What part of it's too F@$^'N Big didn't you get

[rigpiggy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/a ... -1.3703790

A Toronto man is accusing Air Canada of discrimination after the airline told him he can't take the flight he has booked to Cleveland next month because his wheelchair is too tall to fit on the plane.

Tim Rose has cerebral palsy. He works as a disability consultant, and often has to travel for business. But when he was following up on the flight with Air Canada on Sunday, Rose says airline staff told him he wouldn't be able to bring his motorized wheelchair.

Transport minister looking at ways to ease air travellers' frustrations

Advocate fights for passenger rights

Rose says his wheelchair is a standard size, standing just under a metre, but the airline says the door to the cargo hold on the aircraft that is scheduled to make the Cleveland flight is about 13 centimetres shorter.

"I've travelled around 40, 50 times on planes in my life" said Rose, adding that he has never been turned away by an airline.

Rose says Air Canada staff told him his wheelchair counted as "oversized luggage" and it would not fit on the plane.

"I told them it was discrimination," said Rose. "And they said, 'No it's not, it's the same thing as if you had an oversized bag. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.'

"Essentially what they're saying is that my wheelchair, which is a part of my body, it's a part of my dignity, it's a part of my independence, is a bag ... I am not an oversized bag."

The Canadian Transportation Agency says that transportation service providers must "ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to federal transportation services" and accommodate people with disabilities up to the point of "undue hardship."

It's unclear, however, whether that applies to Rose's case. The agency, a quasi-judicial tribunal mandated to ensure that Canada's national transportation system is accessible to everybody, has not weighed in.

Rose said that while there are laws protecting the rights of people with disabilities, this situation is a bit murky because Canadian laws don't explicitly mention mobility devices.

Rose said that since he posted about his situation on social media, all the airline has done to get in touch with him is post publicly on Facebook.

There is more they offered to rebook through a different route to accommodate, etc........

"I don't think Air Canada should be running any planes that cannot accommodate average-size mobility devices," Rose said.

Or let's just not service that destination as there isn't enough traffic to justify an A320

[culver10]

My guess is that it is an RJ?? That baggage door under the engine sure looks small?

[cdnpilot77]

Doubt it's an RJ, more likely a -8 100 or 300

[nightbird]

Ok I was expecting something else with that title lol, but since i'm here... Yes that flight is operated by Air Georgian on the crj200. The cargo door opening is pretty small.

[culver10]

I was watching the baggage dudes load a powered chair into the front pit of a 37 NG today and they had to tip it on its' side to get it through the baggage/cargo door. It took 3 of them struggling to get it in. I cannot imagine trying to load one of those into anything smaller?? I feel bad for the fellow in the chair, but should AC be required to change aircraft to accommodate one person?

[crazyaviator]

Air Canada should have upgraded the flight to an Airbus just for him alone !!! Put him on the flight with that IDIOT that sued over a soft drink

[oldtimer]

I used to watch the poor Navajo flight crew for a now defunct airline trying to load 7 people and baggage into their airplane in Tofino where plus sized people wanted a double wide seat to accomodate their 2 axe handles wide frames and all their camping gear and huge baggage into the airplane. I also had to suffer through when passengers were complaining that we could not fit their skiis and all their gear in the baggage area of a King Air.
Most "sometimes" passengers have absolutly no concept of the accomodation available in many regional and tier 3 airplanes.
I think part of the problem is two fold.
1. the CSR's or travel agents do not ask about baggage size when they book the flight.
2. the travellers either make no mention or do they not realize there are baggage size limitations on certain airplanes.

Maybe we should all rebel and demand Air Canada fly only Airbus A380 airplanes but do it for the cheapest price. Or at least have an all cargo airplane follow the flight with the baggage.

[all_ramped_up]

Having spent many years on the Ramp as that poor S.O.B. loading them... they're a pain to load on almost every type of aircraft. Belt loader into Pit 5 on a 777 is akin to a Swiss Ski Jump. Sometimes you'd have to ride on the belt with it to keep it from sliding back down from the weight.

This fellow is clearly being unreasonable. Why is it so hard for (non-Aviation) people to not understand basic 3D shapes when it's suddenly applied to airplanes?

Maybe we need to break it down even simpler: "If my box can hold 19 5" diameter tomatoes only, how many tomatoes have to stay behind so i can carry the 4 bottles of water needed to walk the box home?"

[RatherBeFlying]

Electric wheelchairs are often heavier than the occupants. They're not the easiest cargo item to handle, plus a user really does not want to arrive in a strange city to discover the wheelchair has been rendered inop.

The back can usually be lowered by undoing allen bolts, but you then need a wheelchair tech at the other end to put it back together.

The wheelchair techs would do well to provide instructions and a bag of spare parts and tools when the wheelchair has to go as baggage.

[Inverted2]

Ok I was expecting something else with that title lol, but since i'm here... Yes that flight is operated by Air Georgian on the crj200. The cargo door opening is pretty small.

Correct. Another run that Air Georgian now does. The Dash 8 cargo door is huge. The CRJ door is tiny. Plus he'd be better off having someone drive him. With GGNs OTP he'd likely get there quicker anyway.

The entitlement of some people now. Surprised he didn't ask them to charter a Convair 580 or a Herc.

[Gannet167]

"Essentially what they're saying is that my wheelchair, which is a part of my body, it's a part of my dignity, it's a part of my independence, is a bag ... I am not an oversized bag."

The Canadian Transportation Agency says that transportation service providers must "ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to federal transportation services"

This guy needs a ticket

[bobcaygeon]

I agree this is a pita but the rules have been put in place because some operators have dicked a bunch of these people around.

The RJ door is useless and was never intended for airline ops. It's a self induced airline problem (airplane choice) as a Metro/1900/PC12 could have handled this wheel chair, never mind a 50 seat airliner.
It's very likely he has travelled repeatedly with no problem very possibly even on AC to Cleveland as this has been as a Dash route in the past.

It's also very likely the airline staff were not very helpful in finding a work around as many are just sheep and not interested in solving these challenges. My personal experience as air crew have gotten me to my destination when agents haven't been able to.

I have to deal with itype of issue and other issues with mobility restricted people and it's a PITA for me, the customer, and and a balancing act for the safety of the staff as well. It would much easier to say no and to tell them to take the bus but it's not an option.

[HiFlyChick]

I'm betting that bobcaygeon is right when he said that the airline staff probably weren't helpful. Although it is a simple case of "it just won't fit", one still needs to be sensitive to the idea that this is not a piece of luggage, it is this man's mobility - it almost a part of him at this point. If the very first person he talked to had an attitude of "won't fit - not my problem", things would have escalated emotionally, vs. if sympathy was shown and the attitude was "I'm sorry that it won't fit, let me see how we can accommodate you in another way". I wasn't there, so I can't say, but it seems like there is getting to be fewer and fewer people on the customer service end of things that actually care to provide customer service (not just in airlines, but everywhere).

[altiplano]

I wasn't there, so I can't say

Funny, because you certainly are "saying"...

It sounds like the airline did suggest an option that wasn't a direct flight, but he refused.

I think it's pretty clear this guy plans to make a capital case out of this unless he gets exactly what he wants... I also think he is spring loaded to respond this way at any opportunity given his position as an advocate. I mean he immediately took to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and every news agency in the country with his story.

[JBI]

As altiplano mentions, the important section of the original article suggests that AC tried to book him with different options as they are required to do.

Air Canada offering alternatives

The airline says it has offered Rose two options: he can either take a connecting flight on a plane that can accommodate his wheelchair or he can be flown out separately, so his wheelchair is transported on a different flight.

But Rose says these offers haven't been made to him. And he said that taking a connecting flight isn't a good option for him anyway because he also has a service dog, and transferring between planes takes extra time for him. In this case, he said it would be quicker for him to get a ride to Cleveland rather than take a flight with a layover.

An Air Canada representative has also said that the airline is looking at doing tests to see if there's any way Rose's wheelchair could be made to fit through the cargo door without causing damage.

The law on these issues as per the CTA is that mobility aids are NOT like oversized baggage. They are the person's legs. Any airline (or public transportation provider) must accommodate to the point of "undue hardship". So while there's a He said/AC said thing going on here, it seems that the airline has offered accommodations. I think AC could successfully argue that having ALL aircraft be able to take ALL mobility aids (google "bariatric power wheelchairs" to see how big they can get) would be undue hardship, but, is substituting an aircraft for one particular flight "undue hardship"? I would argue it definitely is (scheduling is extremely complex and expensive), but perhaps the CTA would see it differently.

Mobility Aids are an issue that I think we'll see become more common with airlines as the population gets older. The airlines kind of get the shaft as aircraft simply aren't designed for these large fragile expensive items, but if the airline breaks the mobility aid, they're on the hook for the full repairs (no limits of liability apply). There needs to be a better way to transport these items while persons with disabilities are still able to keep their independence as protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[valleyboy]

This is only part of a bigger picture. Where is the line drawn ? It's much like the sign laws in PQ where should rules be made and the freedom of choice remain. Should companies be in complete charge on how they do business. Maybe airlines should be free to choose the clientele they want on their aeroplanes. Should they be allowed to say "no people with red hair or fat or blue eyes" and deny boarding or do we need laws in place to even out the playing field. Here is a guy who is trying to live a life and overcome a significant disability, easy to point fingers and deny him but most have not lived in his shoes. Airlines are here to provide a service, which is substandard in most cases due to cheap fairs and cut throat business. They should have a published procedures for dealing with issues like this. This might be achieved with J class travel free upgrade with a reroute even if it meant traveling on another airline but deal with it they must.

Is this guy being unreasonable - I don't think so - the industry needs to catch up with the times, 30 year old thinking and "old school" is too prevalent.

[5x5]

Airlines are here to provide a service, which is substandard in most cases due to cheap fairs and cut throat business.

This seems to be at the heart of the issue. When do competitive, private businesses become organizations that are required to provide service to all? And while it's easy to point fingers and say that of course they have to accommodate everyone, where do the cheap fares and cut-throat business policies come from? All the people, many of whom are outraged by these injustices, who want to spend the least amount of money when they travel.

Many folks these days seem to want to have it both ways - the cheapest possible flights so they can personally save money, yet full, personalized service with no inconveniences or limitations. When business has to be pared down and organized to run at the lowest cost possible, personalization of services tends to be one of the first things to go due to the significant extra time and cost required.

[bobcaygeon]

Airlines are here to provide a service, which is substandard in most cases due to cheap fairs and cut throat business.

This seems to be at the heart of the issue. When do competitive, private businesses become organizations that are required to provide service to all? And while it's easy to point fingers and say that of course they have to accommodate everyone, where do the cheap fares and cut-throat business policies come from? All the people, many of whom are outraged by these injustices, who want to spend the least amount of money when they travel.

Many folks these days seem to want to have it both ways - the cheapest possible flights so they can personally save money, yet full, personalized service with no inconveniences or limitations. When business has to be pared down and organized to run at the lowest cost possible, personalization of services tends to be one of the first things to go due to the significant extra time and cost required.

AC has made these offers but when did it happen? In a timely manner? After the fact isn't helpful especially if the agent was an a$$. AC staff is famous for this is. Yes he used social media because it actually gets airlines to the table quicker.

Undue hardship? You'd be surprised what a company would claim "undue hardship" is. I bet you I can get that wheelchair from CYYZ to KCLE in about 3 hrs from now for a reasonable price or swap the Dash 8 to DTW with the CRJ to CLE. We've all seen the difference between what a lazy pilot and a motivated pilot can stuff into the back of an airplane. It's no different for aircraft assignments, etc.

My former employer (revenues of +500 million/year) refused to spend $5k on a wheelchair ramp so that an employee could work with the rest of the AP team when they changed offices. It was pretty clear they hoped this person would quit. They ended up building that ramp and paying enough to build many many ramps. If you work at Westjet you use their product to expedite global warming.

Again just like labour law, most of the rules exist because of dumb ass employers/ companies. Labour law dealing with unions is painful because of the end runs businesses have tried over the years.

BTW I am on the management side who deals with this crap and it's a bigger problem on smaller planes but people don't choose these problems. My biggest frustration is the limitations I have on preplanning these events as I am limited in what I can ask passengers at the time of booking. Give me the heads up, I love a challenge and making the effort to provide a positive customer experience.

[pianokeys]

Crap. I'd hate to be an airline that operates 172s right about now. Thats gonna be an awwwwwful lot of work to try and amend the airplane for this whiner.

[Gannet167]

Where does it end? What if the passenger needs the plane to fly at sea level cabin pressure, what if they need to have the the plane only make left turns? Can only ride on a plane that serves vegetarian menu items to everyone on board? Can't be flown or served by crew of a particular background etc? Religious, medical, personal beliefs, at what point does access to air travel become a right? Why not take a train? Charter a bus?

Can the airline be forced to accommodate my financial disability that prevents me from flying to Bali as often as I'll argue I need to for mental health maintenance?

[niss]

Where does it end? What if the passenger needs the plane to fly at sea level cabin pressure, what if they need to have the the plane only make left turns? Can only ride on a plane that serves vegetarian menu items to everyone on board? Can't be flown or served by crew of a particular background etc?

I've skimmed through your post history and it seems that you are an actual pilot, which is quite an accomplishment considering you have the reasoning skills of a 7 year old.

You are comparing a man, who cannot physically walk. Who's ability to move independently like any other adult is given to him by mechanical means. Who's mechanical means the airline tried to separate him from, or not allow access. You are comparing this man to someone who will only get on an aircraft that makes left turns? That will only get on a plane that serves vegetarian menu items?

AC did not offend this guys morality, or religion. They denied him travel because the only thing that equalized his life the rest of us who can walk, and allowed him to be an independent human being wouldn't fit.

Does his condition present challenges to the airline? Yes. Should they incur undue hardship because of it? No. But he certainly has a right to be accommodated within reason.

If you think his points are wrong, then fine. Grow the @#$! up and argue the point like an adult.

[5x5]

....considering you have the reasoning skills of a 7 year old. ..........Grow the @#$! up and argue the point like an adult.

I think that a straw man argument is in fact an adult method. I'm not sure demeaning and cursing is.

But he certainly has a right to be accommodated within reason.

And here is another issue that is at the root of the discussion - who's reason? The person/people directly involved at the moment, or people who read about it after the fact and make judgements without having to put any skin into the game?

[CID]

I think the real question here is whether flying or any other form of commercial travel is a "right" or a "privilege". To me it's overwhelmingly obvious that it is a privilege. It is a form of transportation to any person who meets the parameters of carriage and can pay the money.

Therefore the options are limited for those with limited mobility or the morbidly obese or the mentally challenged or the poor.

Think about people who can't fly because of an intense fear of flight or social anxieties. Conditions just as immobilizing as someone in a wheelchair.

The persons involved in directly, the passenger and his wife, are far too emotionally invested in this "fight" to make any sense. I think Air Canada is making an effort to help them but they seem to be more interested in grandstanding and making a statement for disabled persons. I wonder if they have considered chartering and running some sort of fund-raiser to pay for it. Or using ground transportation. I kind of doubt it based on the language they are using. They seem to think this is a passenger "rights" issue. It isn't.

[PilotDAR]

I think a person has a "right" to properly arrange for any travel they desire. If they can easily avail themselves of common commercial air travel, they have a right to seek travel by that means. Seeking travel means that to travel, they must fit within the capacity of the aircraft. This could mean seeking an aircraft to cater to less common capacity needs, which might not be a commercial carrier. I see this as about the same as hailing a cab. If you're going to hail a "regular" cab, hopefully you have considered that it can accommodate your travel needs. If your travel needs exceed the capacity of the cab you hail, don't be surprised if carriage is not possible.

I venture to suggest that mot of us posting and reading here exceed the design criteria for the seats in an aircraft. I do, I weigh 185 pounds, which exceeds by 15 pounds the most common design requirement for seats, and occupant restraint. I find it interesting, to alarming, that after I test and certify a seat and it's attachment to the aircraft structure, that certification would be the only certification I could issue to an aircraft which does not thereafter have a stated limitation. If I certify a cargo area, or cargo restraint within a cabin, there will be a maximum capacity in pounds. If I certify a seat, it seems to be not required.

I was an exit row passenger on an RJ in northern Canada. Across the aisle from me was a person who obviously exceeded the certified capacity of the seat he occupied by a factor of two, and I would venture more than three. A seatbelt extension barely reached around him. I complained to the air carrier, and Transport Canada. In an exit row, this person was a very real safety risk to all occupants of the cabin, beyond just being a risk to those who also occupied the row which was structurally common to the seat he occupied. TC replied to me that this was too sensitive a topic, and they would take no action to assure that exit rows were not occupied by persons of large proportion. I asked simply that all carriers in Canada be required to prohibit the use of seatbelt extensions in exit rows. Nope, TC would not do that. I have seen this on some US airlines.

Some people are burdened by obstacles to ease of their movement, and I have empathy for those who have no control over such a condition. However, my empathy does not extend to the expectation that an air carrier would have to go to extreme effort to accommodate them (like changing aircraft). Our society cannot afford that. People who must travel with extreme sized items have to be a team with the carrier to arrange this well in advance. Sometimes, it just cannot work by the traveler's first preference. Sometimes I can't fly direct.....

[Gannet167]

I've skimmed through your post history and it seems that you are an actual pilot, which is quite an accomplishment considering you have the reasoning skills of a 7 year old.

I am using reason, pointing out other sensibilities which members of the public have and at times have demanded everyone else must accommodate them with. This is use of reason, formulating an argument, it is not the skills of a "7 year old." Your statement that I have the skills of a 7 year old is not an argument or an attempt at reasoning through a more logical or alternate perspective using facts or principles. It is merely an attempt an an insult - which is ironic because in accusing me of having child like logic is a childish attempt at an insult. What you said is the way a 7 year old makes "arguments." I will admit the left turn reference was a hyperbole - meant to illustrate the absurdity of the situation, as I believe his demands that airlines accommodate him are.

AC did not offend this guys morality, or religion. They denied him travel because the only thing that equalized his life the rest of us who can walk, and allowed him to be an independent human being wouldn't fit.

Yeah, I get that. I read the article. My point was - where does the "RIGHT" to be accommodated on commercial air travel end? Would there ever be a limit to what we have to accommodate in providing a commercial service in a competitive, for profit marketplace? My other examples were of moral, religious, psychological issues. Some passengers with medical issues cannot have cabin pressure changes. The entire flight must be done below FL250 so the cabin pressure remains at sea level. Some religious groups don't believe that men can be seated with women. Should we have to move passengers around because a man finds it offensive to have to sit with a woman (this actually happened)? I know people who would be very offended if a woman or a pilot of a particular religious background was flying the plane - perhaps we should have an alternate all male crew on standby just in case... These are legitimate questions. If we HAVE to accommodate everyone - then where is the line drawn?

Should they incur undue hardship because of it? No.

We agree.

Define "Hardship". How many thousand dollars in extra costs or hours delay must an airline go through trying to accommodate before it becomes "undue"?

Grow the @#$! up and argue the point like an adult.

Saying "Grow the @#$! up" is hilarious, because that's a statement a child would make. I am making an argument, you are free to counter my points with your own logic, your own principles, perspective, values etc and some sort of a foundation of cognitive reasoning. Prove my points wrong or explain how to come at this from a better through process. I will gladly concede when I am shown to be thinking about something incorrectly - with a smarter, better way of understanding it.

You have not made any sort of an intelligent argument. You've only thrown out insults. You're only contribution is "should they accommodate, yes. Should it be a hardship, no." ..... Profoundly deep man. You're really getting at the heart of the matter. Based on that statement we can really get into the nitty gritty of the discussion and analyse the efficacy of the argument.