Air Transat voluntarily refunded the airfare of a woman whose accessibility needs had not been properly dealt with on a flight in 2000.

The Canadian Transportation Agency's Decision No. 154-AT-A-2008 dated April 4, 2008 deals with an accessible air travel complaint from 2001, and makes no award against the airline, although some of the complaint was found to be justified.

Both the passenger and the airline could have communicated better in this case.

The Parties and The Facts of the Accessible Travel Complaint

The complainant, Ms. Shumak-Dantowitz, filed the complaint on behalf of her sister, Ms. Tator, and on her own behalf. Ms. Tator is the person with a disability.

In February 2000, on both parts of a return flight on Air Transat from Toronto, Ontario, Canada to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, Ms. Tator experienced accessibility issues. The Agency had to decide whether these were "undue" obstacles to her ability to travel.

Timing of the Disability and Communication with the Airline

Ms. Tator's health declined significantly in the week before her trip to Florida, which was already booked through a travel agent. She required oxygen and could not walk far.

Two days before the trip, Ms. Shumak-Dantowtiz told Air Transat that her sister needed "medical attention and oxygen." By telephone, Air Transat said someone would help her sister with the oxygen, and there would be a wheelchair for her in Fort Lauderdale.

Difficulties Encountered on the Flight

The plane was fully booked, but Ms. Shumak-Dantowitz got a standby seat. Ms. Tator had gone ahead. Because of her oxygen tanks, she had to go through security twice. Her seat was in row 40. She could not walk there on her own without making herself ill. There was no wheelchair in Fort Lauderdale.

Air Transat's Position

Air Transat said they had not received notice of Ms. Tator's special needs. The employee who promised care over the phone had no authority to do that, and the level of care (assistance with medical oxygen) was simply not part of the service available.

Air Transat carefully chose row 40 for Ms. Tator for good reasons. They agreed that there should have been a wheelchair ready.

The Canadian Transportation Agency's Decision

This decision explains in detail the steps the Agency goes through in handling accessibility complaints.

The Agency found that although walking to row 40 was an obstacle to Ms. Tator, it was not "undue". Ms. Tator did not tell the airline that 40 rows was too far. Her specific needs never seem to have been properly communicated and discussed. This raises the point that passengers are responsible for making their needs clear. Saying that the passenger needs "medical attention and oxygen" was not specific enough.

The lack of assistance at security, at boarding, and having no wheelchair available in the airport were found to be undue obstacles to travel.

The Practical Result

Air Transat told the Agency it was dealing with the causes of the problems internally. The Agency did not order the airline to take any corrective measures. Air Transat refunded Ms. Tator's fare ($372.93) and gave her sister a $100 voucher.

The complainant requested an apology, refunds and additional flights as compensation. The Agency does not have the jurisdiction to award damages for pain and suffering, and dismissed that part of the claim.

The decision came out eight years after the travel. The lessons learned are:

• the passenger has a responsibility to be very clear about their travel needs
• airlines' internal communication can be faulty
• there is no guarantee that third parties working for the airilne (e.g. the Fort Lauderdale contractor responsible for having wheelchairs at the gate) will do their job
• airline staff are not trained to administer medically required oxygen
• there are special forms to be filed to advise the airline of special travel needs. Travel agents apparently know about these, although no one at Air Transat told the complainant about them.

One unique feature of this case is that the illness became considerably worse very shortly before the flight, after the arrangements had been made with the travel agent. It may not have occurred to the complainant to go back to the travel agent for further help with the booking.

For further information about planning a trip that includes air travel with accessibility issues, in or through Canada, see the article Written Confirmation from Airlines, based on another decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency.