British Airways and Disability Discrimination!!

Tojo_Ralph

Greta wrote: »

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?

You are not turning anything on its head, and it is a valid question, however this issue has been discussed.

Giving those with babies or toddlers the bulk head seats is not for the parents benefit, it's for the benefit of all the other travellers on the flight.

The only thing worse than sitting next to a full on sweaty lard arrrrrrse on a flight is having babies crying (no fault of the babys) .... So the staff will affix cribs to the bulkhead and the young uns sleep right through it and the other 200+ passengers get a chance to as well.

Greta wrote: »

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.

The thing is, there is disabled and there is disabled, registered or actually.

There are any number of illnbesses or afflictions that a passenger may have that would make them more deserving of extra legroom than those with any number of disabilities, so what rules would you use?

Disability trumps illness regardless of disability?

Disability trumps height regardless of disability?

Or do we leave it to airline staff to acess individuals on a case by case basis?

Tozer

Greta wrote: »

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? ;-)

.

Why do babies have bulkhead seats? Because that is where Mr Boeing and Mr Airbus decided the bassinets should be placed from a safety (as well as comfort) perspective.

Greta

Suffering from dwarfism? Suffer? Do people suffer from gayness, blackness etc. Something to think about, since the use of language has been the subject of this thread.

What is or what is not a disability is defined by s.1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, actually there's now a schedule. Note: the definition of disability for the DDA is very defined, and is not the same definition that is offered by e.g. social services, Benefits Agency, or even self definition, etc.

To answer your question: no in terms of leg room, because adjustments would not be appropriate for that disability, and thus there would be no legal basis. Same way as a wheelchair user does not have the legal right to request subtitles or braille, etc.

Note: there's some things that disabled people cannot enter a lottery for, e.g. chance to sit in the exit row. (This includes people who are not physically disabled, but have a disability in another form).

Greta

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

Disability trumps illness regardless of disability?

Disability trumps height regardless of disability?

Or do we leave it to airline staff to acess individuals on a case by case basis?

The framework is already provided, and that's called law. There's various codes of practices too, to help with this interpretation. Stuff such as Disability Transport Advisory Committee, etc.

rose28454

Tojo_Ralph wrote: »

..
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.

What do you mean by have had a stroke at some point. My BIL had a severe stroke in 2002, spent 3 months in hospital and still has therapy for his disability. He is registered disabled, receives mobility allowance and disability benefit. He is also about to get a specially adapted car so he can get around. Some people recover from a stroke and although he is better than he was at first he will not make any more progress. What right have you to make light of it. Also I spoke to BA who said that bulkhead seats are not necessarily emergency exit seats.

dmg24

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 don't think you are really on the same planet as the rest of us saffiedale.

Had you read the rest of the thread, you would find that I am disabled. I just don't think that the world owes me a favour.

Then you go on to quote yourself, and say the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by saffiedale
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:

Talking to yourself really is quite concerning ...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

dmg24

As Greta is so sure that BA have acted unlawfully, why doesn't she advise Rose's BIL to sue them ... because she knows that they would get nowhere?! :rolleyes:

Incapuppy

With all due respect Rose28454, I cannot see why on earth you feel that Tojo Ralph is 'making light' of the fact that your BIL has had a stroke. He also mentioned 'survived cancer' which is exactly what I have done and I can see that in no way is he attempting to 'make light' of my situation either.

Iirc, one of the options that your sister and BIL were offered a one-way upgrade for £200 each, that seems more than generous and I would have bitten their hands off.

Tojo_Ralph

rose28454 wrote: »

What do you mean by have had a stroke at some point.

Exactly that.

rose28454 wrote: »

My BIL had a severe stroke in 2002 ..... What right have you to make light of it.

I was not speaking about your BIL.

rose28454 wrote: »

Also I spoke to BA who said that bulkhead seats are not necessarily emergency exit seats.

That does not come as any news to me and if you reread my post you'll see that I stated that a British Airways 747-400 38-Bus has approx 270 economy seats, 10 exit row seats and 20 bulkhead non emergency exit, more legroom variety seats.

Tojo_Ralph

Greta wrote: »

Suffering from dwarfism? Suffer? Do people suffer from gayness, blackness etc.

I am amazed to see that you should suggest that the various types of dwarfism disorders are no more a disorder than a persons sexuality or skin tone??

On second thoughts, I'm not that suprised. :rolleyes:

Greta wrote: »

The framework is already provided, and that's called law. There's various codes of practices too, to help with this interpretation. Stuff such as Disability Transport Advisory Committee, etc.

Would this be it?

"The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities"