Decision No. 41-AT-A-2000
Follow-up - Decision No. 493-AT-A-2000
January 21, 2000
APPLICATION by Alois Lack pursuant to subsections 172(1) and (3) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, regarding the seating assignment onboard a flight operated by Royal Aviation Inc. between Las Vegas, Nevada, and Toronto, Ontario, in May 1999.
File No. U 3570/99-43
APPLICATION
On September 24, 1999, Alois Lack filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) with respect to the matter set out in the title.
Royal Aviation Inc. (hereinafter Royal) filed its answer on October 14, 1999, and on November 2, 1999, the Agency received Mr. Lack's reply. On November 19, 1999, following a written request from Agency staff, Royal provided a copy of its advance seat selection policy.
ISSUE
The issue to be addressed is whether the seating assignment constituted an undue obstacle to Mr. Lack's mobility and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken.
FACTS
Mr. Lack wears a prosthesis on his right leg. Given the limited flexibility of his artificial limb, he requires extra leg room when travelling. However, Mr. Lack failed to specify this requirement at the time of booking, as confirmed by all parties.
On May 20, 1999, Mr. Lack travelled with Royal from Toronto, Ontario, to Las Vegas, Nevada. As Mr. Lack had not made advance seat reservations, he was assigned a regular seat and experienced considerable discomfort due to the limited leg room.
When deplaning in Las Vegas, Mr. Lack noted that seat 12 A or F onboard the Boeing 757/200 aircraft would be more appropriate for his return flight to Toronto and brought this to the attention of the flight attendant who suggested he reserve one of the two seats. Mr. Lack was unable to contact Royal's reservations desk by telephone. He therefore drove to the airport in Las Vegas on May 25, 1999, two days prior to the return flight, to request one of the above-mentioned seats. He spoke with a contracted check-in agent for Royal and explained the necessity of reserving a seat with extra leg room. Unaware that the seats had been prereserved, the agent erroneously told Mr. Lack that seat 12 F would be retained for him.
The return flight on May 27, 1999 was also operated with a Boeing 757/200 aircraft. On this type of aircraft, aside from the emergency exit rows which are precluded from assignment to passengers with disabilities, seats D, E and F in row 1, seats A, B and C in row 2, and seats A and F in row 12 provide extra leg room. The flight information manifest on file indicates that these seats had been prebooked through Royal's advance seat selection policy.
Royal's advance seat selection policy provides that seats may be reserved, for a fee, from three months up to 48 hours prior to a flight, and that they must be confirmed 45 minutes before departure. With respect to the issuance of boarding passes, Royal's policy states that these will be prepared firstly for passengers with prereserved seating, secondly for passengers with special requests, and lastly for general boarding. Moreover, the policy states: "If a pre-assigned seat cannot be attributed or has been missed-out (...) the check-in agent must try to re-assign the pax to a seat closest to the passenger's original choice."
In light of the above policy, Mr. Lack was unable to occupy seat 12 F and was assigned a regular seat with limited leg room.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Mr. Lack states that on the southbound flight operated on May 20, due to the limited leg room, he suffered extreme discomfort caused by his prosthesis pushing against his groin. In order to avoid this situation on the return flight, he attempted to reserve a seat with extra leg room. However, he submits that the telephone number he was given did not allow him to contact Royal's reservations desk. Consequently, on May 25 he drove to the airport in Las Vegas where he spoke with a check-in agent. He states that the agent in turn spoke with a Royal supervisor on the telephone and then confirmed that seat 12 F would be reserved for him.
Mr. Lack advises that on May 27 he checked in approximately two hours prior to departure and was informed by the passenger services supervisor that another supervisor had arbitrarily cancelled his reservation and had sold his seat. Mr. Lack then approached the in-flight director and again explained his requirements, but he was advised that nothing could be done. He adds that, although he transferred from his assigned seat 13 F to 13 D, which had been assigned to a family member travelling with him, he nonetheless experienced significant pain for the reason stated above, to the extent that he could barely walk off the plane at destination. Mr. Lack is of the opinion that Royal is to blame given that the supervisor on duty on May 25 had forgotten about Royal's advance seat selection policy.
Mr. Lack requests that suitable provisions be made for persons with disabilities when they travel with Royal to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. Furthermore, Mr. Lack submits that he should receive compensation for the aggravation he experienced and the time he lost as a result of having to drive to the airport on May 25 for the sole purpose of reserving a seat. More importantly, he requests compensation for the discomfort he suffered on the return flight to Toronto.
Royal acknowledges that the supervisor had forgotten about its seat reservation policy and that she clearly erred in leading Mr. Lack to believe that seat 12 F would be reserved for him. Royal adds, however, that no seats were sold or cancelled by the ground handling service as its personnel do not have access to its seat selection computer system or prepaid seat reservations. Further, they do not get involved with Royal's internal booking procedures.
Royal indicates that seats with extra leg room are very limited on its charter flights and that the flight to Toronto was being operated at almost full capacity. Moreover, all passengers with prereserved seats had confirmed their reservations. Royal submits that special seating arrangements would have been made, at no extra charge, had Mr. Lack described his condition and reserved a seat prior to travel. According to its records, however, no such request was made on Mr. Lack's behalf.
Mr. Lack is extremely concerned about the ill treatment and discomfort he suffered, and the possible neglect that other persons with disabilities might also experience when travelling with Royal. In his opinion, this type of disregard for persons with disabilities extends beyond negligence to discrimination and demonstrates an utter lack of customer service.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In making its findings, the Agency has considered all the evidence received and on file with the Agency, including the air carrier's tariff.
The Agency recognizes that the seating requirements of passengers with disabilities are dependent on each individual's impairment. While some may require seats with moveable armrests to facilitate the transfer from a wheelchair to a passenger seat, others may require seats near onboard washrooms or that offer extra leg room, as in the present case. Furthermore, a carrier's ability to provide services and to meet the travelling requirements of persons with disabilities is a major consideration when they are making travel plans.
In this respect, the Agency notes that Royal does recognize this principle as reflected in Rule 6.1 of its International Charter Tariff on file which states, on the issue of the carriage of persons with disabilities: "Reservations should be made at least 48 hours in advance of travel, advising the carrier as to the nature of the disability and assistance required, so that arrangements can be made." Rule 6.1 further reads: "The carrier will make every effort to accommodate passengers who fail to make reservations 48 hours in advance."
While Mr. Lack did not initially request special seating for his return to Toronto, he made considerable efforts two days prior to the return flight to rectify the situation. As he was unsuccessful in contacting Royal's reservations desk by telephone, he went to the airport where he explained his specific requirements to the check-in agent. On May 27, Mr. Lack again clearly voiced his requirements to the check-in agent, the passenger services supervisor, as well as the in-flight director. Despite his efforts, Mr. Lack was unable to reserve the requested seat. The Agency finds that the seating assignment onboard the return flight to Toronto constituted an obstacle to Mr. Lack's mobility as he was unable to occupy a seat with extra leg room and experienced considerable discomfort as a result. Further, the obstacle was undue as it could easily have been avoided had the supervisor on duty on May 25 been aware of Royal's advance seat selection policy, had inquired as to the availability of the seat in question, or had referred Mr. Lack directly to Royal's special needs/advance reservations desk. Under these circumstances, the Agency is of the opinion that Mr. Lack's expectations would not have been falsely raised, and Royal's reservations desk would have had sufficient notice prior to the return flight regarding his special seating request, and could have made arrangements to accommodate him.
The Agency has reviewed Royal's advance seat selection policy and is concerned that it does not provide the degree of flexibility that would allow the carrier's personnel to make reasonable efforts to respond to special seating requests where a passenger fails to make reservations 48 hours in advance. The Agency notes that Royal's policy does not identify and reserve a minimum number of accessible seats from its seat selection inventory to be assigned last to passengers without disabilities, nor does it contain an overriding/reimbursement provision which could have been applied in the present case. The option of overriding a passenger with a prereserved seat was available to Royal's personnel as its policy clearly states that, while this would be exceptional, where a prebooked seat cannot be assigned, passengers may be reassigned to another seat closest to their original choice. The Agency is further of the opinion that Royal's advance seat selection policy does not integrate the above-noted provisions of Rule 6.1 of the carrier's International Charter Tariff and is restrictive in nature.
In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that the non-provision of a minimum number of seats from Royal's advance seat selection inventory constituted an obstacle to Mr. Lack's mobility as he was unable to reserve seat 12 F or any other accessible seat which would have met his requirements. The Agency deems the obstacle to have been undue as it could have been avoided had Royal's current policy provided for a minimum number of accessible seats to be set aside to respond to last minute requests such as Mr. Lack's, or had it provided for overriding prebooked seat selections to accommodate passengers with disabilities.
On the issue of compensation, subsection 172(3) of the Canada Transportation Act (hereinafter the CTA) provides that:
On determining that there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities, the Agency may require the taking of appropriate corrective measures or direct that compensation be paid for any expense incurred by a person with a disability arising out of the undue obstacle, or both.
In the present case, while the Agency recognizes that Mr. Lack was confronted with undue obstacles, and that he had to expend time to drive to Las Vegas in order to reserve an accessible seat, the Agency has jurisdiction to order compensation solely if the expenses result from the undue obstacles.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above, the Agency finds that the seating assignment on the return flight to Toronto constituted an undue obstacle to Mr. Lack's mobility due to the lack of knowledge of Royal's advance seat reservation policy on the part of its staff. The Agency also finds that the restrictive nature of Royal's advance seat selection policy constituted a further undue obstacle to his mobility.
Royal is hereby directed to:
- issue a bulletin to its contracted ground handling personnel in Las Vegas conveying the incident described herein and reminding them of its advance seat selection policy, and of the importance of referring passengers with specific seating requirements directly to Royal's special needs/advance reservations telephone line;
- amend its advance seat selection policy to include provisions stating that a minimum number of accessible seats should be identified and reserved to meet the requirements of persons with disabilities, and that these should be assigned last to passengers without disabilities; in this respect, Royal should consider the various characteristics of what constitutes an accessible seat; and
- amend its advance seat selection policy to include a provision stating that advance seat reservations may be overridden, and the fee reimbursed, to accommodate passengers with disabilities.
Royal is to provide the Agency with a copy of the bulletin and the above-requested amendments within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision.
Following a review of this information, the Agency will determine whether further corrective measures should be taken.
- Date modified: