Decision No. 36-A-1998

February 3, 1998

File No. U 3570/97-11

APPLICATION

On July 18, 1997, Angela Schreiner filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) describing difficulties she experienced with Lufthansa German Airlines (hereinafter Lufthansa) and Air Canada on her return flight from Frankfurt to Toronto on July 3, 1997. Ms. Schreiner explains that due to the absence of an on-board wheelchair, which she had previously requested, she could not travel on her scheduled flight and had to take the next available flight.

Ms. Schreiner also complained that her luggage remained on the first flight and she raised concerns as to whether it constituted a breach of security. Since this aspect of the complaint falls under the purview of Transport Canada, it was forwarded to that department for consideration.

ISSUE

The issue to be addressed is whether or not the absence of an on-board wheelchair constituted an undue obstacle to the mobility of Ms. Schreiner, and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken.

FACTS

Ms. Schreiner uses a wheelchair and requires the use of an on-board wheelchair during the flight to access the washroom. Ms. Schreiner booked her trip with Lufthansa and requested an on-board wheelchair in the aircraft. The return flight of July 3, 1997 from Frankfurt to Toronto was operated by Air Canada through a code-share agreement with Lufthansa. Upon boarding the Air Canada aircraft, there was no on-board wheelchair in the passenger cabin. Due to the absence of the on-board wheelchair, Ms. Schreiner had to deplane and wait for the next available flight, which was operated by Lufthansa and departed four hours later.

All Air Canada aircraft are equipped with wheelchairs to allow persons with mobility impairments to have access to on-board facilities. On-board wheelchairs are considered "fixed equipment" and are to be removed only when they are defective or damaged. Air Canada has procedures in place which require that pre-flight verification be made to ensure that the on-board wheelchair is in its assigned location and in working order. In the event that the wheelchair is found damaged or missing, the cabin crew must immediately advise the in-charge flight attendant who will then inform the captain and maintenance of the problem.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

Ms. Schreiner advises that in the absence of an on-board wheelchair, it would have been impossible for her to access the washroom during the eight (8) hour flight. Ms. Schreiner is of the view that she should be reimbursed for the time lost by her and her husband as a result of her delayed departure.

Since the incident reported by Ms. Schreiner occurred on board an Air Canada aircraft, Lufthansa advised that it had no comments to make with respect to the difficulties experienced by Ms. Schreiner and that a response would be provided by Air Canada.

Air Canada states that this incident is of great concern since no record of repair to the on-board wheelchair was reported. Air Canada advises that a bulletin will be issued reminding all employees that on-board wheelchairs are not to be removed from the aircraft under any circumstances. It also advises that the bulletin will stress the impact that the absence of an on-board wheelchair could have on persons with disabilities. Air Canada acknowledges that the situation experienced by Ms. Schreiner could have been avoided had the existing procedures been applied prior to the departure of the aircraft from its base. It also advises that it brought the importance of the verification of the on-board wheelchair to the attention of the in-charge flight attendant and that appropriate disciplinary action was taken to prevent similar incidents. Air Canada has offered a travel voucher of $100 CAD to Ms. Schreiner for the inconvenience she experienced on July 3. In a subsequent submission, Air Canada provided a copy of the bulletin published in the September 19, 1997 issue of interAction. Air Canada submits that this measure should prevent recurrence of similar incidents as the one experienced by Ms. Schreiner.

In her reply, Ms. Schreiner advises that although Air Canada's response assured her of the existence of a policy for the transportation of passengers with disabilities, Air Canada failed to convince her that its personnel received sufficient training to implement its policy. Ms. Schreiner is concerned that a similar incident could recur with other safety equipment. Ms. Schreiner also submits that she was not impressed with the $100 travel voucher offer made by Air Canada, and she is of the opinion that such an amount is not sufficient to compensate for the time lost.

Air Canada submitted additional clarification on some of the issues raised by Ms. Schreiner in her reply. Air Canada advises that the on-board wheelchair is not a safety item and that the offer of $100 travel voucher was not intended as a compensation for the expenses incurred by Ms. Schreiner for the delay she experienced in Frankfurt but was rather a gesture of goodwill on Air Canada's part for the inconvenience caused. Air Canada also advises that, as a result of the incident experienced by Ms. Schreiner, the issue of on-board wheelchairs will be covered during the 1998 recurrent flight attendant training.

On October 28, 1997, Ms. Schreiner advised the Agency that she will not be seeking reimbursement of costs as she did not incur any real expenses as a result of the delay in Frankfurt.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties. Air Canada has accepted full responsibility for the incident. The Agency notes Air Canada's submission that the situation experienced by Ms. Schreiner could have been avoided had the policy and procedures in place been applied. The Agency is concerned with instances such as the one experienced by Ms. Schreiner when, due to the absence of an on-board wheelchair, a person is prevented from travelling as planned. The Agency finds that the absence of an on-board wheelchair created an obstacle to Ms. Schreiner's mobility and the obstacle is found to be undue as it could have been easily avoided had the existing procedures been applied. The Agency has reviewed the corrective measures taken by Air Canada and is satisfied that the concerns raised by Ms. Schreiner regarding the absence of the on-board wheelchair have been addressed and that the measures initiated by Air Canada should help to prevent a recurrence of similar situations in the future. Therefore, the Agency finds that no further action is necessary with respect to this matter.