Decision No. 466-AT-A-1999
August 9, 1999
APPLICATION by Jean-Luc Demers pursuant to subsection 172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, regarding the difficulties encountered during his return trip between Montréal and Orlando in September 1998, due to the levels of service and assistance provided by Royal Aviation Inc. carrying on business as Royal and/or Conifair.
File No. U3570/99-11
APPLICATION
On February 11, 1999, Jacqueline Shea, on behalf of her son, Jean-Luc Demers, filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) with respect to the matter set out in the title.
Royal Aviation Inc. carrying on business as Royal and/or Conifair (hereinafter Royal) filed its answer to the application on March 30, 1999, and Ms. Shea filed her reply on June 3, 1999.
Pursuant to subsection 29(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, the Agency is required to make its decision no later than 120 days after the application is received unless the parties agree to an extension. In this case, the parties have agreed to an extension of the deadline to August 9, 1999.
ISSUE
The issue to be addressed is whether the levels of service and assistance provided to Jean-Luc Demers constituted an undue obstacle to his mobility and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken.
FACTS
Mr. Demers is severely disabled and uses a wheelchair. He is completely dependent and requires constant assistance for all his daily needs.
Ms. Shea bought two holiday packages to Disney World, in Orlando, Florida, from the travel wholesaler Americanada, for herself and her son, through the Club Voyages Escapade 2000 travel agency. This was the first time Ms. Shea and her son travelled by air. Ms. Shea's mother, Ms. Noëlla Dessaints, also bought the same holiday package and was travelling with them.
The airline tickets, issued on March 23, 1998, indicate that the outbound flight, Flight No. 962, was to depart from Dorval airport at 7:00 a.m. on September 5, 1998. The return flight, Flight No. 963, from Orlando to Dorval airport was scheduled to depart at 10:55 a.m. on September 12, 1998. No stopovers were planned.
Aéroports de Montréal, the authority in charge of Mirabel and Dorval airports, required Royal to transfer all of its flights bound for Florida to Mirabel airport in September 1998. Although the travel wholesalers were informed of the change in early September, Ms. Shea only found this out during one of the telephone calls she made on September 4 and 5 to confirm the outbound flight.
Upon her arrival at Mirabel airport, two hours before the flight departure time, Ms. Shea was informed that the flight departure had been delayed to 1:10 p.m. on September 5. The departure was then further delayed to 12:30 a.m. on September 6. In fact, the travel party finally boarded the aircraft at 2:30 a.m. on September 6, 1998 on Flight No. 960. During that waiting period, Ms. Shea was forced to change Mr. Demers' soiled clothes in the departure lounge. She was not offered the use of a private room or area to attend to Mr. Demers' personal needs. Mr. Demers' wheelchair was also soiled. Later, a hotel room was made available to Ms. Shea, her son and her mother, on request, but the carrier's personnel refused to return one of the suitcases which contained Mr. Demers' personal belongings.
Prior to filing her complaint with the Agency, Ms. Shea expressed her dissatisfaction to the carrier, and claimed compensation for the difficulties and inconveniences she, her son and her mother had to overcome during their trip. The parties came to an agreement, and Ms. Shea was compensated.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Ms. Shea advises that she chose the holiday packages offered by Americanada mainly because the air transportation to be provided by Royal on both the outbound and return flights was scheduled during the day and was to last less than four hours, without stopovers.
Ms. Shea indicates that she is dismayed at the series of events they had to endure and that the carrier did not respect the arrangements she made which were confirmed by her travel agent when the tickets were purchased.
Ms. Shea also noted discrepancies between the information on Royal's voice mail messages, on display boards in Mirabel airport, and that provided at the airport by various employees of the carrier.
Ms. Shea expresses her dissatisfaction with the lack of effective communication in the provision of information between the carrier and its clients, the travel agencies and the travel wholesalers; the discrepancies in the information the carrier provides to the travelling public concerning flights; and the carrier's procedure for reassigning seats during the flight.
Ms. Shea also states that she was greatly concerned by the lack of sensitivity shown by the carrier's personnel towards her disabled son. For example, she submits that they refused to bring her Mr. Demers' suitcase at Mirabel airport, despite the extended delay of the departure flight; she was not offered a private room or secluded area to attend to Mr. Demers' personal needs during the delay; no hotel room was made available to them until she requested one; and there was no assistance offered to carry the baggage or push Mr. Demers in his wheelchair in Orlando.
In addition, Ms. Shea states that Flight No. 960 made a stop at Fort Lauderdale where all passengers were required to disembark to clear customs. Mrs. Shea submits that upon reboarding in Fort Lauderdale priority was given to passengers who had not been on the flight from Montréal. The order of boarding was as follows: 1) Orlando residents 2) passengers returning to Montréal 3) passengers who were previously on board the aircraft, beginning with those seated at the rear of the aircraft. She maintains that this caused crowding and confusion and it was the initiative of a passenger who gave up her seat which allowed Ms. Shea, Mr. Demers and Ms. Dessaints to be seated together.
The return flight was also delayed by approximately one day, and according to Ms. Shea, the conflicting information provided at the airport and by the air carrier was equally confusing. Ms. Shea states that she had been told on check-in to report to Gate 23 for boarding, however, the boarding actually took place at Gate 82. None of the carrier's employees informed her of the change. Flight No. 963 finally left Orlando at 1:00 a.m on September 13, 1998.
Ms. Shea is of the opinion that the services provided to persons with disabilities by Royal should be clearly identified and communicated to its employees and its clients, the information on the operation of its flights adequately disseminated, and the carrier's employees made more sensitive to the needs of passengers with disabilities and their responsibility in that respect.
Regarding the change of airport, Royal states that at the time the tickets were issued, in April 1998, all its flight departures for Florida were from Dorval airport, as they had been since 1992. Following the decision by Aéroports de Montréal, all travel wholesalers were informed, a few days in advance, that these flight departures would be from Mirabel airport as of the beginning of September 1998.
Royal submits that in the days following the transfer of its activities, its employees had some difficulties adapting. Royal indicates that it will soon implement a new computer-managed information system, which will provide better dissemination of flight information to its clients.
Royal advises that these were charter flights and, as such, are operated at the request of the travel wholesalers. To accommodate the varying demands and be able to continue to offer holiday packages at competitive prices, some charter flights are occasionally grouped into a single flight. Royal also points out that the routes and schedules are set by the travel wholesalers and are subject to change at any time.
Royal states that the personnel at Mirabel airport should have offered Ms. Shea a lounge to attend to Mr. Demers' personal needs during the time the flight was delayed. A wheelchair could also have been made available to Mr. Demers temporarily, so that his own could be cleaned and dried off. However, according to Royal, its employees do not recall these incidents. Royal advises that a number of the employees involved had left their jobs since these incidents. However, it will ensure that its staff are aware of the needs of persons with disabilities when there are significant delays.
Royal's accommodation policy provides that when there is a major delay during the night, passengers are entitled to a hotel room when one is available. For major delays during the day, rooms are offered to disabled persons, senior citizens, and families travelling with young children.
Concerning the inaccessibility of the suitcases, Royal submits that the aircraft used to provide the service was a B-727, and that all baggage had been loaded into the baggage compartment in bulk due to the configuration of this aircraft. Royal states that its staff should nevertheless have given Ms. Shea the suitcase of Mr. Demers and/or provided any other effects necessary. Royal indicates that it no longer uses B-727 aircraft and as of May 1, 1999, coupons will be provided to identify baggage that must be kept available to the passengers when the aircraft is on the ground. This baggage will be loaded last, and will therefore be easily retrieved from the baggage compartment when necessary.
As to the boarding procedure at Fort Lauderdale, Royal maintains that all passengers travelling to Orlando had reserved seats. The boarding procedure requires passengers with disabilities and those seated in the rear of the aircraft to board first to avoid crowding in the aisles. Royal admits that its staff did not apply the procedure, and that a sensitivity and awareness training session will be held in Fort Lauderdale.
With respect to the change in boarding gate, Royal states that in the event of an aircraft's breakdown, mechanical failure or delay, another aircraft may have to be substituted, which may result in a last minute change of boarding gate. Because such events cannot be foreseen, the carriers cannot be held responsible for them. However, when this information is known at the time the passengers check in, they must be so informed.
Royal also states that it has no staff in Orlando to carry passengers' baggage. In many air terminals, this service is provided by private companies. Ms. Shea's comments in this regard will be reviewed by Royal at a future date.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In making its findings, the Agency has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties during the pleadings.
The Agency finds that a number of the factors that contributed to the difficulties and inconvenience experienced by the members of Ms. Shea's family are operational in nature and affected all passengers. However, although such operational factors affect all passengers, they have more significant effects on passengers with disabilities, such as Mr. Demers. As this was the first time Ms. Shea and her family travelled by air, they were not adequately prepared to cope with the difficulties encountered.
In this respect, the Agency notes that the transfer of Royal's charter activities from Dorval airport to Mirabel airport in early September 1998 was imposed on the carrier by Aéroports de Montréal, and that Royal cannot be held responsible for this change.
The Agency also notes Royal's statement that, in the case of charter flights, a travel wholesaler leases part or all of a carrier's aircraft capacity and sells the seats to the public. Thus, the passengers and travel agencies do not deal directly with the air carrier, but rather with the travel wholesaler. It should also be noted that travel wholesalers determine the terms and conditions applicable to transportation services, including the routes (departure and destination points, and stopovers), and the flight dates and times. They also reserve the right to change routes and schedules at any time, without prior notice, in order to minimize costs and make their activities profitable.
However, carriers operating charter services to and from points in Canada are required to file with the Agency the tariffs governing the terms and conditions of contracts with charterers to lease aircraft and operate an air service. In addition, rule 6(h) of Royal's Charter Tariff CTA (A) No. 6 provides that flight departure and arrival times are approximate times only and may change without notice. Rule 11 provides that the carrier may substitute another aircraft for the originally scheduled one; in this case, that is what appears to have caused the delay of Flight No. 963 at Orlando airport and the change in boarding gate.
The Agency is of the opinion that the airport transfer in Montréal, the outbound and return flight delays and the flight changes (i.e. number of the departure flight from Mirabel, stopover at Fort Lauderdale, boarding gate at Orlando) constituted obstacles to Ms. Shea and her family. However, those obstacles were created by operational factors which were beyond the control of the carrier and, as such, do not constitute undue obstacles. On the other hand, the Agency finds that the lack of sensitivity demonstrated by Royal employees to the needs of Mr. Demers at Mirabel, Fort Lauderdale and Orlando airports, and the lack of available services to which he was entitled and which he should have been offered, constituted undue obstacles to his mobility. These obstacles could have easily been avoided if the carrier's employees had been more sensitive to the passenger's needs and had communicated with Ms. Shea to inform her about the services provided by the carrier to persons with disabilities.
In this regard, the Agency notes that Royal admitted that its personnel at Mirabel airport should have attempted to retrieve Mr. Demers' suitcase or provide any other effects necessary; that its staff should have provided Ms. Shea with a lounge to attend to the personal needs of Mr. Demers; that a wheelchair could have been temporarily supplied to Mr. Demers to replace his own when it became soiled; and that hotel rooms are provided to disabled persons when there are major delays during the day or the night. The carrier acknowledges, therefore, that it offers such services to persons with disabilities.
Royal also admitted that its staff at Fort Lauderdale did not apply the established boarding procedure, which is that passengers with disabilities are given priority in boarding the aircraft. If Ms. Shea, her son and her mother had been given priority when boarding the aircraft, they would likely have avoided the crowding and the confusion and problems with seat assignment. The Agency finds, therefore, that this failure to follow the procedure caused an undue obstacle to Mr. Demers' mobility, because it could have been easily avoided if the carrier's personnel had properly applied the established procedure.
The Agency also notes the great confusion and stress experienced by Ms. Shea because of the conflicting information released by the carrier concerning its flights. In this regard, Royal stressed that the transition period after the airport transfer probably had a considerable effect on the work and behaviour of its staff. However, the Agency notes that Royal plans to introduce a new computer-managed information system which is intended to provide rapid and effective dissemination of the information the carrier provides to its clients, thereby preventing the recurrence of situations like the one experienced by Ms. Shea.
The Agency is of the opinion that the carriers are responsible for ensuring that the appropriate employees are aware of the carrier's policies and procedures for persons with disabilities, including the services to be provided to them. Those employees must also be given general sensitivity training so that they can identify the needs of persons with disabilities when they travel and understand the carrier's responsibilities toward those persons, including the level of assistance and the methods of communication to be used. The Agency is also of the opinion that such training could have prevented some of the problems encountered by Ms. Shea and her family.
The Agency therefore finds that Royal should be required to file the training records of its employees at Mirabel airport, indicating the initial and refresher training they have received, and a confirmation that its contract employees at Fort Lauderdale and Orlando airports have received the sensitivity and awareness training indicated by the carrier. The Agency also finds that Royal should issue a bulletin to all its employees at Mirabel airport, and to its contract employees at Fort Lauderdale and Orlando airports, summarizing the incidents experienced by Ms. Shea and the members of her family, stating the steps and procedures to be followed in order to prevent such incidents from recurring, and stressing the importance of communicating effectively with passengers with disabilities when they travel, and regularly inquiring about their needs. Finally, Royal should be required to inform the Agency of the measures it has taken and plans to take to ensure that the travel agencies and travel wholesalers with whom it works are informed of the services it provides to persons with disabilities when they are travelling.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings, the Agency finds that the levels of service and assistance provided by Royal constituted undue obstacles to the mobility of Mr. Demers. Accordingly, the Agency hereby requires Royal:
- to submit, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, the training records of its employees at Mirabel airport, indicating the dates on which they received initial and refresher training;
- to submit, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, written confirmation from its supplier(s) of services at Fort Lauderdale and Orlando airports that their employees have received the sensitivity and awareness training indicated by the carrier;
- to issue a bulletin to all its employees at Mirabel airport, and to its contract employees at Fort Lauderdale and Orlando airports, summarizing the incidents experienced by the passengers stating the steps and procedures to be followed in order to prevent the recurrence of such incidents and stressing the importance of communicating effectively with persons with disabilities when they travel, and of regularly inquiring about their needs; and to file a copy of this bulletin with the Agency within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision;
- to report within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, on the measures it has taken and plans to take to ensure that travel agencies and travel wholesalers it deals with are aware of the services it provides to persons with disabilities when they are travelling.
Following its review of the requested material, the Agency will determine whether further action is required.
Members
- Gilles Dufault
- Mary-Jane Bennett
- Date modified: