Decision No. 312-AT-A-1999
Follow-up - Decision No. 255-AT-A-2000
June 4, 1999
APPLICATION by Doug Chaulk pursuant to subsections 172(1) and (3) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, with respect to the difficulties that he experienced when travelling between Toronto, Ontario and Deer Lake, Newfoundland with Air Canada and Air Nova Inc.
File No. U3570/99-6
APPLICATION
Doug Chaulk filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) with respect to the matter set out in the title. The application was received on February 4, 1999.
By Decision No. LET-AT-A-66-1999 dated March 15, 1999, the Agency granted Air Canada an extension until March 29, 1999 to file an answer to the complaint filed by Mr. Chaulk. Mr. Chaulk was advised that he would have 10 days from the date of receipt of Air Canada's answer to file a reply with the Agency.
On March 29, 1999, Air Canada on behalf of itself and Air Nova Inc. (hereinafter Air Nova) filed its answer to the complaint and Mr. Chaulk provided his reply on April 8, 1999.
ISSUES
The issues to be addressed are:
- Whether the seating assignments and the damages to Mr. Chaulk's wheelchair constituted undue obstacles to his mobility, and if so, what corrective measures should be taken; and
- Whether Air Canada complied with the terms and conditions of its domestic tariff with respect to the damages to Mr. Chaulk's luggage.
FACTS
Mr. Chaulk, who uses a wheelchair, requires assistance in boarding and deboarding an aircraft. Mr. Chaulk travelled between Toronto and Deer Lake, on December 20, 1998 and January 7, 1999, respectively. At the time of booking, Mr. Chaulk requested that he be assigned window seats in aisles with removable armrests. Rows with removable armrests provide the passenger with an easier transfer from the boarding chair to the aircraft seat. Mr. Chaulk received confirmation from Air Canada reservation personnel that the seats assigned to him were located in rows with removable armrests.
The outbound flight was operated by Air Canada between Toronto and Montréal and by Air Nova between Montréal and Halifax and Deer Lake. Mr. Chaulk was preassigned seat 13A from Toronto to Montréal, seat 6A from Montréal to Halifax and seat 1A from Halifax to Deer Lake. For the return flight, he was preassigned seat 1A from Deer Lake to Halifax and seat 24F between Halifax and Toronto. All seats are in rows with removable armrests.
Despite confirmation of the preassigned seating, at boarding the Halifax to Deer Lake flight, he was assigned seat 6A instead of 1A, a seat that is located in a row without removable armrests. Upon noting this fact, the boarding assisting agents brought Mr. Chaulk to seat 3A, a seat with a removable armrest on the aisle side and notified the flight attendant of this seating change. Upon arrival in Deer Lake, Mr. Chaulk noted damages to his wheelchair and filed a claim. The applicant was reimbursed in full by cheque on February 24, 1999.
While in Deer Lake and prior to the scheduled return flight, Mr. Chaulk called Air Canada's New Brunswick Call Centre to verify his seating assignments and he was advised that, for the Deer Lake to Halifax portion, his seat was changed from 1A to 3A because seat 1A was in the emergency exit row. He was also advised that, for the Halifax to Toronto portion, his seat was changed from 24F to 16F. He was assured that the changes in seating still provided seats in rows with removable armrests. However, seat 16F was not located in a row with removable armrests and the boarding assisting agents brought him to his original preassigned seat in row 24.
Mr. Chaulk also discovered upon arrival in Deer Lake that his luggage had been broken into and that three Christmas cards were missing. Furthermore on arrival in Toronto, he discovered that his luggage, which contained some necessary prescription medication, had not been placed on the flight and these bags only arrived in Toronto two days later. Air Canada issued a cheque to cover the replacement costs of the broken lock and the Christmas cards and paid for expenses claimed by Mr. Chaulk relating to the late delivery of his luggage.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Seating assignment
Mr. Chaulk submits that although Air Canada assured him that his flight would be booked and handled properly, he experienced the same problems already encountered with Air Canada. He questions how many more complaints must be filed before Air Canada corrects its seating assignment system. Mr. Chaulk states that if Air Canada could control and issue a standard policy or a procedure intended for all its agents, the seating assignment issue should be greatly improved.
Mr. Chaulk elaborated that on the Toronto to Montréal flight, the Air Canada employees did not know how to lift the armrests and gave up after several unsuccessful attempts. He submits that in performing his self transfer, he had no choice but to transfer onto the top of the armrest and then fall into the seat. He states that once in the seat, he noticed a button on the bottom rear of the aisle armrest, and that after pushing on it, the armrest easily flipped up. He adds that when he pointed this out to the employees, one of them stated "Oh well, you learn something new everyday".
He submits that as a dedicated and loyal customer of Air Canada and given the numerous problems he has encountered, he expects an apology as well as a full reimbursement for this ordeal.
Air Canada submits that none of the cabin crew on the Toronto to Montréal flight of December 20, 1998 recalled assisting Mr. Chaulk although one did remember observing the transfer from afar and noted that Mr. Chaulk, assisted by SPAT (Special Persons Assistance Team) members, transferred himself into the seat without incident. It also noted that it did identify the member of the SPAT Team that assisted Mr. Chaulk, but that the member had no recollection of the incident. Air Canada adds that although its in-flight personnel training covers both the handling and the location of liftable armrests, the instructions provided to SPAT Team Members in their training is limited to the location of the liftable armrests. Air Canada submits that it is currently reviewing the training manuals with specific instructions on how to lift the armrest for each aircraft type.
On the issue of seating, Air Canada notes that all seats preassigned to Mr. Chaulk were indeed seats in rows with liftable armrests. It states that the seat reassignments performed subsequently by its personnel on both flights between Deer Lake and Halifax were the result of inconsistencies in procedures communicated to its agents.
Air Canada explains that seats 1A and B on the Dash 8 aircraft were previously not assigned to persons with disabilities for safety reasons. However, in 1998 and at the request of Air Nova, Transport Canada ruled that access to seats 1A and B on the Dash 8 aircraft is now available to persons with disabilities unless the nature of the occupancy causes something to extend into the open spaces. Air Canada submits that in April 1998, Air Nova communicated these changes in a bulletin to its in-flight personnel and in November 1998, Air Canada included these seats in its Accessible Seat Allotment table published in Air Canada's InterAction newsletter.
Air Canada states that it later learned that the policy of releasing seats 1A and B on the Dash 8 as being available to persons with disabilities was still under consideration by its connector carriers. Air Canada submits that it was during its review of the policy with its connector carriers that Mr. Chaulk travelled. Air Canada adds that, at the time of travel, however, the CIC36/24 (Air Canada's seat restriction policy) had not yet been amended and agents who referred to it were incorrectly notified that seats 1A and B were restricted. The CIC36/24 has since been amended and will be further amended as other connector carriers adopt the new policy.
With respect to the seating change from seat 3A to 6A on the Deer Lake to Halifax flight, Air Canada submits that it reminded the agent involved of the importance of assigning a seat corresponding to the needs of the customer and to advise him/her of any new seating arrangements. As to the seating change from seat 24F to 16F on the Halifax to Toronto flight, Air Canada submits that it could not identify the agent who made the seating change, but it confirms that the incident will be reviewed with all agents from the Saint John, New Brunswick Call Centre through verbal briefings.
Damages to wheelchair and luggage
Air Canada submits that Mr. Chaulk's claim for the damages to his wheelchair was handled by the Air Nova and Air Canada Central baggage office and that reimbursement was made in full. With respect to his comments on the damages to his travel bag, and while it did not receive any formal claim, it has agreed, as a goodwill gesture, to reimburse the costs claimed. On the issue of the delayed delivery of his baggage, Air Canada referred to the conditions on the passenger ticket which states that the carrier will undertake its best efforts to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable dispatch. Nevertheless, it has also agreed to pay for the expenses related to the late delivery of his baggage.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In making its findings the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties.
The Agency is of the opinion that there are three matters for review in Mr. Chaulk's complaint:
- Assignment of accessible seating.
- Carrier liability for the carriage of mobility aids.
- Terms and conditions concerning lost, delayed or damaged baggage.
1) Assignment of accessible seating
The Agency notes that in accordance with Mr. Chaulk's request, he was preassigned seats on all segments of his trip, in rows with removable armrests. With respect to the reassignment of Mr. Chaulk's seats to 6A from 1A and to 16F from 24F, the Agency notes that the carrier boarding agents, after discussion with Mr. Chaulk on the appropriateness of the reassigned seat, brought Mr. Chaulk to a seat in a row with a moveable armrest. The Agency acknowledges that the seating reassignment was performed to the satisfaction of Mr. Chaulk.
The Agency is concerned, however, that boarding agents involved with Mr. Chaulk's boarding in Toronto on December 20, 1998 did not know how to lift the armrest. The Agency finds that this lack of awareness by the boarding agents resulted in an obstacle to the mobility of Mr. Chaulk. The obstacle is found to be undue as it could easily have been avoided had the employees involved in assisting Mr. Chaulk received appropriate training on how to lift the armrest. The Agency notes that Air Canada has recognized the shortfall in its own training of its boarding agents. Air Canada should therefore provide the Agency with the updated manual and a plan detailing the procedure for bringing this important element of training to the attention of all its boarding agents in the shortest time frame possible.
The Agency also accepts the explanation provided by Air Canada relating to the confusion over which seats in the Dash 8 aircraft are restricted to persons with disabilities. While Mr. Chaulk did not get his originally assigned seat in row 1, he was assigned a seat in row 3 which has a removable armrest. The Agency finds that this seat reassignment did not pose an undue obstacle to Mr. Chaulk's mobility. The Agency also notes that the CIC36/24 has been amended. Consequently, when reservation agents refer to the policy in the future, the correct information will be at their disposal and obstacles such as the ones encountered by Mr. Chaulk should be avoided.
2) Carrier liability for the carriage of mobility aids
On the issue of the damaged wheelchair, while recognizing the inconveniences experienced by Mr. Chaulk as a result of the damages, the Agency notes that in accordance with the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (hereinafter the ATR), Air Canada has assumed the total costs of the repairs to Mr. Chaulk's wheelchair. Therefore, the Agency finds that there is no contravention of the ATR with respect to this matter.
With respect to Mr. Chaulk's request to be reimbursed for the cost of his tickets, the Agency notes that the only expenses which may be reimbursed under subsection 172(3) of the Canada Transportation Act (hereinafter the CTA) are those incurred by a person with a disability arising out of an undue obstacle. The Agency finds that, in this instance, the costs of the tickets were not an expense incurred by Mr. Chaulk as a result of an undue obstacle.
3) Terms and conditions concerning lost, delayed or damaged baggage
Damages to or delay in delivery of a passenger's baggage is related to the terms and conditions of carriage of baggage and is not related to the transportation of persons with disabilities. Therefore, the Agency will not review this matter under subsection 172(1) of the CTA. Nevertheless, based on the information submitted during pleadings, there is no evidence that Air Canada or Air Nova has contravened the provisions of its domestic tariff provisions with respect to the carriage of Mr. Chaulk's baggage.
The Agency also notes that due to the nature of the air industry, baggage may be delayed beyond the air carrier's control. As all travellers may be confronted with such difficulties, the Agency is of the opinion that it is the responsibility of every passenger to ensure that, when possible, items that are considered essential, for example, medication, are carried in the passenger's carry-on luggage and not placed in checked baggage.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings, Air Canada is hereby requested to provide the Agency, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, a copy of its updated training manuals with respect to the instructions provided to Air Canada's SPAT Team Members on the proper lifting of armrests for each aircraft type and a plan determining how it will ensure that this important information is provided to its agents, either through refresher training or in the form of a communiqué at the earliest possible date.
Following its review of the requested material, the Agency will determine whether further action is required.
- Date modified: