(While I normally blog from the perspective of a disabled person,
I’m writing this piece in my alternate persona as an aerospace
professional)
There’s a sad contrast between two aviation stories this
week. On the one hand we have the Paris Air Show, with the industry slapping
itself on the back as the week closes with somewhere north of $165Bn of orders
(yes, that figure is billions) for over 1000 airliners, 1500 when options are
included, on the other we have this story from the Daily Telegraph,
with Thai Airways invoking the Montreal Convention to get out of paying the
full £3600 cost of replacing a disabled passenger’s wheelchair damaged during a
flight.
A national carrier trashes a disabled passenger’s wheelchair through
negligence, then weasels out of paying for it? What kind of impression of the
industry do we want people to take away with them? In some ways this isn’t
surprising, the EU estimates that there are between 600 and 1100 incidents of mobility
equipment being damaged in transit on airlines or within airports every year, just
within the EU, and that disabled people travel at a significantly lower rate
than non-disabled people as a result. Yet the cost of full replacements in
those incidents is likely to be significantly under £5m, a piddling sum in
comparison to the $165Bn worth of business done this week at Paris
The Montreal Convention limits enforceable compensation of
baggage damaged in transit aboard an aircraft to 1131 SDRs (Special Drawing Rights, about £1100),
but even a basic individually-fitted, manually-propelled wheelchair is likely
to cost more than that, and if the user’s disability requires additional
customisation or a powerchair, then the likely cost of replacement will exceed
the Montreal Convention compensation several times over. The EU in a report on the liability of air carriers in these cases and the supporting survey notes that disabled passengers face far greater disadvantage as the result of
damaged baggage than do other passengers, with the loss of mobility equipment
potentially bringing their life to a screeching halt for weeks or even months.
The EU further notes that the US and Canada have worked around the Montreal
Convention by making full compensation for disabled passengers a pre-condition
for the right to fly in their airspace, and notes that it may have to do the
same unless the situation resolves itself as a result of the EC 1107/2006 rights of Passengers with Reduced Mobility when travelling by air. However the EU
survey revealed extraordinary complacency among the airlines, and to a lesser
extent airports, who felt that all needs of passengers with reduced mobility in
the event of damaged mobility equipment were being fully met. There doesn’t seem to
be any real sign of change resulting from EC 1107/2006, with stories of
passengers refused boarding, outright abused by cabin crew, or having their
wheelchairs or other mobility equipment trashed in transit still crossing my
twitter feed on a depressingly regular basis.
As an industry, does aviation want to be seen as a force for
passenger equality, or a reactionary force that has to be dragged kicking and
screaming out of the 19th Century? The Thai Airlines story suggests
that latter, while Paris
