Aids HIV FAQ

Don't board plane if you can't walk

Question:

Disabled rights chief told: Don’t board plane if you can’t walk By Cherry Norton, Social Affairs Editor   20 October 2000 The chairman of the Disability Rights Commission was barred from boarding a plane yesterday because he cannot walk. Bert Massie, 50, said he had told ScotAirways he was in a wheelchair and needed to be lifted on and off the aircraft. Full story at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/This_Britain/2000-10/walk201000….

Response:

>Disabled rights chief told: Don’t board plane if you can’t walk >By Cherry Norton, Social Affairs Editor   >20 October 2000 >The chairman of the Disability Rights Commission was barred from >boarding a plane yesterday because he cannot walk. >Bert Massie, 50, said he had told ScotAirways he was in a wheelchair and >needed to be lifted on and off the aircraft. >Full story at: >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/This_Britain/2000-10/walk201000….

The ScotAirways timetable says "due to safety and dignity issues is line with the aircraft types operated we  are unable to accept passengers requiring lifting on or off the aircraft". This doesn’t stop other airlines such as Air New Zealand lifting people on and off aircraft. ScotAirways is of course the new name for dear old Suckling Airways. Mr and Mrs Suckling sold out to Scottish businessman Brian Souter, well known for being head of the dubious bus company Stagecoach, and for spending large amounts of his fortune funding his homophobic activities in Scotland. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

He also has a big stake in Virgin trains which has one of the worst reputations in the UK railway network (and that is saying something..).                  Derek – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The ScotAirways timetable says "due to safety and dignity issues is > line with the aircraft types operated we  are unable to accept > passengers requiring lifting on or off the aircraft". This doesn’t > stop other airlines such as Air New Zealand lifting people on and off > aircraft. > ScotAirways is of course the new name for dear old Suckling Airways. > Mr and Mrs Suckling sold out to Scottish businessman Brian Souter, > well known for being head of the dubious bus company Stagecoach, and > for spending large amounts of his fortune funding his homophobic > activities in Scotland. > –==++AJC++==–

Response:

>The ScotAirways timetable says "due to safety and dignity issues is >line with the aircraft types operated we  are unable to accept >passengers requiring lifting on or off the aircraft". This doesn’t >stop other airlines such as Air New Zealand lifting people on and off >aircraft.

It does depend on the aircraft type. Scot operates Do328s of which I have no experience, NZ has Dash-8s which probably have slightly wider doors. And I can attest to the dignity issue, having once witnessed a non-ambulatory pax being loaded onto (’stuffed into’ is probably more accurate) a Fairchild Metro, and then having to be unloaded when it was discovered there was not enough room to maneouvre the poor soul into a seat. The question is who to believe in being informed about the limitation. Scot says they did, pax says they didn’t. Brian

Response:

> >The ScotAirways timetable says "due to safety and dignity issues is >line with the aircraft types operated we  are unable to accept >passengers requiring lifting on or off the aircraft". This doesn’t >stop other airlines such as Air New Zealand lifting people on and off >aircraft. > It does depend on the aircraft type. Scot operates Do328s of which I have no > experience, NZ has Dash-8s which probably have slightly wider doors. > And I can attest to the dignity issue, having once witnessed a > non-ambulatory pax being loaded onto (’stuffed into’ is probably more > accurate) a Fairchild Metro, and then having to be unloaded when it was > discovered there was not enough room to maneouvre the poor soul into a seat.

Though OTOH I think "dignity issues" are the passenger’s prerogative to judge, not the airline’s, and I think "we won’t carry you because it would affront your dignity" is right up there with "We’ve closed this exit for your convenience" for misdirection.  Some people would rather be carried on than not go (obviously in your example it was both/and, rather than either/or, but ScotAir’s phraseology suggests the more traditional dichotomy).  If a company simply refuses to do it, that’s one thing, but don’t put it on the customers; they should realize that many people can keep their dignity in situations where the company might not . > The question is who to believe in being informed about the limitation. Scot > says they did, pax says they didn’t.

It’s not clear from the article how the ticket was booked–I can see a lot of room for failure to inform with TAs and even phone reservations.  For the bizarre pride of Mr. Suckling that this was a "well-publicised" policy. Deborah Stevenson

Response:

>Though OTOH I think "dignity issues" are the passenger’s prerogative to >judge, not the airline’s, and I think "we won’t carry you because it would >affront your dignity" is right up there with "We’ve closed this exit for >your convenience" for misdirection.  Some people would rather be carried >on than not go (obviously in your example it was both/and, rather than >either/or, but ScotAir’s phraseology suggests the more traditional >dichotomy).  If a company simply refuses to do it, that’s one thing, >but don’t put it on the customers; they should realize that many people >can keep their dignity in situations where the company might not .

True, although I think one has to consider the dignity of the loaders as well as the ‘loadee’. In the incident I related, the airline employees were visibly both embarrassed and distressed. Nurses and hospital workers may be unfazed by such gyrations, others not so. Brian

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The ScotAirways timetable says "due to safety and dignity issues is >line with the aircraft types operated we  are unable to accept >passengers requiring lifting on or off the aircraft". This doesn’t >stop other airlines such as Air New Zealand lifting people on and off >aircraft. >It does depend on the aircraft type. Scot operates Do328s of which I have no >experience, NZ has Dash-8s which probably have slightly wider doors. >And I can attest to the dignity issue, having once witnessed a >non-ambulatory pax being loaded onto (’stuffed into’ is probably more >accurate) a Fairchild Metro, and then having to be unloaded when it was >discovered there was not enough room to maneouvre the poor soul into a seat. >The question is who to believe in being informed about the limitation. Scot >says they did, pax says they didn’t. >Brian

It was actually an Air New Zealand Link Saab 340 (about the same size as a dornier I think) that I saw a lady in a wheelchair being loaded on to. The helpful ground and cabin crew and the lady’s good humour seemed to combine to make for a satisfactory boarding and I had the impression that her dignity remained in tact. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

<snip> >True, although I think one has to consider the dignity of the loaders as >well as the ‘loadee’. >In the incident I related, the airline employees were visibly both >embarrassed and distressed. >Nurses and hospital workers may be unfazed by such gyrations, others not so.

Then they should be educated on how to deal with it. Their ignorance is certainly not a reason why people should be prevented from flying.

Response:

> The question is who to believe in being informed about the limitation. Scot > says they did, pax says they didn’t.

But when you book through a internet site or TA, you may not be informed at the time of booking that the plane cannot accomodate you. In my case, since I often travel with my wheelchair (bicycle , I find myself always making inquiries about the suitability of the bike on smaller planes. And interestingly, I can never get a confirmation of yes/no until I actually board the aircraft and ask the ramp employees if they managed to load it in. So I can understand how a mobility-challenged person might end up going all the way to the stairs of an aircraft before being told that they can’t load him on the plane.

Response:

>Then they should be educated on how to deal with it. Their ignorance >is certainly not a reason why people should be prevented from flying.

Or at least have someone on hand who does know what to do. This particular crew had no idea. Don’t whether they had been forewarned or not, but the outcome was a shambles. Brian

Response:

>It was actually an Air New Zealand Link Saab 340 (about the same size >as a dornier I think) that I saw a lady in a wheelchair being loaded >on to. The helpful ground and cabin crew and the lady’s good humour >seemed to combine to make for a satisfactory boarding and I had the >impression that her dignity remained in tact.

That does surprise me. The Saab’s stairs are quite narrow are always strike me as rather flimsy compared to most others. The Do328 is closer to the ground as well, so I don’t know what ScotAir’s story is. And I can well imagine a Kiwi outlook would make things easier than in other more frazzled  parts of the world. Brian

Response:

> True, although I think one has to consider the dignity of the loaders as > well as the ‘loadee’.

Oh, I see. It is no problem handling an injured person because that person need to make it to the hospital ASAP. But handing a mobility-challenged persons removes dignity from the staff ? I am sorry, but airlines are in the service business. They have no problem fitting cargo in a cargo hold, but they have a problem carrying someone into a seat ? Sound to me like people who refuse to handle/touch a handicapped person are the same type who might not want to touch a gay person for fear of catching aids. I think that a wheelchair-bound person is used to being helped/handled when needed and he/she wouldn’t find a loss of dignity. When booking the ticket on a small plane, the person would have known that getting on the plane would be a challenge so the person would expect to be handled in perhaps an ackward way to be fit into the plane. If I were an employee, I’d tell the passenger something to the order of: "Sure, no problem, but it may not be pretty, what is the best way to hold you ?" Remember, the pax probably has more experience in such situations than the airline staff, so the pax may be able to suggest what the best way is to get him onto the aircraft.

Response:

>> True, although I think one has to consider the dignity of the loaders as > well as the ‘loadee’. >Oh, I see. It is no problem handling an injured person because that person >need to make it to the hospital ASAP. But handing a mobility-challenged >persons removes dignity from the staff ?

It did in that particular incident. No, I won’t give details. B.

Response:

>That does surprise me. The Saab’s stairs are quite narrow are always strike >me as rather flimsy compared to most others.

Well, I can attest that our ramp agents bring people of all sizes up those narrow Saab 340 steps in straightback wheelchairs every day.  They also have "lifts" that are used that bring wheelchair passengers from the ground to the boarding door without using the stairs at all.  

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The question is who to believe in being informed about the limitation. Scot > says they did, pax says they didn’t. > But when you book through a internet site or TA, you may not be informed at > the time of booking that the plane cannot accomodate you. > In my case, since I often travel with my wheelchair (bicycle , I find > myself always making inquiries about the suitability of the bike on smaller > planes. And interestingly, I can never get a confirmation of yes/no until I > actually board the aircraft and ask the ramp employees if they managed to load > it in. > So I can understand how a mobility-challenged person might end up going all > the way to the stairs of an aircraft before being told that they can’t load > him on the plane.

Two things come to mind in reading the article that give me pause: First, Jeff, you point out that it seems reasonable to expect a mobility challenged individual to at least inquire as to accomodation – which in this case, given an express policy by the airline, would have resulted in a definitive NO. Second, considering that the individual is head of an organization representing disabled and has a vested interest, do you think maybe the publicity from this incident may have motivated the incident in the first place? I smell a rat. amp Before you buy.

Response:

>>That does surprise me. The Saab’s stairs are quite narrow are always strike >me as rather flimsy compared to most others. >Well, I can attest that our ramp agents bring people of all sizes up those >narrow Saab 340 steps in straightback wheelchairs every day.  They also have >"lifts" that are used that bring wheelchair passengers from the ground to the >boarding door without using the stairs at all.  

Yes in the incident I saw ANZ Link folded the Saab stairs away and used a lifting platform to raise the passenger to the aircraft entrance. –==++AJC++==–

Response:

> Yes in the incident I saw ANZ Link folded the Saab stairs away and > used a lifting platform to raise the passenger to the aircraft > entrance.

But if the airport is not equipped with the gear, should the staff still attempt to lift the pax into the plane themselves ? On a puddle jumper, the wheelchair would be able to go inside the cabin, right ? Obviously, there is also the question of security since such a pax would not be able to egress from the plane on his own.

Response:

> Second, considering that the individual is head of an organization > representing disabled and has a vested interest, do you think maybe the > publicity from this incident may have motivated the incident in the > first place?

Good point. The incident may have been provoked. Nevertheless, it does outline some form of disabled-phobia where the staff didn’t feel confortable handling a mobility challenged person. If someone’s got a broken leg and walking on crutches, would the staff help the person up the stairs into the plane ? If the person had been Christopher Reeves in a wheelchair, would the crew have ha problems with "dignity" or would they have volunteered to lift him to his seat and make him feel as comfortable as possible ? When the canadian Rick Hansen went around the world in a wheelchair, he made a point of "testing" the limits by going to places where wheelchairs were not quite accessible and attracting the attention to it. Because he had the local media’s attention, many cities engaged to fix the problems enountered by Mr Hansen. I suspect that this airline may change its policies pretty soon as a result of this incident. Where there is a will there is a way, and even without lifts/whatever, i am sure that the staff could be told to find a way to accomodate mobility chanllenged folks.

Response:

Please be concerned for the agents who would have to carry a person into an airplane wich cannot accomadate a lift.  Not all planes doors are wide enought to do this-do we want an agent to be hurt trying to do this. You must realize that this is dangerous for the agent lifting this person=that is why the restrictions.

Filed under: Aids