Decision No. 524-AT-A-2005
August 19, 2005
File No. U3570/05-8
APPLICATION
[1] On January 27, 2005, Helga Mathison filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) the application set out in the title. On February 28, 2005, Mrs. Mathison filed further information to complete the application.
[2] On March 4, 2005, a copy of Mrs. Mathison's complaint was forwarded to Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A. (hereinafter Alitalia) for its answer. On April 1, 2005, Alitalia requested an extension of time to file its answer and in its Decision No. LET-AT-A-102-2005 dated April 5, 2005, the Agency granted Alitalia's request. On April 7, 2005, Alitalia filed its answer to the application and on April 15, 2005, Alitalia filed further information to complete its answer.
[3] On April 22, 2005, Mrs. Mathison filed a reply to Alitalia's answer, and Alitalia was provided with an opportunity to provide comments with respect to the new issue raised by Mrs. Mathison in her reply which was that she had paid for confirmed seating for herself and her attendant. On May 3, 2005, Alitalia provided its comments with respect to the new issue raised.
[4] In its Decision Nos. LET-AT-A-145-2005 and LET-AT-A-146-2005 dated May 9, 2005, the Agency determined that additional information and clarifications were needed from the parties and from Mrs. Mathison's travel agency, Alberta Motor Association (hereinafter AMA), respectively, to assist in its examination of this matter and it therefore required Mrs. Mathison, Alitalia and AMA to file the required information. On May 17 and May 27, 2005, respectively, Alitalia and AMA requested extensions of time to respond to the Agency Decisions and in its Decision Nos. LET-AT-A-173-2005 and LET-AT-A-174-2005 dated June 3, 2005, the Agency granted the requests.
[5] On May 30, 2005, Mrs. Mathison filed her response to Decision No. LET-AT-A-145-2005. On June 9, 2005, AMA filed its response to Decision No. LET-AT-A-146-2005. On June 16, 2005, Alitalia filed its response to Decision No. LET-AT-A-145-2005.
[6] On June 17, 2005, Mrs. Mathison filed her comments in reply to Alitalia's further information and clarifications and on June 21, 2005, she filed a letter written in Italian by her attendant, Andrea Nicoli. Also on June 21, 2005, Mrs. Mathison requested an extension of time to file additional submissions and in its Decision No. LET-AT-A-188-2005 dated June 23, 2005, the Agency granted her request.
[7] Additional submissions were filed by Mrs. Mathison on June 23, 24 and 28 and on July 7, 2005, including an English translation of the letter written by her attendant.
[8] On June 25, 2005, AMA filed a response to the additional information and clarifications provided by Alitalia.
[9] Pursuant to subsection 29(1) of the Canada Transportation Act (hereinafter the CTA), 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 until August 19, 2005.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
AMA letter dated June 25, 2005
[10] On June 25, 2005, AMA filed a response to the additional information and clarifications provided by Alitalia pursuant to Decision No. LET-AT-A-145-2005. The Agency has reviewed the submission and, pursuant to section 4 of the Canadian Transportation Agency General Rules, SOR/2005-35 (hereinafter the General Rules), accepts the submission as being relevant and necessary to its consideration of this matter.
Witness statement of Andrea Nicoli
[11] On June 21, 2005, Mrs. Mathison submitted as part of her pleadings a document written in Italian by her attendant, Andrea Nicoli, in response to the on-board report prepared by the cabin attendant in charge of the section where she was seated, which was submitted with Alitalia's answer. This document was subsequently translated and a copy of the translation was provided to the Agency on June 24, 2005. The Agency has reviewed the submission and, pursuant to section 4 of the General Rules, accepts this witness statement as being relevant and necessary to its consideration of this matter.
ISSUES
[12] The issues to be addressed are whether:
- the level of boarding and in-flight assistance provided to Mrs. Mathison by Alitalia on her Milan-Toronto return flight constituted an undue obstacle to her mobility; and
- Mrs. Mathison's seating assignment on her Milan-Toronto return flight with Alitalia constituted an undue obstacle to her mobility.
FACTS
[13] Mrs. Mathison uses a manual wheelchair for mobility.
[14] In August and September of 2004, Mrs. Mathison and her attendant, Andrea Nicoli, made arrangements with her travel agency, AMA, to travel with Alitalia and with Air Canada for an Edmonton-Milan round trip, via Toronto, departing on December 16, 2004, and returning on January 4, 2005. When making these travel arrangements, Mrs. Mathison informed her travel agent that her wheelchair is specially built so that it can be disassembled for storage in the passenger compartment of the aircraft; that she wanted to remain in her wheelchair until she reached the door of the aircraft, at which point her attendant would assist her to her seat in the cabin; and that she wanted confirmed seats, including seats 12H and K assigned to her and her attendant for the Milan-Toronto segment of her return trip.
[15] Mrs. Mathison's reservation record from the travel agency's computer reservation system, shows that the travel agency requested the assignment of seats 12H and K on Alitalia's Flight No. 652 from Milan to Toronto on January 4, 2005. The itinerary provided by the travel agency and Alitalia's own reservation record show that these seats were confirmed for Mrs. Mathison and her attendant. In addition, copies of the boarding passes for Mrs. Mathison and her attendant show that they were assigned seats 12H and K. There is no mention, however, that Mrs. Mathison uses a wheelchair or requires wheelchair assistance in the travel agency reservation record and itinerary, nor is there such mention in the carrier's reservation record. However, Mrs. Mathison's boarding pass for her flight includes the WCHC code, which identifies customers who are completely immobile and require wheelchair assistance to and from the aircraft and must be carried up and down steps and to and from the cabin seat.
[16] On the Milan-Toronto segment of her return flight with Alitalia, Mrs. Mathison was boarded last through the rear doors of the aircraft using a boarding wheelchair and was told she could not bring her personal wheelchair onboard, but instead, it would be returned to the airport. Upon boarding the aircraft, Mrs. Mathison was further told that she and her attendant were being seated in an area designated for persons with disabilities in seats 38A and C, although she had requested and was confirmed seats 12H and K.
[17] Alitalia's policies and procedures for passengers with reduced mobility (hereinafter PRMs) contained in its Passengers and Baggage Manual (hereinafter PBM) provide in part as follows:
6.1 Definition
PRM (passengers with reduced mobility) are those passengers whose mobility is reduced due to their physical and/or mental state, their age, illness or any other permanent or temporary cause.
PRM require special attention from station staff who must activate appropriate measures and generally arrange for special equipment/services both on the ground and on board during their journey.
....
WCHC (wheelchair-cabin) PRM who need a wheelchair during boarding, disembarkation and in order to move around the aircraft during the flight.
6.1.4/2 Non Deambulatory PRM
PRM are defined as non deambulatory if they require the help of an able-bodied person to reach the emergency exits and include: ... WCHC
6.1.1 General Information
... The escort is a person able to assist the PRM during the stages of the journey and in the event of emergency evacuation of the aircraft ...
6.1.11
All PRMs and any escort, except under particular circumstances, must board before the other passengers so that the flight crew have the time to illustrate them emergency equipment and procedures, show them to their seats and point the exits out.
Where it is not possible to arrange for PRMs and their eventual escort to board before the other passengers, ground staff should liaise with the flight crew to find a means of illustrating emergency equipment and procedures without compromising the flight's punctuality.
6.6.9 Personal wheelchairs
WCH passengers may transport their own folding wheelchairs free of charge according to the regulations/guidelines described in PBM 6.6.13 [Note: ... 767 ... aircraft have a courtesy wheelchair on board for WCH passengers].
6.6.12/2 Manual power folding wheelchairs WCMP
Are transported free of charge over and above the standard baggage allowance.
If PRM wants this type of wheelchair may be carried in the cabin, space permitting.
6.1.7 Seat assignment
To ensure that the aircraft can be evacuated as safely and swiftly as possible in any emergency, PRM should be allocated seats solely as designated for each aircraft (see PBM 6.7), and in full observance of the following norms:
...
Non Deambulatory PRM
- WCHC, BLIND/DEAF and non self-sufficient MEDA must be assigned dedicated seats starting from the one closest to the floor level door.
6.7.5 Seat Assignment
(in part for WCHC passengers)
Class Y : 36-37-38-39C
Note : assign last 36-37-38-39 A
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Mrs. Mathison
[18] Mrs. Mathison states that she discussed her accessibility requirements with her travel agent when booking her trip. It is noted, however, that although Mrs. Mathison initially indicated having conveyed the need for an onboard wheelchair to her travel agency, she agreed with her travel agency's submission which makes no mention of the need for an onboard wheelchair. Mrs. Mathison adds that, upon landing in Italy on December 17, 2004, she reconfirmed the departure time for her return flight and advised that she uses a wheelchair, and she therefore questions why she was not advised of Alitalia's policy regarding seating for persons with disabilities before she boarded the aircraft in Milan for her return flight.
[19] Mrs. Mathison states that for the Milan-Toronto segment of her return flight with Alitalia, she was put on a bus to the aircraft with eight other passengers with disabilities who required boarding assistance. Mrs. Mathison indicates that her wheelchair comes apart for transport, leaving just the frame and the wheels. She indicates that upon being informed prior to boarding the Alitalia flight that her wheelchair would be brought back to the airport, her attendant stated that the parts "are going with them as it is her wheelchair". Mrs. Mathison states that she felt like Alitalia "took her legs away" when it would not allow her to board the aircraft with her personal wheelchair.
[20] With respect to boarding the Alitalia flight last from the rear of the aircraft, Mrs. Mathison states that she had never heard of any other carrier who boards passengers from the rear of an aircraft. It is Mrs. Mathison's opinion that baggage is boarded at the rear of the aircraft. Mrs. Mathison notes that had she been boarded at the front of the aircraft, she could have taken her wheelchair to the door and then transferred to an onboard wheelchair to get to her seat in row 12.
[21] Mrs. Mathison notes that she and her attendant were seated in row 38, although she had confirmed seating in row 12 because of the proximity to the washroom and the moveable/liftable armrests. Mrs. Mathison submits that she paid for confirmed seating for herself and her attendant, however, in subsequent correspondence, she states that she is not sure whether any cost was incurred for her confirmed seating, as she booked her travel through AMA.
[22] Mrs. Mathison states that when she told the flight attendant that she wanted her confirmed seat in row 12, she was told that she was being seated in an area designated for persons with disabilities and that, upon further questioning by her, the flight attendant became rude and began speaking in Italian. Mrs. Mathison notes that her seats in row 38 did not have moveable/liftable armrests and her attendant, therefore, had to climb over her and the armrests every time she required assistance. Mrs. Mathison further notes that no one from Alitalia checked on her to see if she required anything, but only came around to serve meals.
[23] Mrs. Mathison refers to the onboard report prepared by the Alitalia cabin attendant and states that she never received preferential treatment from anyone, except for once to go to the washroom. Mrs. Mathison notes that had Alitalia crew allowed her attendant to assist her, she would not even have needed them for this service. In this regard, Mrs. Mathison notes that Air Canada crew allowed her attendant to provide this assistance to her on the Toronto-Edmonton leg of her return flight. Mrs. Mathison questions why she would file a complaint with the Agency if she was satisfied with Alitalia's service, as indicated in the flight cabin attendant report, and she states that the stress she endured on the Milan-Toronto flight for nine hours was extremely difficult and unnecessary.
[24] Mrs. Mathison states her opinion that persons with disabilities should sit as close to the front of the aircraft and to the washrooms as possible, thus ensuring the least amount of movement for all concerned, and she views Alitalia's actions as a deliberate act of discrimination against persons with disabilities. Mrs. Mathison adds that she was never advised where the exit doors or the accessible washrooms were located on the aircraft. Mrs. Mathison notes that the "Federal Aviation Act" states that persons with disabilities may sit anywhere on the aircraft, other than emergency exits.
[25] Mrs. Mathison stresses the fact that her reserved seats were given away by the crew on her Milan-Toronto return flight and she questions why, if there was a change in aircraft for her return flight, she was never advised of the change. Mrs. Mathison asks why her reservation file contains no notation of the telephone conversation between her travel agent and Alitalia regarding seating assignment and the fact that she uses a wheelchair, which conversation was carried out in her presence. Mrs. Mathison notes that all other flight segments of her trip went well and she questions why she only encountered difficulties on her Milan-Toronto flight and what happened to her confirmed seats.
[26] Mrs. Mathison submits that she felt panic and stress as a result of her experience and that she would not consider future travel with Alitalia. Furthermore, Mrs. Mathison states that she became ill upon landing in Toronto as a result of her travel experience and she asserts that persons with disabilities have rights and that hers were violated. Mrs. Mathison notes that Alitalia never apologized to her or her attendant who, she adds, was forced to sit with her in row 38. Mrs. Mathison seeks changes to Alitalia's policies and a refund of her and her companion's tickets, and she asserts that Alitalia should no longer be able to land in Canada.
Mrs. Mathison's attendant, Andrea Nicoli
[27] Mrs. Mathison's attendant, Andrea Nicoli, submitted a document confirming that the Alitalia cabin attendant who prepared the flight report never apologized to Mrs. Mathison as indicated in her report. Furthermore, Mr. Nicoli states that the seats that they occupied for their Milan-Toronto return flight were uncomfortable and that the armrests were firm, not moveable/liftable and confined their space. He notes that everytime he had to leave his seat, he had to climb over Mrs. Mathison and the solid armrest. Mr. Nicoli further states that the onboard service was almost non-existent and that in the entire nine-hour flight, not one cabin crew member inquired regarding his or Mrs. Mathison's needs, and that the only service provided to Mrs. Mathison was to take her to the washroom.
Alitalia
[28] Alitalia states that based on Mrs. Mathison's reservation record, it appears that it was never informed of her special needs as her file does not contain the WCHC code. Alitalia states that it was never informed of Mrs. Mathison's special needs either by her or her travel agent and, in this regard, makes reference to both its reservation file and Mrs. Mathison's travel agent's reservation file. Alitalia further states that AMA, the travel agent on whose record Mrs. Mathison's reservation file was constructed, is at the origin of the disservice and it notes that AMA's files do not show any special requests for a wheelchair or otherwise for Mrs. Mathison.
[29] Alitalia indicates that passengers whose reservation files contain the WCHC code require "special attention" from station staff who must activate appropriate measures and arrange for "special equipment/services" both on the ground and onboard the aircraft and that they must be assigned "special seats" depending on the type of aircraft used.
[30] Alitalia explains that the reason its check-in agent for Mrs. Mathison's outbound trip did not enter information regarding her disability in the computer system is that its check-in agents do not have access to the reservations mode as the computer system available to them is set at check-in mode only. Alitalia further explains that Mrs. Mathison's boarding pass for her Milan-Toronto flight contains the WCHC notation because it was issued after she had checked in for her Milan-Toronto flight when Alitalia became aware of Mrs. Mathison's need for wheelchair assistance.
[31] Alitalia states that Mrs. Mathison was boarded last because her file did not show that she required wheelchair assistance and that because of the lack of prior information in this regard, the other passengers were on board by the time the special elevator was ready to assist her with boarding. Alitalia adds that Mrs. Mathison was boarded through the rear door of the aircraft because it was the closest door to her assigned seat in row 38 and comments that this seat is located very close to the rear left door of the aircraft and to the washrooms. Alitalia also states that Mrs. Mathison was boarded by means of a special elevator that it normally uses for passengers with wheelchairs or passengers on stretchers.
[32] Alitalia indicates that personal wheelchairs are not permitted on board the aircraft, nor are they permitted to be used to board passengers, as they will not fit in the aisles, and are also not permitted for security reasons.
[33] According to Alitalia, the aircraft used for Mrs. Mathison's flight was a Boeing 767 and the seating assignment for persons with reduced mobility would have been from 36A and C to 39A and C (aisle and window seats, with the window seats being assigned last) in accordance with its policy. Alitalia states that seats 36-37-38-39A and C are designated to passengers who require WCHC assistance because they are very close to three washrooms and to the rear exit doors to facilitate boarding and evacuating in case of emergency. In correspondence received on April 15, 2005, Alitalia states that all seats on its B767 aircraft have retractable armrests which fold upwards between the seats, "except for the lateral armrests, those close to the aisles". In subsequent correspondence received on June 15, 2005, however, Alitalia clarifies that "the seats designated to WCHC passengers have moveable/liftable armrests, and that there are two rows of two seats behind them which are reserved for crew as well as an empty space behind to allow a wheelchair ample space to move freely.
[34] Alitalia notes that had it been informed of Mrs. Mathison's "special needs" and her condition at the time of reservation, she would never have been assigned seats 12H and K, which she requested through her travel agent, but, rather, she would have been assigned seating normally designated for WCHC passengers in accordance with its company procedure.
[35] Alitalia states that seats 9C and D which Mrs. Mathison requested for her Toronto-Milan outbound flight were assigned to her as there was no mention on her file that she was a WCHC passenger, but that upon check-in, her condition was discovered and her seats were changed to the proper seats to be assigned to WCHC passengers, namely seats 36A and C to 39A and C. According to the onboard report prepared by the cabin attendant in charge of Mrs. Mathison's section, she was informed by the agent boarding Mrs. Mathison that an inappropriate seat had been assigned to her and was asked to offer her a seat reserved for persons with reduced mobility in accordance with Alitalia's procedures. The onboard report shows that Mrs. Mathison was informed of the mistake in her seating and was invited to take an aisle seat as it was more comfortable for her.
[36] Alitalia concludes that notwithstanding that it was never informed of Mrs. Mathison's special needs, she was given preferential treatment during her flight from Milan to Toronto and refers to the cabin attendant's onboard report filed with its answer which indicates that she was well looked after by the cabin crew, that they offered sincere apologies for her seat change and that she left the aircraft apparently satisfied.
[37] In closing, Alitalia offers its sincere apologies to Mrs. Mathison for any and all inconveniences.
Alberta Motor Association
June 9, 2005 submission
[38] AMA states that Mrs. Mathison began discussing her travel plans with one of its agents in August 2004, and notes that she arrived using her wheelchair accompanied by her attendant, Andrea Nicoli, on each visit to its office. AMA submits that Mrs. Mathison also advised that her wheelchair was specially built so that it could be disassembled for storage in the passenger compartment of the aircraft and that she could propel her own wheelchair to the aircraft door at which point her attendant would assist her to her seat in the cabin.
[39] AMA points out that Mrs. Mathison advised that she was an experienced traveller and that, on September 7, 2004, she requested information regarding the type of aircraft she would be travelling on for each leg of her journey so that she could access seating configuration charts for the aircraft and discuss her seating requirements with her son. AMA states that Mrs. Mathison requested seats 12H and K for the Milan-Toronto segment of her return flight, but that no response was received from Alitalia's computer. AMA provided the Agency with a copy of Mrs. Mathison's trip itinerary, which shows that seats 12H and K were confirmed for her Milan-Toronto return flight, however, there is no mention on this document that she uses a wheelchair or that she requires WCHC assistance.
[40] AMA states its understanding, however, that all boarding passes provided to Mrs. Mathison had the WCHC code on them and questions how Alitalia could state that the reason her seat was changed at the last minute was because it was unaware of Mrs. Mathison's condition prior to departure of her Milan-Toronto flight.
[41] According to AMA, Mrs. Mathison returned to its office several days later to check on her seat selection and pick up her documents at which time one of its agents called Alitalia directly, in Mrs. Mathison's presence, and confirmed that she was travelling with her wheelchair and that her attendant would assist with her movement in the aircraft. AMA states that the Alitalia agent asked several questions regarding Mrs. Mathison's disability and her wheelchair which were conveyed to and answered by Mrs. Mathison and that Alitalia's agent then confirmed the seat numbers requested by Mrs. Mathison.
[42] AMA notes that Alitalia's reservation file contains no evidence of this conversation and states that, normally, air carrier personnel will document in the file the details of conversations regarding a passenger. AMA questions why Alitalia staff did not update Mrs. Mathison's reservation file at that point and it also questions why she and her attendant were given seats 9C and D on the Toronto-Milan flight if these seats are not suitable for passengers who use wheelchairs, according to Alitalia's policy. AMA also notes that it was never advised by Alitalia that any special forms regarding Mrs. Mathison's disability were required and that no forms were forwarded to it by Alitalia for completion.
[43] AMA notes that Mrs. Mathison has stated that, for her outbound flight, an Alitalia employee assisted her while she was in her wheelchair for the transfer between her Air Canada flight to Toronto and her Alitalia flight to Milan, and comments that even if it had neglected to advise Alitalia of the fact that Mrs. Mathison uses a wheelchair prior to her departure, Alitalia personnel were made aware of this fact at the airport in Toronto prior to her departure for Milan.
[44] AMA states that it cannot determine why Alitalia's cabin crew chose to move Mrs. Mathison and her attendant to other seating after they had been given their boarding passes at the check-in counter in Milan which confirmed their seats 12H and K and it offers the opinion that much of the stress to Mrs. Mathison could have been avoided had the cabin crew for this flight communicated the reason for this change and explained to her the benefits of moving to the back of the aircraft.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[45] In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties during the pleadings.
[46] An application must be filed by a person with a disability or on behalf of a person with a disability. Mrs. Mathison uses a wheelchair for mobility. As such, she is a person with a disability for the purpose of applying the accessibility provisions of the CTA.
[47] To determine whether there is an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities within the meaning of subsection 172(1) of the CTA, the Agency must first determine whether the applicant's mobility was restricted or limited by an obstacle. If so, the Agency must then decide whether that obstacle was undue. In order to answer these questions, the Agency must take into consideration the particular facts of the case before it.
Whether the applicant's mobility was restricted or limited by an obstacle
[48] The word "obstacle" is not defined in the CTA. This implies that Parliament did not want to restrict the Agency's jurisdiction in view of its mandate to eliminate undue obstacles in the federal transportation network. Furthermore, the word "obstacle" lends itself to a broad meaning as it is usually understood to mean something that impedes progress or achievement.
[49] In determining whether or not a situation constituted an "obstacle" to the mobility of a person with a disability in a particular case, the Agency looks to the travel experience of that person as expressed in the application. There is a broad range of circumstances where the Agency has found obstacles in the past. For example, there are cases of obstacles where the person was prevented from travelling, where the person was injured in the course of his or her travels (such as where the lack of appropriate accommodation during travel affects the physical condition of the passenger), or where the person was deprived of his or her mobility aid after the trip as a result of damage caused to the aid while it was being transported. Also, the Agency has found obstacles in instances where the person was ultimately able to travel, but circumstances arising from the experience were such as to detract from the person's sense of confidence, dignity, safety, or security, recognizing that these feelings may be such as to disincline a person from future travel.
The case at hand
Boarding and in-flight assistance
[50] The Agency notes the submission made by Mrs. Mathison's travel agency that one of its agents contacted Alitalia directly to discuss Mrs. Mathison's accessibility requirements and seat selection; however, neither Mrs. Mathison's travel agent's reservation file nor Alitalia's Passenger Name Record (hereinafter the PNR) contain any notation that she uses a wheelchair and requires wheelchair assistance. In this regard, there is insufficient evidence regarding this exchange. The Agency is concerned, however, when the details of such discussions are not noted by the travel agent in the passenger's reservation record or by the carrier in a passenger's PNR.
[51] The Agency notes that Mrs. Mathison uses a manual wheelchair for mobility and prefers to use her own wheelchair to proceed to the door of the aircraft, at which time it can be disassembled for storage in the passenger compartment of the aircraft, and Mrs. Mathison's attendant would assist her to her seat in the cabin. The Agency notes Mrs. Mathison's submission that when she checked in on her return flight she was informed by Alitalia personnel that she would have to use a boarding wheelchair to board her flight and that her personal wheelchair could not be stored in the cabin of the aircraft.
[52] Alitalia's procedure PBM 6.6.12/2 provides that manual power folding wheelchairs may be carried in the cabin, space permitting. Alitalia stated, during the pleadings, however, that personal wheelchairs (folding wheelchairs) are not permitted on board the aircraft, nor are they permitted to be used to board passengers, as they will not fit in the aisles and are also not permitted for security reasons. The Agency is of the opinion that Alitalia's submission is contradictory and inconsistent with its policy with respect to the carriage of personal wheelchairs. While the Agency recognizes that carriers are aware of the operational factors for the carriage of personal wheelchairs on any given flight, such as the size of the aircraft in use, the number of personal wheelchairs being transported and security, and are therefore in the best position to determine whether a personal wheelchair may be carried in the cabin, the Agency is, nonetheless, concerned with the inconsistency as it can result in contradictory information being provided to persons with disabilities. Alitalia is encouraged to review its policy with its employees to ensure that they are in a position to know the appropriate policy to follow and to ensure that the policy is observed.
[53] Mrs. Mathison was boarded last through the rear door of the aircraft. Alitalia's procedure PBM 6.1.11 requires that, except under particular circumstances, persons with reduced mobility must board before the other passengers so that the flight crew have the time to demonstrate emergency equipment and procedures, show them to their seats and point the exits out. In this regard, the Agency accepts Alitalia's explanation that Mrs. Mathison was boarded last because her reservation file did not indicate that she was a person with a disability and required wheelchair assistance and that the other passengers were on board by the time the special elevator was ready to assist her with boarding. Furthermore, Alitalia explained that the rear door of the aircraft was the closest door to Mrs. Mathison's assigned seat in row 38. The Agency recognizes that carriers have various factors to consider and prioritize and that they must balance competing priorities vis-à-vis the operation of a flight and that from an operational standpoint, carriers are in the best position to evaluate the boarding circumstances. Given that the carrier only became aware at check-in that Mrs. Mathison was a person with a disability and that the elevator would be required to board Mrs. Mathison, it is understandable that Mrs. Mathison was boarded after pre-boarding took place. The Agency is of the opinion that the boarding assistance provided to Mrs. Mathison in this case was reasonable given the particular circumstances.
[54] The Agency notes Mrs. Mathison's statement that she never received attention from the cabin crew on board her flight, except for assistance to the washroom on one occasion, and that she felt panic and stress as a result of her travel experience and became ill upon landing in Toronto. The Agency is of the opinion that as Mrs. Mathison was travelling with an attendant, it is reasonable to expect that her attendant would attend to her needs. This is consistent with Alitalia's procedure PBM 6.1.1 which provides that an escort is a person able to assist during the stages of the journey.
[55] Mrs. Mathison also comments that she and her attendant were not advised where the exit doors or accessible washrooms were located, however, the Agency is of the opinion that these facilities would have been pointed out to Mrs. Mathison and her attendant during the general in-flight announcement to all passengers on board the aircraft.
[56] In light of the above, the Agency is of the opinion that there is no conclusive evidence on file indicating a negative impact on Mrs. Mathison resulting from the level of in-flight assistance provided by Alitalia. Furthermore, the Agency is of the opinion that the level of boarding assistance provided to Mrs. Mathison did not constitute an obstacle as Alitalia was not aware in advance of Mrs. Mathison's particular needs and, once it became aware of them, its actions were consistent with its policy.
[57] In light of the circumstances, the Agency therefore finds, in this case, that the level of boarding and in-flight assistance provided to Mrs. Mathison by Alitalia on her Milan-Toronto return flight did not constitute an obstacle to her mobility.
Seating assignment
[58] Mrs. Mathison submitted that she requested seats 12H and K for herself and her attendant when booking her Milan-Toronto return flight, because of the proximity to the washroom and because of the moveable/liftable armrests and that, after boarding her flight, she was informed that she was being seated in an area designated for persons with disabilities. In this regard, the Agency notes Mrs. Mathison's assertions that persons with disabilities should sit close to the front of the aircraft, thus ensuring the least amount of movement for all concerned and that her rights as a disabled person were violated by Alitalia.
[59] The Agency recognizes that air carriers have certain policies and procedures in place to ensure that the needs of passengers with disabilities are met; however, air carriers must be aware of the specific needs of these passengers in order to ensure that the appropriate policies and procedures are applied. In this case, it appears that the travel agent did not indicate in the reservation file that Mrs. Mathison uses a wheelchair and required wheelchair assistance and Alitalia was therefore unaware of her disability and specific needs.
[60] Alitalia's procedure PBM 6.1.7 provides that to ensure that an aircraft can be evacuated as safely and swiftly as possible in any emergency, passengers with reduced mobility should be allocated to seats solely as designated for each aircraft type. Furthermore, Alitalia's procedure PBM 6.7.5 provides that for the type of aircraft Mrs. Mathison travelled on for her Milan-Toronto flight, the seating assignment for persons with reduced mobility would be seats 36-37-38-39A and C (aisle and window seats), with the "A" designated window seats being assigned last. The Agency, therefore, accepts Alitalia's submission that once it became aware that Mrs. Mathison was a person with a disability and used a wheelchair for mobility, she and her attendant were assigned seats in row 38 in accordance with Alitalia's policy.
[61] On the outbound flight, however, it appears that Mrs. Mathison and her attendant were assigned seats 9C and D which is contrary to Alitalia's seating policy for passengers with reduced mobility. It is apparent that the air carrier's personnel did not follow its policy on the outbound flight and that there is an inconsistency in the application of the policy. The Agency is very concerned that Alitalia personnel are not applying its policy consistently. It is therefore understandable that Mrs. Mathison would have been surprised by the application of this policy in Milan.
[62] As to whether the seats had moveable/liftable armrests, the Agency notes that the parties' positions differ. While Mrs. Mathison stated that her seats did not have moveable/liftable armrests, Alitalia's submission stipulates that these seats have moveable/liftable armrests, which would be consistent with the features present on seating designated for persons with disabilities. The Agency also notes Alitalia's submission that these seats are very close to three washrooms and to the rear exit doors to facilitate boarding and evacuating in case of emergency, and that there are two rows of two seats behind them strictly reserved for crew as well as an empty space behind to give a wheelchair ample space to move freely. On balance, the Agency accepts the position of the carrier.
[63] In light of the above, while recognizing that Mrs. Mathison was frustrated that she was not provided with the seat she believed to be confirmed, the Agency finds that there is no conclusive evidence on file that the seating assignment had a negative impact on Mrs. Mathison. The Agency therefore finds that Mrs. Mathison's seating assignment on her Milan-Toronto return flight with Alitalia did not constitute an obstacle to her mobility.
CONCLUSION
[64] In light of the above findings, the Agency has determined that the level of boarding and in-flight assistance provided to Mrs. Mathison by Alitalia on her Milan-Toronto return flight and her seating assignment on her Milan-Toronto return flight with Alitalia did not constitute obstacles to her mobility.
[65] Accordingly, the Agency contemplates no action in this matter.
- Date modified: