Decision No. 89-AT-A-1998

March 5, 1998

March 5, 1998

APPLICATION by Lynn Atkinson pursuant to subsections 172(1) and (3) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10.

File No. U 3570/97-17


APPLICATION

On November 13, 1997, Lynn Atkinson filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) regarding the non-provision of an on-board wheelchair by Canadian Airlines International Ltd. carrying on business under the firm name and style of either Canadian Airlines International or Canadi*n (hereinafter Canadi*n) on a flight between Vancouver and Ottawa.

ISSUE

The issue to be addressed is whether or not the non-provision of an on-board wheelchair by Canadi*n constituted an undue obstacle to Ms. Atkinson's mobility and, if so, what corrective measures should be taken.

FACTS

Ms. Atkinson has reduced mobility and uses a wheelchair. She asked her travel agent to book transportation on Canadi*n from Vancouver to Ottawa on Flight No. 902 of September 19, 1997 and from Ottawa to Vancouver on Flight No. 907 of September 27, 1997. Due to her reduced mobility, Ms. Atkinson asked her travel agent to make the necessary arrangements to ensure the availability of an aisle wheelchair so that she could access the washroom during the flight. The travel agent was informed by Canadi*n's reservation agent that the mobility aid would be available.

After boarding the aircraft, Ms. Atkinson found out that there was no on-board wheelchair available in the B-737 passenger cabin. The flight attendant advised her that only the Canadi*n's B-747, B-767 and Airbus aircraft have storage space in the passenger cabin for an on-board wheelchair. During the flight, Ms. Atkinson's companion was forced to "carry and drag" her to the washroom, causing Ms. Atkinson substantial embarrassment.

Canadi*n advises that Ms. Atkinson was originally booked by her travel agent on Flight No. 910 of August 29, 1997 from Vancouver to Ottawa (Airbus - on-board wheelchair - accessible lavatories). As Ms. Atkinson did not travel on the initially reserved flights, her trip was subsequently rebooked by her travel agent on September 3 on Flight No. 902 of September 19, 1997 (B-737 - no on-board wheelchair - no accessible lavatory). At the time of the initial booking on the Airbus, Ms. Atkinson's Passenger Name Record (PNR) contained the WCHC code (passenger non ambulatory/non self reliant - attendant and wheelchair required - must be carried up/down stairs and to/from seat). The PNR also noted that a manual non-collapsible wheelchair was needed. Canadi*n advises that, on September 4, 1997, the PNR was amended to read the WCHP code (partially mobile - self reliant/capable of taking care of all physical needs in flight - must be carried up/down the stairs - wheelchair required - no attendant required).

As a result of Ms. Atkinson's complaint, Canadi*n has taken measures to ensure that its reservation personnel and travel agents are aware of the accessibility of Canadi*n aircraft with respect to on-board wheelchairs, and where this information may be found. The carrier issued an internal bulletin to its reservation agents and updated information relating to bookings for passengers with disabilities in all major computer reservation systems. Furthermore, Canadi*n circulated an electronic news bulletin aimed at drawing the travel agents' attention to the information concerning on-board wheelchair availability. The carrier offered Ms. Atkinson a $100 travel voucher as a goodwill compensation for her inconvenience.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Ms. Atkinson is of the view that, while she understands that there are no provisions for an on-board wheelchair on B-737 aircraft, there was a lack of awareness/training on the part of Canadi*n's reservation personnel in that she was not advised in advance of this situation. Ms. Atkinson further states that, due to the miscommunication, she suffered much indignity and wishes to be compensated.

In Canadi*n's opinion, it appears that its reservation personnel and Ms. Atkinson's travel agent were under the impression that an on-board wheelchair would be available on the B-737 aircraft. The carrier is also of the opinion that the inconvenience experienced by Ms. Atkinson was the result of a misunderstanding as to the availability of an "aisle wheelchair" versus an "on-board wheelchair". The aisle wheelchair might have been interpreted as a chair (airport-based) normally used to assist the passenger in boarding and deplaning only.

In noting Canadi*n's explanations and the corrective measures taken by the carrier, Ms. Atkinson states that the reason for her complaint was the miscommunication of information on the part of Canadi*n and not from her travel agent, as, in her opinion, the erroneous information was initially provided by the carrier's reservation personnel. Furthermore, Ms. Atkinson is requesting "more adequate" compensation from Canadi*n in light of problems she encountered during another trip with the carrier.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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

The Agency is of the opinion that there was a failure on the part of the parties involved during the booking to advise the passenger of the non-availability of an on-board wheelchair on Canadi*n's B-737 aircraft. Canadi*n's reservation personnel and the travel agent should have investigated the matter more thoroughly and assessed exactly which aircraft in Canadi*n's fleet is equipped with an on-board wheelchair. The examination of a copy of Ms. Atkinson's PNR reveals that, except for a request for a "manual non-collapsible wheelchair", there was no specific request for an on-board wheelchair. The Agency is of the view that the PNR should have indicated the passenger's need and request for an on-board wheelchair during the flight. Thus, at the time the flight was rebooked by Ms. Atkinson's travel agent, following Ms. Atkinson's no-show on Flight No. 910 of August 29, 1997 (Airbus-A-320), the travel agent and Canadi*n's reservation personnel should have been alerted to the difference in the level of accessibility between the A-320 and B-737 aircraft and discussed the best way to accommodate Ms. Atkinson's needs.

Therefore, the Agency finds that the non-provision of an on-board wheelchair by Canadi*n constituted an undue obstacle to Ms. Atkinson's mobility. The obstacle is undue in that it could easily have been avoided with adequate communication of information at the time of booking. The Agency is of the opinion that, had the proper information been passed on to Ms. Atkinson prior to travel, it would have allowed her to make an educated choice on the aircraft which best accommodates her needs and to make her travel plans accordingly. Also, adequate communication of information would have prevented the embarrassment and indignity experienced by the passenger when she was assisted to the washroom by her companion during the flight.

The Agency is of the opinion that, although the travel agent might have played a part in the miscommunication problem at the time of booking, Canadi*n, as the carrier, is ultimately responsible for the dissemination of information concerning the services it provides, including precise information with regard to the availability of an on-board wheelchair on specific aircraft. In considering the corrective measures undertaken by Canadi*n to enhance the information in its computer reservation system with respect to the provision of on-board wheelchairs and to communicate this information to travel agents, the Agency finds that Canadi*n should have been more proactive and should have made this information available to booking agents prior to the incident experienced by Ms. Atkinson. The Agency is of the opinion, however, that the corrective measures taken will assist in preventing the recurrence of situations similar to the one experienced by Ms. Atkinson.

Regarding the provision of an on-board wheelchair in the passenger cabin of B-737 aircraft, the Agency issued, in November 1996, a Code of Practice on Aircraft Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter the Code of Practice) which applies to aircraft with 30 or more seats and which contains provisions to enhance the accessibility of aircraft passenger cabins. This Code of Practice was developed after consultations with, among others, the community of persons with disabilities and the air carrier industry. One of the provisions sets out that, as of January 1, 1997, if an air carrier operates an aircraft with a washroom capable of accommodating a person in an on-board wheelchair, the carrier must carry, at all times, at least one on-board wheelchair on that aircraft. Furthermore, where a person may be able to use a washroom that cannot accommodate an on-board wheelchair, as in a B-737 aircraft, but cannot reach this washroom without the use of an on-board wheelchair, the carrier should ensure that, by January 1, 1999, it can carry an on-board wheelchair in the passenger cabin of the aircraft. Effective January 1, 1999, Canadi*n's B-737 aircraft will be subject to the provisions of the Code of Practice regarding the provision of an on-board wheelchair when requested in advance.

Passengers with disabilities should be able to access, with the assistance of an attendant where required, the washroom facilities on board an aircraft, even if the washrooms on the aircraft are not accessible to an on-board wheelchair. The Agency will monitor the progress made by Canadi*n and other Canadian carriers on the implementation of the Code of Practice through periodic surveys of the measures undertaken by the carriers and the investigation of any complaints that may be filed with the Agency with respect to the accessibility of aircraft passenger cabin.

On the issue of compensation requested by Ms. Atkinson for her embarrassment and indignity, the Agency does not have the jurisdiction to award damages resulting from such circumstances. Pursuant to subsection 172(3) of the Canada Transportation Act, the Agency may direct that compensation be paid for any expense incurred by a person with a disability arising out of the undue obstacle. In that regard, the Agency notes that no documents were submitted by Ms. Atkinson relating to expenses incurred as a result of the undue obstacle.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above findings, the Agency does not contemplate further action with respect to this matter at this time. The Agency will, however, monitor the implementation of the Code of Practice by Canadi*n with respect to the provision of an on-board wheelchair on its B-737 aircraft.

Date modified: