Creating a fairer Britain
We are grateful to Leonard Cheshire Disability for supplying these additional case studies, which show the negative experiences of a number of air passengers. The case studies also point out the ways the airports / airlines (also tour operators and travel agents too) should have provided better service.
Nia is 55 and has difficulty walking. Having requested assistance in advance, a buggy came to pick up Nia to take her to departures. However, the driver only drove her part of the way and left her to walk the rest of the distance to the gate, a journey that was too long and involved too many different levels for Nia to manage. She found that in general the special assistance staff were not sufficiently trained in assisting disabled passengers and even witnessed them being abusive towards other disabled passengers. On her return journey, Nia had to wait for an hour before assistance arrived.
According to the new law, Nia should have been taken all the way to the departure gate. The law states that air carriers and airport managing bodies shall ensure that any staff member providing direct assistance to passengers requiring mobility assistance has knowledge of how to meet their varying needs. They should also provide disability equality and awareness training to personnel who deal directly with the travelling public. In Nia’s case, staff members were not sufficiently trained, and their abusiveness shows the inadequacy of any training they may have had.
Having to wait an hour for assistance on her return is well below the standard that may be expected by Nia and other passengers. The law states that airports shall set quality standards for the assistance they give, and in doing so, full account shall be taken of the ECAC Code of Good Conduct in Ground Handling for Persons with Reduced Mobility. The Code says that pre-booked assistance for arriving customers should be available at the gate-room / aircraft side for:
Rebecca finds that airport and airline staff are helpful to wheelchair passengers once they reach the check-in desk. However, her problem is getting from her car / transport to the check-in desk in the first place.
‘The time allowed at the drop-off parking does not allow for wheelchair passengers to be disembarked and delivered, it is barely time to drop-off when unloading a wheelchair. Then there may be a crossing to be negotiated before getting into the airport building itself and finally, there is finding the right check-in desk, negotiating the queuing system and getting to the counter before the assistance programme finally kicks in.’
The new law states that airports must have in place arrangements necessary to enable passengers needing mobility assistance to alert staff of their arrival at an airport, and request assistance at designated points inside and outside terminal buildings. A designated point in a nearby car park would allow Rebecca to be given assistance to the terminal building from her point of arrival, into the building, and through check-in.
It also states that these points should, as a minimum, be designated in the following areas:
Lucy is 56 and tetraplegic. She says: ‘The assistance in the airport was satisfactory, but the assistance from the boarding personnel was dreadful. When I was called for pre-boarding, the help I needed was not organised. I had to wait about half an hour for two men to arrive with an aisle chair. By this time most of the passengers had boarded and people had to move to allow me space to be lifted into the seat. I was more dragged than lifted. I am very concerned about my skin being knocked or marked and the people lifting me did not seem to have much ability or concern about lifting me clear of the armrests. They do not take time to do things well and carefully and it is a very rushed process. I feel I am just bundled on to the plane. It is a very uncomfortable and embarrassing process. I fly this trip every year on holiday, and it is the same every time.’
Under the new law, it is now the airport’s responsibility to assist passengers to board the aircraft and proceed from the aircraft door to their seats, with the provision of lifts, wheelchairs or other assistance needed, as appropriate. Once pre-booked departing customers have made themselves known:
This means that Lucy’s wait was at the limit of how long a passenger should have to wait.
The staff had clearly had insufficient training and they should have taken into account Lucy’s concerns, and acted so as not to cause her embarrassment and discomfort.
Harpreet is 46 and has Multiple Sclerosis. He requested assistance when he arrived at the check-in desk. He was told by the check-in staff, that ‘since I had walked so far, I could go further without assistance and it was costing the airline to provide the assistance.’
Under the new law, the fact that Harpreet had not notified the airport of his needs for assistance in advance meant that rather than being able to expect it to be available, he could only expect ‘all reasonable efforts to provide the assistance’ to be made by the airport. It is still perfectly legitimate for him to request assistance in this way, and airports should be in a position to cover unexpected requests. The Commission views ‘all reasonable efforts’ as a high standard, and not an opportunity for airports to use the lack of pre-notification as a get-out clause.
The rude attitude of the check-in staff towards Harpreet demonstrates that staff were not sufficiently trained.
Beatrice is 35 and a wheelchair user. She was unhappy with the staff’s lack of knowledge and understanding of her disability.
‘I had to be manually helped into the seat on the aircraft and was last on, therefore a spectacle, and the staff didn't know how to lift me correctly. Staff should be properly trained.’
Beatrice’s concerns should have been considered and staff should not have acted in a way that would cause her embarrassment and discomfort. In this respect, boarding her before other passengers would have been more appropriate, and would have been easier than doing so on an already full plane.
The staff’s lack of knowledge about how to lift Beatrice, and that they did not even ask her how she would like to be lifted, shows the inadequacy of any training they may have had.
Victoria is 62 and a wheelchair user. On arrival at the airport she was informed that she would not be allowed to take her own wheelchair into departures for safety reasons. She was therefore transferred into an airport wheelchair which she was unable to wheel herself due to her disability.
‘I was then pushed through customs to the departure gate where I was left, unable to get a drink, use the toilet or shop at the duty-free. I have used this airport on numerous occasions before but I have always been able to drive myself as far as the departure gate. On my return though, I found my wheelchair was already in the ambulift for me to get into. This does not make sense. I often fly unaccompanied and want to enjoy the whole experience.’
Victoria should be allowed to use her own wheelchair as far as the departure gate. This would also mean that the wheelchair she would eventually be transferred into should be appropriate. Given that she was unable to wheel herself, the options for the airport would have been to provide either a powered chair or a member of staff to accompany her in an unpowered chair.
Leaving Victoria in a wheelchair in which she was unable to move around the airport represents a failure to meet the obligations under the regulation.
There is no requirement that passengers should be assisted to use shops, but the Regulation points to the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Code of Good Conduct in Ground Handling for Persons with Reduced Mobility.
Richard is 59 and tetraplegic. He frequently travels this journey by air and one issue he has continually encountered is the lack of training given to handling staff and a lack of disability awareness amongst the ground staff. He always requests a full lift for boarding the plane when travelling but still finds that the process is inadequate and the seat allocation inappropriate.
‘The porter did not carry the case but only pushed my chair, leaving my wife to carry the heavy bags. Handling staff said that they were trained but I later found out that the training consisted of lifting heavy sacks. Once on the plane I was asked to stand or shuffle along the seat.’
The staff’s lack of knowledge of how to help Richard on the plane, or even simply that they should ask him how he would like to be helped, shows the inadequacy of the training they have had. Lifting heavy sacks does not contribute to training on disability equality, on disability awareness, or on how to meet the various needs of people requiring mobility assistance.
The fact that staff left Richard’s wife to carry heavy bags demonstrates an attitude that appropriate training could remedy.
Sarah is 54 and has Multiple Sclerosis. Susan had arranged for assistance from the airline but found the ground staff at her local airport were inadequately trained and their understanding of her disability was poor.
‘They could not find my wheelchair and did not listen to me or my husband on how to help with lifting me into the aisle, nor did they seem to want to be advised. I felt like I was just a lump of meat to be moved about.’
The staff’s lack of knowledge of how to help Sarah on the plane, and their refusal to listen to how she would like to be helped, show the inadequacy of any training they may have had.
The law states that passengers should be treated with courtesy. It also states that ground handling of all necessary mobility equipment is the airport’s responsibility, as is providing a temporary replacement for lost mobility equipment.