British Airways and Disability Discrimination!!

Greta

Firstly, it is unlawful for service providers to discriminate against disabled people. The argument around entitled to travel is actually a false one for the purposes of law. If a disabled person wants to use a service then that's enough. The onus then becomes on the service provider to make reasonable adjustments, within the boundaries of their own resources.

Even outside the boundaries of law, the government is committed to providing access for all disabled people under Equality 2020, to all areas of life. i.e. they have a right to travel, have a right to xxxxx. The use of the concept no entitlement goes against public policy, full citizenship and that around inclusion.

Note: transport has not always been covered by the DDA, etc.

In terms of comfort, I encountered a similar situation a few years back. My mother had severe arthritis, and was using a wheelchair by this point (she has since had a hip replacement, in fact it was scheduled the following week). I requested extra legroom in advance (where they place babies etc), so she would not be in so much pain. For the return leg of our journey, we were placed in another seat and told that the seats we wanted were reserved by people with babies. At this stage I was concerned, because I knew how much pain my mother was in (we had gone to the States due to a family obligation, not for a 'holiday'). When we got on the plane, the seats were not occupied by families with babies, but a family with teenagers! I was not happy, and immediately asked for a complaint form. We were upgraded to Premium Economy pretty soon afterwards. It wasn't something I initially expected, but under the circumstances it was pretty obvious that the airline was capable of making reasonable adjustments, but there was a distinct failure to do so and use its resources in the appropriate manner.

The fact that disabled people cannot reserve seats or rather check in advance (whereby able bodied people can) is in itself a form of indirect discrimination. You end up having to arrive earlier, that uncertainty etc ... whereas there's a form of positive discrimination happening for abled bodied people. Whilst the legroom etc might be standard, there's other benefits including being safe in the knowledge that you will sit together as a family, you actually have a seat (overbooking is common), and you have perhaps that extra hour where you can continue to do the travel thing .. and not just turn up at the airport.

In terms of the expectation of an upgrade, this is more problematic. By default, I don't think it should be there ... however, if one method does not work then this needs to be considered. In the meantime, where is the specific designated accessible seats in cattle class? I don't just mean wheelchair users here, there's other adjustments that airlines could be making.

In terms of the family not being able to sit together, i.e. to cut up food ... yes I do think this is discrimination in its own right. Did BA really do everything to solve this situation? Did it try and move other people on the plane? The fact that the family wasn't able to reserve seats together in advance (whilst others were able to do so), and where sitting together was more crucial, is enough to suggest a lesser service. Bottom line: whilst many of you here might like to sit together with your families, how many of you actually *have to*? Eating is a basic independent living function.

For the record, the Single Equalities Scheme (what was the Disability Equality Duty) actively encourages positive discrimination because it recognises that the playing field is not level to begin with. Note: this covers public functions, but the concept is there. Also note the US has its own laws in relation to disability discrimination by airlines (off the top of my head, I know its not the ADA).

If the original poster might be interested in the work of the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee, which includes air travel.
http://www.dptac.gov.uk/planes.htm

Tozer

saffiedale wrote: »

the cabin crew member said to us im not being nasty calling you a stagerer, he said people call me things cuz im gay?? not me. i dont care what you are mate, just dont call my wife that. he mention his preference. thats why i mentioned it. what i did not say is that another member of crew that also happened to be gay joined in. i did not call him a !!!!!!, faggot did i? no the idiot was saying stagerer for god sake. the bloke with the wheelchair said we say s for sierra means slow walkers. not im stagering. i dont suppose the idiot that posted that cmment is disabled:eek: ?

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying. But I really would suggest and request that you refrain from offensive postings which are not relevant to the issue being debated.

saffiedale_2

Tozer wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying. But I really would suggest and request that you refrain from offensive postings which are not relevant to the issue being debated.

sorry but it hurt like hell.. and there were people just stood there and asking why he was calling me that? sorry to upset anyone, wernt ment that way.

dmg24

Greta,

Disabled people are able to reserve seats in the same way as any other person is able to. However, no reservation is guaranteed, whether it be for a disabled or able bodied person.

If you think that disabled people should be upgraded, then should tall and overweight people also be given this option?

saffiedale,

Your comments are horrible, you have used language that is completely unsuitable and really not suitable for this forum (or anywhere else).

saffiedale_2

dmg24 wrote: »

Greta,

Disabled people are able to reserve seats in the same way as any other person is able to. However, no reservation is guaranteed, whether it be for a disabled or able bodied person.

If you think that disabled people should be upgraded, then should tall and overweight people also be given this option?

saffiedale,

Your comments are horrible, you have used language that is completely unsuitable and really not suitable for this forum (or anywhere else).

yes if people have genuine needs then of course they have the same rights. we are idifferent in our needs. and you obviously have no real respect for disabled people im ashamed to say.

saffiedale_2

saffiedale wrote: »

yes if people have genuine needs then of course they have the same rights. we are idifferent in our needs. and you obviously have no real respect for disabled people im ashamed to say.

i bet you are the one without a disabled badge and park in disabled bays??:mad:

Greta

Actually no to tall / overweight, because it doesn't come within the legal definition of disability. This goes beyond opinion, and into law. As a democracy (sure that's debatable, but its the best we have), parliament set this law and citizens including airlines have a responsibility to follow this.

(I get the policy argument, what is disability, aren't we all disabled in some way ... but this is not a policy argument. If you want tall etc people included for the purposes of disability, then people need to change the law ... otherwise go and move to Australia which has the widest disability definition going to include future disability).

Abled bodied people are able to check in online and pick their seats, 24 hours before. These seats are accessible to them, because they have been designed in this manner, or for the majority. (If we are going on the argument that there's chances of this changing, then why didn't BA actually shift someone out of their seat next to the person with a stroke to allow a family member to sit next to them?)

What happens when you cannot book an accessible seat, and have to wait for the uncertainty when you show up at the airport. Airlines do have a legal responsibility for access, its a health and safety issue too.

Whilst some people on here might not see it as such, health and safety e.g. covers temperature. No-one is actually going to die from temperatures a bit too low, one could argue its just about 'comfort' but not adhere to this and you're breaking the law or an agreed society framework (which essentially what law is).

Tojo_Ralph

..
This thread is now getting laughable but I'll keep going, so lets look at a BA 747-400 38-Bus.

The plane has approx 270 seats, of which 20 are your bulkhead, non emergency exit, more legroom variety.

Of those 20, at the very least half are going to be allocated to those with the youngest children to allow them to sleep in the crib bassinet thingies.

Now you have 10 exit row seats, so that leaves 250 passengers chasing as best, 10 seats with extra legroom. Now..... lets not forget that those chasing seats with extra legroom are likely to have their partner or family with them, so at best we have the facility to accomodate the 5 most deserving cases.

250 passengers ...... And you have to find the 5 most deserving cases?

So you have the genuinely disabled, the registered disabled, those who are simply damn tall, have had a stroke at some point, angina, arthritis, sciatica, high blood pressure, low blood pressure, survived cancer, have cancer, circulatory problems ..... You name it, there will be any number of passengers on a given flight who will tell you they deserve extra legroom.

Greta

Okay to turn this on its head, why do families with babies have a right to sit at the front for crib thing? Why can't the baby sit on their knee? They didn't pay for the crib, therefore why should they as much as expect it? Why should I as a person with no children have to contribute a few pennies of my ticket so that (a) crib things are paid for / installed on planes, and (b) such things as baby changing stuff is provided in toilets?

Positive discrimination for families - we can't have that can we? ;-)

On a serious note, if there's that number of disabled people on a plane ... then airlines have a duty to look at solutions for seating allocation. Perhaps that might include a wider seat pitch for all passengers. Sure it would bump up the cost per ticket, but so does other health and safety measures employed.

Tojo_Ralph

Greta wrote: »

Actually no to tall / overweight, because it doesn't come within the legal definition of disability. This goes beyond opinion, and into law.

So someone who is disabled and suffering from dwarfism is more deserving of extra legroom than someone who simply has very bad and painful arthritis?