Jetstar bans wheelchair-bound pair from flight

[casanovawa]

I think that kids at least have reasonable motor skills (you ever tried to chase them??? ) in terms of if they aren't injured and given decent lead or instructions then can physically move themselves or be carried by an adult, i think a mobility impaired adult male of 80 kgs would take probably two adults to shift... So from that aspect, short of landing in water where young kids may not be able to swim, i think their mobility would probably still make them more survivable...

Either way i don't think having 6 unaccustomed minors is a good reason to go lax on the amount of disabled people without carers... In fact i think a good case could be made for reviewing the amount of unaccompanied minors as well to only a couple per flight... Improve both rather than saying one bad example excuses another...

But as I said, I'll ask an expert's advice if there is any disspensation in such cases although I can't imagine what it would be?

 

[thewinchester]

Sorry, I'm with JQ on this one fair and square.

Firstly, I can say the following as someone who has worked with disabled people and actively been involved in helping them to re-enter the workforce. These two pax should have made themselves aware of the carriers policy, and followed up on any concerns or questions beforehand.

Passengers ignorant to an airline's policy aren't their problem

I will grant that the online policy regarding the carer requirment could be considered by some as ambigious in terms of how many people are required per disabled/mobility impared passenger - they (the pax) should have contacted the airline to clarify this. The fact they didn't do this shows they were ignorant to their own personal responsibility.

Further, as I understand it from the information available - both pax failed to notify the carrier that they would be considered special needs passengers. The need for them to do this is clearly identified in the online booking processes, and you have to tick a box saying that you've read and understood additional requirments for pax fitting this criteria.

This would have provided the airline with a further opportunity to educate them and ensure they were prepared and ready to fly.

Airline has executed their duty of care to inform

Having said that, the content is logically written from the context of address a single passenger, unless explicitly stated otherwise (such as family or group bookings). I read this page the other day out of personality curiosity, and I reasonably understood it as saying that one helper is required per disabled/mobility impaired pax.

Now, while Jetstar has prior form in this area - the fact is most of the time these issues crop up because pax failed to follow the published rules and requirments, and expect the airline to fix it for them because they are disabled.

And not withstanding, they have done everything both reasonable and practicable to help passengers with such issues ensure they can effectivly use their services within the provided rules. If they were ignorant to this information, it's simply not the airlines problem.

Let's get legal

And let's not forget, JQ is an LCC. They're not a full service carrier, and the disibility laws on both sides of the tasman provide for lawful discrimination in respect of the documented circumstances (in Australia, Disability Discrimination Act (Cwlth) 1992, Part 1 Sec 11 (Unjustifiable hardship), and Part 2 Division 5 Section 47 (Acts done under statutory authority, as in acts done under and in accordance with the Civil Aviation Act (Cwlth) 1998 and rules published in accordance with and under authority of same).

But do cross-jurisdictional issues come into play

Now, I'm not as across as NZ Discrimination law as I might wish to be. As we all know from the previous thread where the availbility of water on board was discussed, the legal system in of the carrier's home jurisdiction applies. This is per civil aviation treaties regardless of the physical location of the event giving rise to legal matters.

For the purpose of the next paragraph, I'll assume that this is a Jetconnect NZ operated flight, on a aircraft registered in New Zealand, owned or leasted by an NZ company, operating under an NZ AOC.

In reality the issue would be dealt with under NZ Law. However, if the issue did make it to court, Qantas (based in Australia) as the parent company of Jetconnect and Jetstar could mount an argument for invalid jurisdiction based on where the parent company is domiciled. That would be a hard argument to make if my assumptions of circumstance is correct, but the closer the craft and carrier is tied to Australia the easier an invalid jurisdiction defence would be to make.

But let's leave that one alone, as we all know the issues ALPA and ors have at the moment with the NZ-based operations of Qantas, specially in light of this mornings priority landing at SYD due to a failure within the fuel systems.

In summary

I'm all for helping those with disabilities lead a normal, productive and healthy life - but they have to work within the system to do that. If information is published to help you use systems and services for people with your needs - it is entirely your responsibility to read, understand and cooperate with these.

If only Jetstar had the balls to stand up and say this in public with a straight face, it would have not only won them serious respect from people with a brain, but put the ball back into the pax court, as they would have no media defence because - in essence, they stuffed up.

 

[medhead]

Sorry, I'm with JQ on this one fair and square.

Firstly, I can say the following as someone who has worked with disabled people and actively been involved in helping them to re-enter the workforce. These two pax should have made themselves aware of the carriers policy, and followed up on any concerns or questions beforehand.

Passengers ignorant to an airline's policy aren't their problem

I will grant that the online policy regarding the carer requirment could be considered by some as ambigious in terms of how many people are required per disabled/mobility impared passenger - they (the pax) should have contacted the airline to clarify this. The fact they didn't do this shows they were ignorant to their own personal responsibility.

Further, as I understand it from the information available - both pax failed to notify the carrier that they would be considered special needs passengers. The need for them to do this is clearly identified in the online booking processes, and you have to tick a box saying that you've read and understood additional requirments for pax fitting this criteria.

This would have provided the airline with a further opportunity to educate them and ensure they were prepared and ready to fly.

I think you're making a lot of assumption. Based on the news paper stories I read I would dare jump to the conclusions you've made here. They were ignorant of the policy, and yet they had a suitable person with them? They failed to notify - which source supports that conclusion?

As for the Jetstar requirements for the accompanying person they are:

*Accompanying Passenger means a paying passenger who, in our reasonable opinion, is an independent traveller and is able to and will provide the appropriate assistance, supervision, or both, as is required for the particular passenger they are accompanying including assisting with all of the following if required by the passenger:

• toilet and sanitary requirements both on the aircraft and on the ground;
• in-flight and ground emergencies;
• carriage of carry on baggage and /or equipment;
• medicating and medical procedures;
• food and beverage consumption;
• administrative procedures such as the completion of immigration documentation;
• boarding and disembarkation including assisting in transfers to and from
• mobility devices and seating where necessary; and
• the assembly and disassembly of wheelchairs, (if applicable).

What does anyone reading this story in the newspaper know about the capabilities of these 2 people that we can decide they need assistance with any or all of these points?

Note, I totally agree that the pilot has every right to decide as they did. I just don't like people who jump to conclusions on the basis of their own assumptions and biases, rather than cold hard facts.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I find J*'s position on this a bit hypocritical to say the least.

With underage flyers ie: unacompanied children I have seen 1 J* FA travelling with 6 kids all under the age 10.

It would seem to me there is not that much difference between the needs or safety issues of handicapped passengers or unacompanied kids.

Yet they seem fine to have multiple kids allowed with one (carer/FA) yet a totally different set of rules for the disabled.

In an emergency l would be happy to be seated next to one or two clear headed disabled adult pax rather than a bunch of panic ridden unaccompanied kids.

But then again maybe l am missing the point.

AFAIK JQ still do not allow unaccompanied minors to travel with them. To travel by yourself on JQ you have to provide photo ID stating that you are attending high school which would mean 12 and above in most cases.

I don't believe Tiger allow UM's either so could it have been on QF or DJ you saw a flight attendant with several UM's under 10? If it was QF or DJ that comparison is not really applicable in this instance comparing them or WCHR pax travelling on JQ.