Decision No. 184-AT-A-2008

April 15, 2008

IN THE MATTER OF Decision No. 102-AT-A-2002 dated March 1, 2002 - D. Allan Judd and Ruth Judd vs Air Canada.

File No. U3570/00-77

BACKGROUND

[1] In Decision No. 102-AT-A-2002, the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) determined that the Air Canada's failure to provide wheelchair and baggage assistance to Mr. and Mrs. Judd at the Toronto-Lester B. Pearson International Airport (Toronto airport) in October 2000 constituted an undue obstacle to their mobility.

[2] The Agency directed Air Canada to implement two corrective measures, and is satisfied that Air Canada has implemented the required corrective measures.

ANALYSIS

Corrective measure 1

• Provide a report to the Agency on the contingency plans that will be taken to prevent the recurrence of the situation experienced by Mr. and Mrs. Judd at the Toronto airport, highlighting Air Canada's plans for wheelchair assistance in situations where there is a shortage of personnel.

[3] Air Canada states that the Passenger Name Record correctly reflected Mr. and Mrs. Judd's need for wheelchair assistance, but that sometimes procedures are not properly followed. Air Canada explains that it has a commitment to provide wheelchair and baggage assistance, but that it is difficult when there are flight delays and last minute requests. It also states that the arrival agents know how many wheelchair assistance requests there are and how many agents are available. In response to the number of requests, the arrival agents can communicate the action plan to customers, use electric carts where available, ask for passenger patience and cooperation, and give priority to short connections.

[4] The Agency finds that Air Canada has procedures and a contingency plan for when there is a shortage of personnel. In addition, in a recent decision (Decision No. 180-AT-A-2008), the Agency found that Air Canada conducted a review of wheelchair assistance at the Toronto airport and implemented improvements. The improvements include redesigning the Special Passenger Attendance Team, reviewing the arrival agent duties which focus on passengers with special needs, and hiring eighty additional staff at the Toronto airport to ensure that service levels to passengers with special needs are maintained.

Corrective measure 2

• Issue an advisory bulletin to its employees at the Toronto airport, as well as the Toronto employees of Air Ontario Inc. at the same airport, highlighting the importance of delivering services, as requested, to persons with disabilities in light of the incident experienced by Mr. and Mrs. Judd, and provide the Agency with a copy of this bulletin.

[5] Air Canada forwarded a bulletin to employees at the Toronto airport. The bulletin states that some customers were not adequately provided with wheelchair assistance despite the Departure Control System (DCS) record and list of things airport agents must do. The bulletin, entitled "Customers with Disabilities Awareness," highlights the importance of delivering service as requested and points out that some customers travelling with Air Canada were not adequately provided with wheelchair assistance, despite advice in the DCS record.

Conclusion

[6] In light of the foregoing, the Agency is satisfied that Air Canada has implemented the corrective measures. Therefore, no further action is necessary in this matter.

Members

• Beaton Tulk
• Raymon J. Kaduck