources would look like for passengers.
    • Assess the similarities and differences across airlines in how they deliver services associated with each SSR code.
    • Use a data driven approach and select the “top 10” SSR codes for further research.
    • Conduct a feasibility study and/or hackathon to assess integration of information sharing technologies.
  2. Do you have any feedback about this research idea? (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)
  3. Which of the four research ideas would you select as your second priority?
    • Conduct additional research to address gaps in knowledge and what access to resources would look like for passengers.
    • Assess the similarities and differences across airlines in how they deliver services associated with each SSR code.
    • Use a data driven approach and select the “top 10” SSR codes for further research.
    • Conduct a feasibility study and/or hackathon to assess integration of information sharing technologies.
  4. Do you have any feedback about this research idea? (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)
  5. Which of the four research ideas would you select as your third priority?
    • Conduct additional research to address gaps in knowledge and what access to resources would look like for passengers.
    • Assess the similarities and differences across airlines in how they deliver services associated with each SSR code.
    • Use a data driven approach and select the “top 10” SSR codes for further research.
    • Conduct a feasibility study and/or hackathon to assess integration of information sharing technologies.
  6. Do you have any feedback about this research idea? (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)
  7. Which of the four research ideas would you select as your fourth priority?
    • Conduct additional research to address gaps in knowledge and what access to resources would look like for passengers.
    • Assess the similarities and differences across airlines in how they deliver services associated with each SSR code.
    • Use a data driven approach and select the “top 10” SSR codes for further research.
    • Conduct a feasibility study and/or hackathon to assess integration of information sharing technologies.
  8. Do you have any feedback about this research idea? (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)

Final Section

  1. Did you attend the third working group meeting on October 28th?
    • Yes
    • No
  2. How would you describe your role in the working group?
    • Advocacy group member
    • Airline representative
    • Travel agent
    • Government agency
    • Airport representative
  3. Please select any of the following statements that apply to you:
    • I have a hearing disability.
    • I have an intellectual disability.
    • I have a physical disability.
    • I have an invisible disability.
    • I have a visual disability.
    • None of these statements apply to me.
    • Prefer not to answer.
  4. Do you have any final comments? (OPEN TEXT BOX PRESENTED)

Publication information

Date modified: