Decision No. 112-AT-A-2002
March 8, 2002
IN THE MATTER OF Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001 dated March 21, 2001 - Skyservice Airlines Inc. carrying on business as Skyservice and/or Roots Air.
File No. U3570/00-53
BACKGROUND
In its Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001 dated March 21, 2001, the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) made a determination with respect to an application by Roy Scorgie concerning the advance seat selection fee imposed by Skyservice Airlines Inc. carrying on business as Skyservice and/or Roots Air (hereinafter Skyservice) for his trip from Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, on February 2, 2000.
The Agency determined that the advance seat selection fee imposed on Mr. Scorgie by Skyservice for a seat he needed due to his disability constituted an undue obstacle to his mobility.
Pursuant to Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001, Skyservice was required to take the following corrective measures within thirty (30) days from the date of that Decision:
- Amend its policy on advance seat selection, as found in its Ground Handling Manual, to clearly reflect that, once advised of the person's disability, the advance seat selection fee is automatically waived by the Advance Seating Team;
- Provide a copy of its amended policy to the Agency; and
- Issue a bulletin summarizing the incident experienced by Mr. Scorgie and reminding the affected group of employees of the importance of adhering to the amended policy, and provide a copy to the Agency.
By letter dated April 18, 2001, and subsequent clarifications submitted on April 19, 2001, Skyservice requested a 30-day extension of time to comply with the requirements of Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001. By Decision No. LET-AT-A-198-2001 dated April 19, 2001, the Agency granted Skyservice the requested extension.
On May 22, 2001, Skyservice filed its response to Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001, including a copy of a bulletin issued to the Advance Seating Team on May 18, 2001.
ISSUE
The issue to be addressed is whether the measures taken by Skyservice meet the requirements of Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001.
FACTS
Skyservice indicates that a revision to the Ground Handling Manual is not the optimal way to carry out a revision to its advance seat selection policy. Skyservice states that the Advance Seating Department is not under the direction of the Ground Operations Department but is an independent department under the management of the Senior Manager, Aircraft Scheduling and Government Affairs. Further, it is the only group of employees that collect fees for advance seating. As such, Skyservice submits that a bulletin was issued to the Advance Seating Team to make all employees aware of the change in policy and of the Agency's Decision. Skyservice adds that this action was followed up by a departmental meeting to ensure that all staff are fully aware of the revised policy. Skyservice advises that the Advance Seating Team will be reviewing cases where passengers fit into the group affected by Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001 and that such passengers will be contacted and be given refunds if they have not yet completed their travel. In addition, if requests for reimbursement are made by persons who have already travelled, refunds will be issued.
The bulletin issued to the Advance Seating Team contains the statement that there was a change in policy with immediate effect for customers who pre-book a seat due to a medical condition. The bulletin informs staff that while this fee was waived upon request in the past, from now on, once it is known that a customer needs advance seating due to a medical condition, the fee to pre-book the seat must be waived. A copy of Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001 was attached to this bulletin.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Agency has reviewed the material submitted by Skyservice and is of the opinion that the bulletin issued to the Advance Seating Team, along with the other measures that Skyservice has taken, should result in Skyservice's Advance Seating personnel being prepared and in a better position to prevent the imposition of seat selection fees as experienced by Mr. Scorgie. The Agency is satisfied that these measures should assist in preventing the recurrence of situations similar to the one experienced by Mr. Scorgie and in eliminating undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities.
The Agency finds that the information submitted and the measures taken by Skyservice meet the requirements of Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Agency is satisfied that Skyservice has met the requirements of Decision No. 126-AT-A-2001 dated March 21, 2001 and does not contemplate any further action in this matter.
- Date modified: