Decision No. 429-AT-A-2006

August 8, 2006

August 8, 2006

IN THE MATTER OF Decision No. 57-AT-A-2003 dated February 5, 2003 - Steve Zary vs Air Canada.

File No. U3570/02-21


BACKGROUND

In its Decision No. 57-AT-A-2003 dated February 5, 2003 (hereinafter the Decision), the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) made a determination with respect to an application filed by Steve Zary concerning the difficulties he encountered while travelling from Regina, Saskatchewan to Vancouver, British Columbia on March 10, 2001 on Air Canada Flight No. AC8495.

The Agency determined that the delay in providing deplaning assistance to Mr. Zary at the Vancouver airport on March 10, 2001 constituted an undue obstacle to his mobility. Consequently, the Agency required Air Canada to take the following measures within thirty (30) days from the date of the Decision:

  1. issue an advisory bulletin to its reservation personnel, with a copy to the Agency, highlighting the incident experienced by Mr. Zary and reminding them of the different Passenger Name Record (PNR) code definitions and the importance of recording and entering the appropriate service codes for persons with disabilities. The bulletin was to include the list of these codes and their definitions; and
  2. issue an advisory bulletin to its Vancouver airport ground crew, with a copy to the Agency, highlighting the incident experienced by Mr. Zary and reminding them of the importance of communicating effectively with onboard personnel regarding any delays in assisting persons with disabilities.

Further, Air Canada was required to reimburse Mr. Zary for the cost of the long distance telephone call made by his family to his wife in Regina, once Mr. Zary provided Air Canada with a statement of this cost and included a receipt, if available. In the event that Mr. Zary and Air Canada did not reach an agreement on the eligible costs, they were advised that they could bring the matter back to the Agency for its determination of costs and the issuance of an order to that effect.

On March 5, 2003, Air Canada requested an extension of time to file its response to the Decision. In its Decision No. LET-AT-A-52-2003 dated March 7, 2003, the Agency granted Air Canada until May 4, 2003 to do so.

On April 1, 2003, Air Canada was placed under court-sanctioned bankruptcy protection in order to facilitate the air carrier's operational, commercial, financial and corporate restructuring. As part of this process, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36 (hereinafter the CCAA) staying all proceedings against or in respect of Air Canada and certain of its subsidiaries. As a consequence, the Agency was unable to continue processing this file, specifically its monitoring of Air Canada's compliance with the Decision. On August 23, 2004, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an Order pursuant to the CCAA (hereinafter the Sanction Order) which lifted the Stay Order as of September 30, 2004 and which extinguished all claims of a financial nature against Air Canada which arose on or before April 1, 2003.

In this regard, a letter was sent to all affected applicants, including Mr. Zary, on October 1, 2004, informing them that as of September 30, 2004, the Stay Order imposed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had been lifted and that the Agency had resumed its complaint adjudication process, including its monitoring of Agency Decisions issued before April 1, 2003.

All accessible transportation applications before the Agency against Air Canada and its subsidiaries in relation to incidents which occurred on or before April 1, 2003 (hereinafter the affected applications), including this application, were subsequently put on hold for a second period of time as a result of a dispute between the Agency and Air Canada on the scope of the Sanction Order. However, the Agency subsequently determined that it will proceed with its processing of the affected applications, including the monitoring of the Decision regarding Mr. Zary's application.

On May 5, 2006, Air Canada submitted its response to the Decision.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

With respect to the Agency's determination of costs related to the long distance telephone call made by Mr. Zary's family to his wife in Regina and the Agency's further determination of costs in this regard, given that all claims of a financial nature against Air Canada arising from incidents which occurred on or before April 1, 2003 have been extinguished for the purposes of both administrative tribunals and courts of law, the Agency has no jurisdiction to order compensation, pursuant to section 172 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, for expenses incurred by a person arising out of any undue obstacle that it may determine existed on or before April 1, 2003. Accordingly, the Agency will not deal with this matter in the context of this Decision.

ISSUE

The issue to be addressed is whether the measures taken by Air Canada meet the requirements of the Decision.

AIR CANADA SUBMISSION

Air Canada submitted the following documents and information in response to the requirements set out in the Decision.

Advisory bulletin to reservation personnel

In response to the corrective measure requiring the issuance of an advisory bulletin to its reservation personnel, Air Canada filed a copy of the following bulletin, which was added in Central Information Chapter (hereinafter CIC) CIC*600/1 on May 5, 2006 and intended for Air Canada Call Centre reservation agents. The bulletin reads:

$$Customers with Disability **05MAY.HDQ.DB

Important reminder: When making a reservation for a customer that needs a wheelchair, we have to ensure that the applicable APFAX is appended to the file. There was an incident where a passenger who was a paraplegic had to wait 35 minutes before getting assistance for deplaning the aircraft in YVR. The APFAX appended to the file was incorrect.

WCHR: A wheelchair is required for long distance.

WCHS: The customer is able to walk but cannot ascend or descend stairs.

WCHC: Customer must be carried to/from the cabin seat. He/she may be self reliant or not.

Please refer to CIC*57/4 for more details.

Advisory bulletin to Vancouver airport ground crew

In response to the corrective measure requiring the issuance of an advisory bulletin to the Vancouver airport ground crew, Air Canada filed a copy of its December 12, 2005 Customer Service Bulletin entitled Assisting Customers with Disabilities in Vancouver Airport, which states:

Agents working the Customer Care, Cart Driving and Passenger Service play a vital role as a team in the airport operation. The attention given by these agents to the special needs customers reduces customer stress and improves the Air Canada image. It has come to recent attention in a ruling from the Canadian Transportation Agency that the guidelines for agent assistance in Vancouver to our customers with disabilities need to be re-emphasized.

Policy CIC*840/49

AC and AC Jazz offer wheelchair service to/from the aircraft at all stages of a customer's trip, including the transfer to a connecting flight. Customers requiring the use of a wheelchair or cart service to and from the aircraft all differ in their specific needs and will therefore be offered a variety of specialized handling.

Agents are required to identify a customer's needs not only visually but by asking the customer questions to determine which type of assistance is required.

When a customer has been identified as requiring carry-on assistance, the DCS file must be commented with the appropriate wheelchair code i.e. WCHS OR WCHC. Stoc must be advised of the assistance required. Stoc will then contact the Ramp, who will provide the actual carry-on assistance at the designated pre-boarding time.

The arrival agent must check the inbound passenger service messages for any special handling requirements. When a customer has been identified on the PSM as requiring carry-off assistance, the arrival agent must contact Stoc. Stoc will then contact the Ramp who will provide the carry-off assistance. If a flight arrives with a customer requiring carry-off assistance and a station attendant is not there to provide the assistance, the arrival agent MUST contact Stoc immediately. Once Stoc has communicated with the Ramp, they will advise the arrival agent via radio or phone the length of time it will take for the station attendant to be at the flight. The arrival agent must relay this information to the flight attendants as well as to our customer. It is extremely important to communicate any delay in service or assistance with the customer.

Ensure the customer is attended to at all transfer points. Never leave your passenger unattended at a transfer point within the Vancouver airport. This includes taking the customers through security and through any customs and immigration clearance points.

Areas of Agent Responsibility for Arriving and Departing Customer Assistance

  • Domestic - International
  • Domestic - Transborder Flights via ITPC or the public area
  • International and Transborder - Domestic Flights via Intercept
  • International - Transborder via ITPC or Intercept
  • Transborder - International via Canada Customs Bypass or the public area.

CONCLUSION

The Agency has reviewed the information provided by Air Canada as set out above. The Agency notes that Air Canada issued a bulletin to its Call Centre reservation agents, highlighting the incident experienced by Mr. Zary, and reminding them of the wheelchair assistance reservation codes, including their respective definition.

The Agency further notes that Air Canada issued a bulletin to the Vancouver airport Customer Care, Cart Driving and Passenger Service ground agents, referring them to the Agency's ruling in the matter of the difficulties encountered by Mr. Zary, reminding them of procedures to follow for providing boarding and deplaning assistance to passengers who require WCHS or WCHC, and stressing the importance of communicating to both onboard personnel and persons with disabilities any delays in providing such assistance.

The Agency has considered the measures taken by Air Canada in response to the Decision and is satisfied that they should assist in preventing the recurrence of situations similar to the one experienced by Mr. Zary.

Therefore, the Agency is satisfied that Air Canada has met the requirements of the Decision. Accordingly, the Agency does not contemplate any further action in this matter.

Members

  • Guy Delisle
  • George Proud
Date modified: