Decision No. 84-AT-A-1999

March 4, 1999

File No. U3570/98-38

APPLICATION

Nitthila Radhakrishnan filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) with respect to the matter set out in the title. The application was received on November 4, 1998.

ISSUE

The issue to be addressed is whether the level of assistance provided to Mrs. Radhakrishnan by British Airways Plc carrying on business as British Airways (hereinafter British Airways) during a connection at the Heathrow Airport in London constituted an undue obstacle to her mobility and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken.

FACTS

Mrs. Radhakrishnan travelled unaccompanied with Canadian Airlines International Ltd. carrying on business under the firm name and style of Canadian Airlines International or Canadi*n Airlines or Canadi*n (hereinafter Canadi*n) from Calgary to Toronto, with British Airways from Toronto to Chennai-Madras, India, via London, and with Indian Airlines Ltd. to Puttaparthi, India.

Mrs. Radhakrishnan has poor coordination, easily loses her balance and is unable to use escalators; wheelchair assistance was therefore requested in advance of her trip. When Mrs. Radhakrishnan arrived in London, she was seated on a cart by a British Airways employee and was left at the base of an escalator where the cart driver told her to find her own way to the departure gate on the next level of the airport.

Two other passengers escorted her on the escalator. While a wheelchair was still not provided once she reached the next level, a British Airways employee helped Mrs. Radhakrishnan to walk to the departure gate where another British Airways employee provided assistance.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Mrs. Radhakrishnan states that if she had used the escalator on her own, it would have resulted in a personal disaster. Mrs. Radhakrishnan states that she was traumatized by her experience at the Heathrow Airport.

British Airways apologizes to Mrs. Radhakrishnan for its failure to provide her with assistance during the transfer at the Heathrow Airport to her connecting flight. The air carrier indicates that Mrs. Radhakrishnan's itinerary shows that she requested a wheelchair in advance when booking her trip and that her file was forwarded to London on August 4, 1998. In addition, the carrier submits that the wheelchair handling agent for the Heathrow Airport was aware that Mrs. Radhakrishnan required a wheelchair on arrival.

British Airways states that when the flight arrived, Mrs. Radhakrishnan was seated on a cart and was to have been taken to the Transfers Area as she had a connecting flight. The air carrier advises that her name was highlighted on the work docket as requiring an escort from the Transfers Area to the boarding gate. However, British Airways explains that the work docket has a further notation "not required at Transfers", with no indication of who requested this action.

British Airways indicates that it has forwarded the details of this incident to the Customer Service Manager at the Heathrow Airport with a request that the service provided by the handling agent in assisting passengers with wheelchairs be reviewed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties.

With respect to this complaint, the Agency has jurisdiction over all international transportation-related matters arising in Canada, whether they involve a foreign or a domestic carrier, as well as over any activity taking place outside of Canada involving Canadian carriers.

In this case, the Agency notes that British Airways did forward Mrs. Radhakrishnan's request for wheelchair assistance to the Heathrow Airport from Canada.

The Agency is of the opinion that the difficulties Mrs. Radhakrishnan experienced at the Heathrow Airport occurred in circumstances outside of the Agency's jurisdiction, in that the problems that led to the requested service not being provided took place after completion of her flight between Toronto and London, England, outside of Canada and involved a foreign carrier.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above findings, the Agency contemplates no action to be taken in this matter.