Disabled win in airline ruling, companion can travel for free
 

For today's Toronto Star:

"Domestic airlines can't charge severely disabled extra fares for their caregivers or more seats

Jan 11, 2008 04:30 AM
TESS KALINOWSKI
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

In what's being called a "landmark victory" for Canadians with disabilities, domestic airlines will no longer be allowed to charge extra fares for severely disabled people who need to travel with a caregiver or require more than one seat on a plane.
The ruling, released yesterday by the Canadian Transportation Agency, also means those who are severely disabled by obesity will no longer have to squeeze into a single seat or pay more for extra space.
The decision does not extend, however, to obese people who are merely uncomfortable in an aircraft seat, said an agency spokesperson. Nor does it apply to those who want to travel with a companion for personal reasons or people who require caregiver assistance on the ground but not on the plane.
The decision is "a vindication of the rights of persons with disabilities," said David Baker, lawyer for the complainants.
The Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Joanne Neubauer of Victoria, who has severe rheumatoid arthritis, and Eric Norman, who flew from Newfoundland to Toronto for cancer treatment before his death about 18 months ago, launched the complaint in 2002.
People with disabilities say they are among the least able to afford the extra fares airlines charge them for additional seat space or their personal caregivers, who assist them during the flight with seating, feeding and using the toilet.
"Canadians can be proud and I'm proud to be Canadian when rights are fulfilled," said a jubilant Neubauer, who needs a caregiver when she flies, but seldom does so because of the cost of an extra ticket.
The number of severely disabled people is growing as the population ages and as people with disabilities are aging and no longer able to live independently, said Sandra Carpenter of the Centre for Independent Living in Toronto.
The transportation agency said only about 10 per cent of severely disabled and obese people are likely to travel by air, compared with 19 per cent of the overall population.
The airlines failed to prove that the one-person-one-fare policy would cause them undue financial hardship, according to the agency. It says the new policy, standard for years on buses, trains and ferries, will cost about 1 per cent of Air Canada's $8.2 billion annual ticket revenues and 0.16 per cent of WestJet's returns of $1.4 billion.
Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz and WestJet have a year to come up with medical criteria and implement the policy.
WestJet and Air Canada declined to comment yesterday.
It's not clear how the decision will affect the outcome of a complaint to the agency by Linda McKay-Panos, 56, of Calgary, who in 1997 suffered bruising and humiliation on a flight to Ottawa.
The lawyer maintains her obesity, caused by a hormonal condition, constitutes a disability. Her complaint was rejected by the transportation agency but a federal court ruled that the agency must reconsider. That decision was stayed until after yesterday's ruling."

Saw this on the news yesterday and rejoiced! CTV made the point that this is a service that has been offered on trains and buses in Canada for many years now.

On the negative side Air Canada's representative pointed out that this could force their ticket sellers and gate staff to become nurse diagnosticians...how fat is not fat enough to warrant an extra seat? how disabled does one have to be to require a helper that goes free?

Very interesting new turf for disabled travelers and one with huge implications for an aging population...

They only named Air Canada, Jazz and WestJet as having to comply with this - they didn't mention any charters.

Re the obese, it's going to be a problem certainly.

What will happen if you phone an agent and tell him/her that you will need an extra seat and it's going to be free ... will they have to then present themselves to the agent to show how obese they are? Measure them? Will seat belts fit?

How will a travel agent book the trip seeing as how everything is done on a computer that auto-matically adds up the cost of 2 seats.

This seems like it could apply to young children too. If a person has a 3 year old that needs to get somewhere, it is pretty clear that he/she cannot fly on a plane alone. Does that mean the parent gets a free seat as caregiver?

I would imagine they will be requiring some sort of "proof" of disability - a medical certificate, or something similar.

I see your point, eastave, but a 3 y/o does not need a flight companion because of *disability* - there is no such thing as a 3 y/o who is capable of flying alone.

"I would imagine they will be requiring some sort of "proof" of disability - a medical certificate, or something similar."

Many family doctors will give notes just for the asking, as is the current case for handicapped parking passes.

Pardon my ignorance, but are these airlines (Air Canada, Jazz and WestJet) run by the government or some other type of non-profit entity? If they are they actually private for-profit organizations, wouldn't it make more sense for the Canadian federal government to issue vouchers of some sort to the elible disabled travelers? Why must the airlines carry the financial burden of providing two seats for the price of one? If it the right thing to do for the disabled, why isn't the government stepping in?

Go ahead now, flame me and my ignorance.

If the flying is required for medical reasons, as it's stated in the ruling, it goes without saying that the government should pay for the companion ; or a voucher issued for that purpose. That would be a rare occurence since all provinces have medical facilities that don't require a sick/disabled person to fly somewhere to get treatment..

I can't see how the airlines would monitor this, there would be too many people taking advantage of this $ break.

Later on in the article, someone states that it's a victory for disabled people, as if any disabled person will be able to use this $ break; pardon me, but if you are flying to your condo in florida, no matter how disabled or obese you are, you should pay for the privilege of flying, buy your companion's ticket, etc..

"Canadians can be proud and I'm proud to be Canadian when rights are fulfilled," said a jubilant Neubauer, who needs a caregiver when she flies, but seldom does so because of the cost of an extra ticket."

Flying, for reasons other than medical necessity, is a luxury, imho; I don't see this ruling as a victory.

maybe I'm not understanding this new ruling correctly.

luv2cthings, all these airlines are for-profit corporations; they are owned and traded on the stock exchange, not owned by the government. (Air Canada used to be owned by the gov't of Canada, but is now a publicly traded company.) Assuming that we're talking about elective travel here and not someone needing to travel for medical reasons, I'm not sure why Canadian taxpayers should be footing the bill for travel costs for caregivers. And contrary to what someone else wrote, travelling for medical care IS necessary in Canada and usually the bill is NOT paid by the government (you can get a tax credit if the expenses exceed 3% of your income or something like $1600 - but the patient is basically on the hook for the first ~$1600). I have to drive four hours one way to get anything other than basic care, including seeing any kind of specialist (I also have to drive four hours to the nearest airport to catch a flight) - when I had cancer treatment and then follow-up checkups every three months for several years, we were out a few thousand dollars and there was no help from the government - and also no assistance for my husband's lost income for having to take time off work to look after our young children while I was away for medical care (the notion of a "sick day" does not exist in his industry - if you're not at work, you don't get paid.) There are also lots of towns and even small cities in northern BC where people have to fly out to bigger cities for cancer treatment, surgery etc. I'm sure that's quite a common scenario in the north of any province, as well as "up north". Travel costs are only part of it, there's also accommodation and food to consider. But I digress...

I have to admit this ruling troubles me. Equal rights for the disabled is a no-brainer, and the ruling makes sense to me in covering those who cannot travel without care en route. But less logical to me is the part about free seats for those who are obese but not disabled. The next thing I would expect to hear would be from those who are very tall... what about their rights to fly without having their knees jammed into the seat in front of them? Some people will argue that the very obese (or some of them anyway) cannot control their weight, but there's certainly NO debate as to someone who is very tall, and whether or not they have any control over their "condition"!

It will be interesting to see what "criteria" the airlines come up with for selecting which obese passengers qualify for a free seat. Maybe they should just put a few seats on each flight that are wider than the rest to accommodate those people, if it happens often enough to warrant doing so.

If the Canadian Transportation Agency feels that selected caregivers should fly for free then I think that the Canadian Transportation Agency should pay the airlines for the seat. Why should entities that exist only to make profit for their shareholders be on the hook for this charity? If it is a worthwhile social good then we all should pay through our taxes.

This may be a controversial viewpoint, but I don't think the vast majority of obese people should be considered disabled. Yes, there are health risks/complications from being obese, but it is common knowledge that most obese/overweight people are that way because of personal lifestyle choices and as such it's not a disability. It's within their ability to change their lifestyle and to lose the weight. I am not saying that it is easy. And although I am not obese, I am overweight and know that it is because of the choices I have made in life and whether or not I stay this weight is also within my control. Obesity is not a disease and is not a disability like paralysis or amputation etc.

Agree with you ShelliD.

The woman named in the news article is overweight because of a hormonal condition.