Decision No. 182-AT-A-2008

April 15, 2008

IN THE MATTER OF Decision No. 724-AT-A-2005 dated December 14, 2005 - Dorothy I. Riddle vs Air Canada.

File No. U3570/04-21

---

BACKGROUND

[1] In Decision No. 724-AT-A-2005 (the Decision), the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) determined that the level of wheelchair assistance provided to Dorothy I. Riddle by Air Canada at the Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport (the Fort Lauderdale airport) and the Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport (the Montréal airport) in April 2004 constituted undue obstacles to her mobility. The Agency directed Air Canada to show cause why it should not be required to implement six corrective measures.

[2] The Agency finds that the measures undertaken by Air Canada since Dr. Riddle's travel in April 2004 are consistent with the corrective measures contemplated in the Decision and, as a result, no further action is required in this matter.

ANALYSIS

Show cause - corrective measure 1

• File a list of the measures Air Canada will implement to ensure the timely provision of wheelchair assistance by its contracted personnel at the Fort Lauderdale airport.

[3] Air Canada submits that special reminder briefings on serving passengers with disabilities were provided by management to employees at the Fort Lauderdale airport.

[4] The Agency accepts that the special reminder briefings contain the same information about Air Canada's policies and procedures that apply to personnel at other airports, such as the Toronto-Lester B. Pearson International Airport (the Toronto airport). Findings about the adequacy of Air Canada's policies and procedures which apply to the Toronto airport can be found in a recent Agency Decision (Decision No. 180-AT-A-2008). The Agency found in that Decision that Air Canada has improved the provisions of its wheelchair assistance by prioritizing the transfer of connecting passengers, by reviewing the duties of the arrival agents which focus on passengers with disability-related needs, and by distributing a customer service bulletin to all customer sales and service agents in all airports. The customer service bulletin states that some customers travelling with Air Canada did not receive adequate wheelchair assistance, despite advice in the Departure Control System (DCS) record. The DCS record sends messages to all affected stations about the reservations for specific services.

[5] In addition, the Agency has not received complaints about the level of wheelchair assistance provided by Air Canada's contracted personnel in Fort Lauderdale following the special reminder briefings.

Show cause - corrective measure 2

• Establish procedures which require its personnel to follow-up with Sky Cap or with its contracted wheelchair service provider at the Fort Lauderdale airport until wheelchair service is provided and to follow-up with the passengers requiring wheelchair assistance to inform them of the status of service arrival and to ensure that they have received wheelchair assistance in a timely manner so that they do not miss their flight.

[6] Air Canada states that it was undertaking to remind staff in Fort Lauderdale as well as its ground handling agents that there must be a follow-up to assure the passenger that a page for a wheelchair service has been actioned within acceptable time parameters and that any delay is relayed and explained to the customer.

[7] The Agency accepts Air Canada's submission and acknowledges that there have been no further complaints about this service since the time of Dr. Riddle's travel.

Show cause - corrective measure 3

• Establish procedures to ensure the timely provision of wheelchair assistance at the Montréal airport, such as requiring its supervisors to review arrival gate staffing needs once check-in for an inbound flight has closed at the originating airport to ensure, while the flight is still in the air, that there will be adequate ground personnel available to provide wheelchair assistance to passengers with disabilities in a timely manner.

[8] Air Canada submits that this corrective measure would not be possible as it would require planning and calling upon additional staff to be ready to meet an incoming flight within 3.5 hours. Requests for special services should be made at least 24 to 48 hours in advance to allow for proper staffing arrangements.

[9] Air Canada also states that the requirement to convey the information while the flight is in the air would not be warranted because the current staffing method is adequate. This method involves the DCS record, which sends messages to all affected stations about the reservations for specific services. The planning manager is then expected to see to the staffing requirements based on the reservations, and proceed accordingly after the list of passengers is printed and the accessibility services are noted. Air Canada thus submits that its existing staffing procedures should satisfy the Agency's requirement.

[10] In addition, Air Canada states that there is at least one agent assigned to meet every flight, that the agent may call the Special Passenger Attendance Team for help and that up to six agents can be assigned to provide assistance for a specific flight. Air Canada further explains that at the time of Ms. Riddle's travel, there were blocks to entrances due to major renovations at the Montréal airport, but that these blocks no longer prevent motorized carts from passing through. According to Air Canada, the new transborder area has very wide hallways which permit the use of motorized carts and facilitate service provisions to more than one passenger who may need assistance for long distances, such as in Dr. Riddle's case.

[11] Air Canada claims that there was a misunderstanding on the part of the Agency about staffing at the Montréal airport. That is, it appears to Air Canada that the Agency believes that it is Air Canada's practice to assign only one agent to meet a flight. However, the Agency's concerns raised in the Decision relate only to the case at hand and not to general practice. In Dr. Riddle's case, Air Canada initially only assigned one agent for the flight arriving from Fort Lauderdale, not noting that ten requests for wheelchair assistance were made by passengers travelling on that flight. Air Canada failed to use the information on the number of requests it received, either at the time of booking or at check-in, and failed to assign additional personnel.

[12] Nonetheless, Air Canada has adequately explained its established policies and procedures to ensure the timely provision of wheelchair assistance. That is, its agents are trained to retrieve the list of accessibility services which includes names of passengers, seat numbers, assistance requests and connecting flight numbers. With this information, the agents are able to determine which passengers have a connection, where the connection is, and the departure time of their connecting flight.

[13] Furthermore, the Agency has since been made aware that Air Canada has updated its policies and procedures designed to ensure that the needs of persons who require wheelchair assistance are met (Decision No. 180-AT-A-2008).

Show cause - corrective measure 4

• Establish procedures to ensure the implementation of its policy for prioritizing wheelchair assistance at the Montréal airport to passengers with disabilities with connecting flights.

[14] Air Canada states that its procedures provide for prioritizing wheelchair assistance for connecting passengers. Air Canada explains that arrival agents print service requirements, review connecting passenger needs, meet aircraft upon arrival, discuss assistance requests with in-flight crew for onboard passengers needing assistance or flight protection, attend to such needs and requests, and call for back-up support if needed. Air Canada further submits that these procedures apply to both before and after a flight. Further, since Dr. Riddle's travel, Air Canada sent a reminder to all of its sales and service agents at all airports it serves instructing personnel not to leave passengers unattended, to report unattended passengers to the manager by any external agencies, to identify all passengers who require assistance at check-in and in the departure lounges, and to enter appropriate comments in the DCS or in the passenger's Passenger Name Record (PNR); and stressing the importance to ensure that services are provided as requested.

Show cause - corrective measure 5

• Establish procedures to ensure the implementation of its policy of providing wheelchair assistance up/down the jetways at the Montréal airport.

[15] Air Canada submits that the wrong code was entered into Dr. Riddle's PNR. The "WCHR" code was used, which indicates that a person can walk but needs assistance with long distances within the airport. Air Canada does not consider the distance between the boarding gate and the aircraft entrance to be a long distance. Air Canada states that its policy for "WCHR" requests is to provide wheelchair assistance only to the boarding gate, as was done in Dr. Riddle's case.

[16] If Dr. Riddle was unable to walk at all, even for short distances, Air Canada submits that the "WCHS" code should have been entered when she booked her flight. Air Canada states that the "WCHS" code identifies a passenger who is unable to walk at all, even for short distances, and such passengers are assisted to the door of the aircraft when this service is requested at least 48 hours in advance.

[17] Air Canada submits that it published and distributed a bulletin to all of its agents to point out the proper procedures when a passenger indicates that he or she cannot walk unassisted in the jetway. The bulletin also states that non self-reliant passengers will be met with a wheelchair at the aircraft door and the wheelchair will be pushed up the bridge by two employees.

[18] The fact that the distance between the boarding gate and the aircraft entrance was not considered to be a long distance was not clearly set out in Air Canada's policies, procedures or publicly available documents. However, this concern has been addressed in previous Agency Decisions (Decision Nos. 450-AT-A-2005, 648-AT-A-2006 and 249-AT-A-2007).

[19] In these previous Decisions, the passenger had requested wheelchair assistance when making his online reservation, and received wheelchair assistance within the terminal at the Winnipeg International Airport. However, he had to walk from the boarding gate, across the tarmac, and climb steps to the aircraft without assistance. His reservation file contained the "WCHR" code, indicating that wheelchair assistance was required within the terminal and that the passenger can walk short distances, can enter and leave the aircraft without assistance, but is unable to walk long distances. This is the same "WCHR" code that was used in Dr. Riddle's case.

[20] In these same Decisions, the Agency found that Air Canada's policies and procedures provide that its reservation agents must determine the type of wheelchair assistance required with the customer and enter the proper code in the PNR. However, after the passenger's online reservation was made, Air Canada did not contact him to determine the type of wheelchair assistance required. The agent entered the "WCHR" code in his reservation file without consulting him about his specific needs.

[21] The Agency found that the lack of boarding assistance provided by Air Canada constituted an undue obstacle to the passenger's mobility. As a corrective measure, the Agency directed Air Canada to issue a bulletin stressing that Air Canada's policies and procedures provide that its reservation agents must determine the type of wheelchair assistance required with the customer and enter the proper code in the PNR (Decision No. 648-AT-A-2006). The Agency was satisfied with the actions taken by Air Canada with respect to this corrective measure (Decision No. 249-AT-A-2007).

[22] As another corrective measure, the Agency required that Air Canada modify its online reservation system to provide a clearer description of the exact services available for each type of wheelchair assistance, and expected Air Canada to meet its scheduled amendments by June 2007 (Decision Nos. 648-AT-A-2006 and 249-AT-A-2007). Air Canada presently describes three types of wheelchair assistance on its booking Web site, namely, wheelchair assistance within the airport, wheelchair assistance climbing steps and wheelchair assistance within the aircraft.

[23] The bulletin issued by Air Canada in response to the Agency's direction to show cause in Dr. Riddle's case, combined with the corrective action plan implemented as a result of the Decisions noted above, adequately address the Agency's requirement to establish procedures to ensure the implementation of its policy of providing wheelchair assistance up/down the jetways. It is important that Air Canada's personnel clearly understand the needs and abilities of persons with disabilities and, in the case of wheelchair assistance, the extent to which a person with a disability can walk unassisted so that the correct code is entered into the PNR.

Show cause - corrective measure 6

• Amend its personnel training program to include all of its policies and procedures with respect to the provision of wheelchair assistance.

[24] The Agency is aware that Air Canada has training in place that includes a situation similar to the one experienced by Dr. Riddle, which should help prevent the recurrence of similar incidents (Decision Nos. 71-AT-A-2006 and 181-AT-A-2008).

CONCLUSION

[25] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that the measures undertaken by Air Canada are consistent with the corrective measures contemplated in the Decision. As a result, no further action is required in this matter.

Members

• Raymon J. Kaduck
• Beaton Tulk