Jetstar out of pocket even if it wins wheelchair appeal

Jetstar out of pocket even if it wins wheelchair appeal

JETSTAR may well be pondering how many extra wheelchairs it could have provided for disabled passengers, as it weighs the dollar cost of what constitutes ''public interest'' in a disability discrimination stoush in the Federal Court.

Jetstar and Virgin Australia have been accused of discrimination by Sheila King, 78, who is reliant on a wheelchair as a result of post-polio syndrome, and a car crash in 2008. At stake is the business model of the low-cost airlines, which restrict wheelchair-assisted passengers to two per flight.

It was Jetstar's tight margins as a low-cost operator that convinced Federal Court judge Justice Alan Robertson that although Mrs King had been discriminated against, Jetstar was allowed to do so because of ''unjustifiable hardship'' provisions. Mrs King has appealed.

It was the question of litigating in the ''public interest'' that swayed the court this week to agree to a protective costs order that will see Jetstar out of pocket, even if Mrs King loses.

Justice Nye Perram agreed to Mrs King's request to cap costs at $10,000, saying the public interest proposition being put was that ''low-cost operators ought not be achieving their margins at the expense of disabled persons''. Mrs King is being represented pro bono and with some legal aid funding.

The judge was sympathetic to Jetstar's position - and that at the initial trial costs were capped at $20,000. Jetstar has estimated its appeal costs lie between $100,000-$180,000. No date has been set for the appeal or the Virgin Australia trial.

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/business/jetstar-out-of-pocket-even-if-it-wins-wheelchair-appeal-20120425-1xlio.html#ixzz1t86exjIE

Frontier Airlines Fined For Violating Rules Protecting Air Travelers With Disabilities

Washington, DC--(ENEWSPF)--April 13, 2012.  The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today assessed a civil penalty of $50,000 against Frontier Airlines for violating rules protecting air travelers with disabilities.

“The Department of Transportation is committed to ensuring that airline passengers are treated fairly, and passengers with disabilities are no exception,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.  “At DOT, we take our aviation disability rules seriously and will continue to take enforcement action when airlines violate these rules.”

An investigation by DOT’s Aviation Enforcement Office into complaints filed against Frontier found that the carrier violated the DOT regulation implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) with respect to its transportation of an individual with a disability.

The individual filing the complaint, a quadriplegic who has no use of his arms, legs, or torso, is unable to sit upright in an aircraft seat without support and restraint.  Frontier failed to provide him appropriate notice, in advance of the return portion of his round-trip transportation, that Federal Aviation Administration requirements prohibit seatbelt extenders as restraint devices for his upper body, even though the carrier had permitted him to use the devices in three prior flights, including the outbound flight of the trip in question.  On the return flight, the individual did not have an alternative restraint method and was removed from the flight.  The Department’s disability regulation requires airlines to provide passengers who notify them that they use a wheelchair for boarding, as this individual did, of any limit on the carriers’ ability to accommodate passengers with a disability, even if the passengers do not request the information.

Frontier also violated the Department’s disability regulation by failing to provide the passenger with adequate assistance in pre-boarding and getting on and off the plane, despite receiving multiple advance notices that the individual had a disability and needed assistance prior to his flight.  DOT requires airlines to provide assistance to passengers with disabilities while boarding and deplaning aircraft, including the use of wheelchairs, ramps, mechanical lifts and service personnel where needed.

The consent order is available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2012-0002.

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/32619-frontier-airlines-fined-for-violating-rules-protecting-air-travelers-with-disabilities.html

Jindal MD speaks out against Jet Airways insensitivity: Jan 2008

Dear Colleagues,

I remember it was Christmas vacations of 2007, Ms. Sminu Jindal was travelling to Bangkok for a family vacation with her husband, two minor children and  a maid. She has been a frequent flier due to her professional commitments and probably never faced any problem earlier.

Ms. Jindal visited Thailand with her family on Jet Airways flight 9W064 on December 25 from Delhi to Bangkok in Business Class and also returned by the same airliner on January 01 2008.

At the time of boarding at Delhi Airport , the airline staff handed her over an indemnity bond with a dictate that unless she sign the same she would not be allowed to board the flight.  The indemnity Bond said that she would not hold the Jet Airways responsible for any harm to her during the flight. The apathy, ignorance and lack of sensitivity and training on the part of airliner shocked her. She had been travelling all over the world as per the demands of her profession but for the first time an airline asked her to sign such a ridiculous bond before being allowed to fly.

She tore the bond they were waving at her and told them that she was of a firm mind and that she was a wheelchair user because of a road accident at the age of 11 that left her paraplegic. She also told them unless they make every heart patient and pregnant woman to sign a similar thing; she refused to be treated differently. The altercation spoiled her festive mood & vacation and caused her immense psychological discomfort. That was not all despite prior request which she always make for an aisle chair to be provided she was denied the same on the grounds that there was no provision for the same.

Her ordeal didn't end there. When she traveled by return sector flight on January 1, 2008 the airline again did not provide any aisle chair (a small wheelchair that can be used inside the aircraft) saying that they don’t have any provision for it nor they allowed her ultra modern collapsible wheelchair that could be easily folded and carried as handbag and fits well in to the cabin without causing disturbance to any co-passenger.

She stressed that such mobility devices are like a part of any disabled person’s body and give them freedom to move about with dignity. The ground staff was not even trained on how to talk to a passenger with disability. The staff often spoke to the attendant pushing the wheelchair about me rather than speaking to her. Not only the staff but also the Manager seemed to highly insensitive. She was surprised that if that was the state of affairs at Jet Airways who claimed to be disabled friendly then what would be the situation in other domestic airliners operating in the country.

On her return she took up the issue strongly with the DGCA through a complaint since the issue was not about her being treated like that, but how airlines still refuse to provide basic assistance and dignity to physically-challenged passengers despite rules, regulations, requirements and legal mandate in place that ensures dignified & equitable access to all. DGCA issued a notice to the JetAirways on 10 Jan 2008. JetAirways tendered a public apology and it was thought that that the issues will settle down and the airline will mends its ways.

Svayam thereafter actively participated in several rounds of making a Civil Aviation Requirement on the Carriage by Air of Persons with Disabilities in 2008-2009. Most suggestions put forward by Svayam were incorporated in the present CAR on Carriage of Persons with Disabilities. However, the ground realities have not changed since then and we continue to see that several airlines continue to flout the DGCA's CAR with impunity.

Here are some of the media coverage on the issue in January 2008:

Disability Rights DLU: http://disabilityrightsdlu.blogspot.in/2008/01/experiences-of-sminu-jindal.html

CNN IBN:  MD speaks out against Jet Airways insensitivity

Times of India: Fighting Apathy - Jet apologizes to Jindal SAW Chief over harassment  

Rolling Rains Report: Svayam receives pro forma apology from Jet Airways

Supreme Court Issues Notices on Jeeja's Petition against SpiceJet

Dear Colleagues,

Please refer to my earlier post on an incident wherein disability rights activist Jeeja Ghosh who was forcibly deplaned from a Goa-bound SpiceJet flight from Kolkatta in February because the pilot felt she was unfit to fly. On Jeeja's petition, honorable Supreme Court of India has issued notices to the Union Government, Airliner and the DGCA.

A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana P Desai issued notices to the Union government, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and SpiceJet on her petition accusing the private airline of subjecting her to traumatic treatment on February 19 and depriving the organizers of her expertise during the international seminar.

"Jeeja Ghosh has experienced similar experience before. In 2008, she was forced to undergo a medical examination before being allowed to board an Indigo flight from New Delhi to Kolkata," the petitioner said and sought an investigation into the incident.

"These acts of discrimination which have left disabled people very upset have continued unabated despite the enactment by the Central Government of clear and binding directives prohibiting discrimination against disabled persons in air transport," said Jeeja.

She requested the apex court to direct "SpiceJet to adequately compensate the petitioner for loss of money, wasted time and the humiliation and trauma suffered during the unsavoury incident".

This case coupled with the uproar in the disability sector has pushed the Government of India/ DGCA too hard to take a swift action against the Airliner and if required amend the Regulations to include penalty clauses, if need be.

The result has been several meetings with the stakeholders and now constitution of another committee to suggest changes in the existing CAR to make it more inclusive and give it more teeth.We hope this would not be another lip service and another rule book to meet defiance rather than implementation that we see with the existing CAR.

The story has been covered by

(a) The Times of India: Cerebral palsy afflicted woman moves Supreme Court, demnads compensation from SpiceJet

(b) The Hindu : Court Notice to Centre, DGCA on deplaning of disabled

(c) The Indian Express: SC notice to SpiceJet for deplaning woman

JetBlue airways fined for inaccessible website

JetBlue violates disability rules, gets punished

JetBlue is in news again, and this time also not for good reasons. Few weeks back a lawsuit was filed against JetBlue airways for inadequate accessibility of check-in kiosks at the airport in addition to the inaccessibility of their website. This time the reason for the legal action is violation of rules protecting air travelers with disabilities and for failing to disclose when flights sold by the carrier were being operated under a code-sharing arrangement. The airline is being penalized $600,000 for the mistake.

The Department of Transportation ruled that $350,000 of the amount would have to be paid by the carrier, while $250,000 could be used to establish a task force to audit the carrier's handling of passengers with disabilities create a disability customer care center and enhance the carrier's website to improve its information for travelers with disabilities

source: http://www.infosysblogs.com/web2/2010/12/jetblue.html

Green MEP says Easyjet incident with Dr. Sabry not acceptable

Dear Colleagues,

Please refer to my earlier post on Easyjet's appalling behaviour with businessman Dr Martin Sabry earlier in January this year. After boarding the wheelchair user Dr. Sabry was humiliated by the flight purser  by asking him to read aloud the safety card in front of other passengers and say "I can" after each sentence. And then the purser told squarely that they will not take him!

Reacting sharply on the incident Green MEP Keith Taylor slammed the budget carrier stating that the incident was unacceptable. His report is although non-legislative, but will become the official position of the Parliament.

However, we see a similar kind of pattern emerging from a series of such cases whether Easyjet (France) or in Spicejet (India)! Even in Jeeja's Case, the reply of the Hon'ble Indian Minister of Civil Aviation has been same where airliner seem to have escaped with just a public apology!

This is absolutely not acceptable by any norms.. neither in India nor in any part of the world. Exemplary punitive action and economic penalties are only solutions that the airliners respect the basic human rights and raise their awareness on these issues if need be. You can't escape by saying that the staff was not sensitized or that the staff has been sacked.

Here is the report from Reduced Mobility Rights


Easyjet Incident With Disabled Dr. Sabry Unacceptable, Green MEP says

Published on Friday, 23 March 2012 11:25

Written by Roberto Castiglioni

Green MEP Keith Taylor slammed budget carrier Easyjet, stating that the incident involving disabled businessman Martin Sabry was unacceptable.

"Clearly, the Easyjet incident was unacceptable," Green MEP Keith Taylor told Reduced Mobility Rights.

"Paragraph 58 of my report which covers regulation 1107/2006 underlines the importance of appropriate training of flight crews to cover the ´different and individual needs of PRMs`," the European member of Parliament explained.

"In my capacity as a member of the Parliament's Transport and Tourism committee (TRAN), I met with  many stakeholders over a number of months, in order to inform the first draft of the report "on the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air", which covers regulation 1107/2006," Green MEP Keith Taylor told Reduced Mobility Rights.

The report will be voted on next week in the European Parliament's plenary session. "I am confident that it will be adopted, Taylor said.

Although non-legislative, the report will become the official position of the Parliament.

Disabled businessman Martin Sabry, 39, from Cambridge, arrived at Gatwick airport on 4 January 2012 to catch the Easyjet flight to Montpellier, France.

After boarding the aircraft, Mr Sabry was harassed by the flight purser who had him removed from the airplane. "I was made to read safety-card aloud in front all other boarding passengers and say "I can" after each sentence," he says, remarking the unnecessary humiliation. "We will not take you," the purser told him.

"I am pleased to hear of the unreserved apology given to Dr Sabry," Keith Taylor said. "However, it is extremely regrettable to hear that due to lack of resources, the CAA will not be able to pursue this case further."

In the days following the incident, Carolyn McCall OBE, Easyjet's Chief Executive Officer, apologised in person to Martin Sabry. "Our chief executive Carolyn McCall called Dr Sabry directly to apologise," A spokesperson for Easyjet told Reduced Mobility Rights.

The budget airline received a verbal warning from the UK CAA. "In relation to the Dr Sabry’s situation, we have been in touch with EasyJet regarding the incident, to remind them of their obligations to people with reduced mobility," A CAA spokesperson said.

Despite the incident representing a clear violation of Regulation 1107/2006, there will be no enforcement of the law on Easyjet. The Department for Transport is trailing behind most EU states, having failed to provide the CAA a set of sanctions and adequate enforcement powers. "Unfortunately, [enforcement] powers are not very flexible or proportionate and make it difficult for us to take action," Dame Deirdre Hutton, Chair of the Civil Aviation Authority said.

"I think that there needs to be better implementation by the National Enforcement Bodies of the rules that do exist," Keith Taylor said. "Paragraph 3 of my report acknowledged gaps in Member States' implementation and enforcement of Regulation 1107/2006. In subsequent paragraphs the report talks of the need for the Commission to work with NEBs in order to "promote a uniform and prompt enforcement of air passenger rights."

Civil Aviation Minister responds to Parliament Question on Incidents of discrimination against passengers with disabilities

Dear Colleagues,


The Minister- Civil Aviation, in response to questions raised in the Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha on the recent incidents of harassment of passengers with disabilities, replied as below:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 1353

ANSWERED ON 21st March, 2012

Differently abled passengers in flights

1353. SHRIMATI INGRID MCLEOD
ADV. GANESHRAO DUDHGAONKAR
SHMRIMATI DAVANA GAWALI PATIL
SHI GUTHA SUKHENDER REDDY
SHRI YASHVIR SINGH
SHRI NEERAJ SHEKHAR
SHRI BIBHU PRASAD TARAI
SHRI M B RAJESH
SHRI SUGUMAR K
SHRI GURUDAS DASGUPTA
SHRIMATI BOTCHA JHANSHI LAKSHMI

Will the Minister of CIVIL AVIATION be pleased to state :-

(a) whether incidents of ill-treatment meted out to some differently abled passengers by the private airlines have come to the notice of the Government recently;(b) if so, the details thereof;(c) whether the matter was enquired into by the Government/DGCA;(d) if so, the follow up action taken by the Government thereon;(e) whether most of the private airlines are not adhering to the rules and regulations prescribed for differently abled persons;(f) if so, the action taken by the Government against such airlines alongwith the details of proper facilities for carrying the disabled persons at various airports; and(g) the detailed guidelines in place for air passengers particularly differently abled persons and the steps taken to ensure their compliance by private airlines thereon?

ANSWERS

MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION ( SHRI AJIT SINGH )

(a) and (b): Three cases of harassment faced by physically challenged passengers were reported to the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), two in the year 2011 and one in 2012. The details and Action Taken report on these cases are annexed. No such case reported to the DGCA against Jet Airways during the period.

DGCA has issued Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) on “Carriage of Passenger by air with disability and/or with reduced mobility”, which is being strictly adhered to by the airlines. The said CAR is available on DGCA website. Violation of the provisions of CAR is punishable under the Schedule VI of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. 

ANNEXURE

Incident 1: On 10th May 2011, Mrs. Mansuri Shabana and Master Mansuri Lukmaan (Child) were travelling alongwith an infant on Kingfisher Airlines flight on Ahmedabad-Mumbai-Goa sector. They were handed over to the crew on board operating the flight at Ahmedabad. At Mumbai, the ground staff met the passengers on arrival and boarded them on the connecting flight to Goa. On this flight the set of cabin crew realized that the blind passenger was accompanied by an infant and a child. The same was reported to the commander and the ground staff that this carriage was not permissible on safety grounds. The passenger later travelled by Spicejet flight.

The matter was taken up by Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) with airlines, Kingfisher Airlines has taken following corrective actions to avoid recurrence of such incidents:

a) The crew and the concerned ground services staff at Ahmedabad have been issued warning letters and have been strongly briefed. 
b) A reiteration of the carriage policy for such travel has been circulated to all concerned. 

Incident 2: Sh. Mohammed AsifIqbal (Disabled from Eyes) faced harassment while travelling on Kingfisher Airlines flight IT 3571 on 30th May 2011 at Patna airport. An indemnity bond was obtained from him. 

Matter was taken up with Airlines by DGCA. As an immediate action, Kingfisher Airlines have terminated all staff involved, including the Airport Manager at Patna airport. In view of this, Kingfisher Airlines reiterated the guidelines to all airports indicating following:

a) A blind Guest who has no medical complications and is perfectly capable of taking care of his/her personal needs must be accepted on Kingfisher flights and is not required to sign an Indemnity form.
b) Such a guest is allowed to travel alone and no companion/escort is required to travel along. 
c) Staff should treat such guest with special care and be sensitive to their needs.
d) In the event of flight disruptions, staff should ensure that these guests are handled with priority. 

Incident 3:   Ms. Jeeja Ghosh, a person with cerebral palsy, was de-boarded from the Spicejet flight SG-803 at Kolkata on 19.2.2012. 

Matter was taken up with Spicejet who informed that when the passenger Ms. Jeeja Ghosh reported at the check-in counter for her boarding card, she did not declare herself to be a person with any disability or with reduced mobility. She was provided assistance to board the flight. As informed by Spicejet, while being seated, the cabin crew observed froth, saliva with traces of blood oozing out of Ms. Jeeja Ghosh’s mouth with her hands folded in an abnormal manner and she was also not in position to respond to the Cabin Crew’s questions. Accordingly, the matter was report to the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) and a decision was taken to de-board Ms. JeejaGhosh on account of her medical condition.

Matter was taken up by DGCA with the airlines. To avoid recurrence of such incidents, Spicejet has re-examined the responsibilities of the pilot-in-command with reference to the provisions of the applicable Civil Aviation Requirements and he is being counseled to display more empathy to deal with such situation in future. Spicejet has also informed that they are issuing necessary instructions to reinforce the existing procedures on handling of persons with disability. 

In this regard, a meeting on the rights of passengers with disability and reduced mobility was held on 12.03.2012 under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary, M/o Civil Aviation. It was decided that a Committee will be constituted under the chairmanship of JS, MoCA with representatives of stake holders as members to look into best practices in the world on the matter, latest UN/ICAO guidelines on dealing with air travel of persons with disabilities and give a suggestion for appropriate modifications of the CAR concerned and for the improvement of designs of airline websites, accessories and facilities/infrastructure etc. especially meant to facilitate comfortable air travel for the persons with disabilities.


Jeeja Ghosh's Response


Jeeja has reacted very sharply on this reply since this seems to be most insensitive one especially when the DGCA officials have given the version of the airliner as the version of the Government/Ministry. This is despite the fact that DG himself had met Jeeja and seen for himself the disability. Here is how Jeeja responded to the Minister's response, when shared with her by our colleague Muralidharan from National Platform for the Rights of Disabled:





"I am absolutely shocked  to receive this (response). I am groping for words to defend my case. All I can say is this is an absolute misinterpretation of the entire situation. To begin with: 


1. I am a person with cerebral palsy with very obvious and visible physical disability.  There is nothing to conceal regarding my impairment. The very fact that I was provided assistance speaks for it unless all the Spicejet staff members are of "reduced mental faculty" and lack understanding. 


2. I was bleeding from the mouth is another lie. I counter this by saying that if Spicejet is projecting itself as a responsible airlines with concern for its passengers they should have called for medical assistance and not de-boarded me in a humiliating manner. The doctor was called only after the flight had left without me and confirmed that I was totally "fit to fly". I must admit I do drool. But at that point of time I was comfortably seated in the flight reading a book. There was no drooling leave alone bleeding.


3. Also the Assistant Manager of Spicejet at Kolkata airport Mr. Vishu Ramesan did not mention any such incident of bleeding when he spoke to my senior Dr. Reena Sen, Executive Director of Indian Institute of Cerebral Palsy.  The very fact Spicejet issued a ticket for me to travel on 20th February 2012 and accepted a letter of complaint from me makes it even more obvious the contradiction in the Spicejet's statement. Unfortunately I was unable to avail of the flight to Goa on 20th February as the humiliation from the Spicejet unnerved me psychologically making me "unfit" to travel.


4. No such episode of bleeding from the mouth was reported to my family either when a ground staff from Spicejet came to drop me home after the entire fiasco. Also Mr. Ramesan came with a tablet apology letter from the Spicejet on 20th February 2012 - why should Spicejet issue even a tablet apology letter when they were so sure they were not wrong?


I am made a humble attempt to defend my case. I will request to forward this response to the concerned authorities. I have also narrated the incident verbally to Mr. Ashok Kumar, Joint Secretary, Civil Aviation when I met him at his office on 20th March 2012. 


Thank you for your support.
Yours sincerely
Jeeja Ghosh"