tcook052

http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto...r-canada-.html

Toronto lawyer demands more in-flight movies for deaf people; Joe Sussman has been pushing Air Canada to improve closed captioning on in-flight movies for more than four years.

Forget about flying first class — Joe Sussman still feels like a second-class citizen on airplanes.

The Toronto lawyer, who was born deaf, has been demanding Air Canada improve closed captioning on in-flight movies for more than four years.

“It’s insulting,” he said. “People with disabilities are being deprived of a service that should be given to everyone equally.”

canadiancow

I'm going to say this to provoke some actual discussion (hopefully from both sides). I'm also hoping I don't get flamed for it (I'm not expressing my beliefs, just an example that would apply to me).

SOME of the movies are captioned (according to the article, eight - also possibly worth noting is that this on rouge, not mainline). One of the soft drinks (Coke) is offered in a diet (sugar free) variety. The others are not.

Does my disability entitle me to Diet Sprite, because the Diet Coke isn't good enough for me?

Or have they met their legal/moral obligation by offering something that works.

Adam Smith

An interesting question. What exactly are AC's legal obligations in providing access to entertainment? Are there any? Most stuff is in English and French, but not all. And I don't think AC offers described video or anything else for the blind, do they?

Paging flyquiet, who I'm sure will have an insightful take

eigenvector

Without addressing the legal issue because I'm simply not qualified to do so, I'd say there is a practical difference between these two cases.

There is a physical limit on the weight and volume of beverages that can be carried on board. So having one sugar-free option rather than many might be argued to be a reasonable compromise between accommodating the needs of diabetic pax and carrying a lot of beverages that there isn't much demand for.

But nearly every movie on IFE does have closed captioning available, AC has simply elected not to purchase it. There isn't an operational reason why it wouldn't be possible to have that function, just a financial one.

CZAMFlyer

Peeking through the door that the Cow opened, it's a very bleak prospect for any airline to accommodate the full range of afflictions found amongst its customers. I assume Cow was referring to diabetes as a disability, and under a legal definition it is in many places. But practically speaking: is it? If well-managed, there are no limits to normal function, unlike hearing, vision or mobility disabilities which can't be managed into submission. Re: drinks, they have met any moral obligations by merely providing water.

Back to the OP's topic, it should be an easy solution to provide more closed-captioning content on flights. I'm unfamiliar with the industry, but cc exists on most if not all TV channels and DVDs etc. AC's claim in the article seems to ring a bit hollow. For deaf passengers, cc is also available on streaming providers (Netflix etc) which now enable users to download movies for offline use. I do feel the complainant's assertion that he feels like a "second-class citizen", particularly after acknowledging he hadn't tried all the available programs on the app, is a bit overstated.

Shareholder

I think this is more a technical issue than one having to do with the films themselves not being captioned. As a filmmaker, when we deliver something to a network or distributor, we're now required to have it both closed captioned (for the hearing impaired) as well as with an audio track for descriptive video (for the visually impaired). However, both are provided in a closed fashion so not sure how AC would "fix" its video system to open the captioning for just those who need it, versus imposing it on everyone who views the film. Same with an additional audio track for descriptive video. This might be possible when AC moves to a video streaming system that would allow opening the closed captions or descriptive audio on a tablet or laptop.

Shareholder

Not quite. As I've explained, there is no device on AC's system that would open the captioning for those who want it, keep it hidden for the rest of us.

ridefar

I am actually somewhat sympathetic I wonder why he doesn't bring his own iPad and movies? That may not work financially for everyone but should for him. And he doesn't seem (based on the article) super interested in solving the problem for others.

As with others I would love to hear flyquiet's thoughts.

I am am not sure I even know someone with mild deafness and have no idea what a standard approach might be or if one exists.

tcook052

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-c...ually+impaired

kwflyer

https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/...ial-meals.html

You have other reasonbale options. AC's IFE on the other hand is lacking in this regard. Especially in cases where one is better off watching closed captioning with the cheap headsets they now provide, during controllable delays.

Transpacificflyer

Many of the films are already subtitled. I know because I use them for my asian films. What more does this fellow want? A larger inventory? Well, join the club because his complaint touches upon the ghastly inventory of films AC offers. My flights on CX and BR offer so many more films with subtitles than AC, but that's also because of he number of Asian films. The problem that then arises is that the subtitles are not very clear because of the small font used. I often have a hard time reading them. what's the point in having subtitles if you can't read them?

I don't believe that a large number of profoundly deaf people fly. Hearing impaired, yes. Deaf, no. In all my years of flying, I have yet to see one blind, or deaf or truly disabled person onboard my flights. Honest. Yes, there have been a lot of old people in wheelchairs, but no one who I would consider physically disabled. This may be because the blind or deaf people are so well integrated into society that they don't stand out. I would expect that they bring their own entertainment options that meet their needs.

The notion of forcing an airline to offer a blanket solution, to assume a massive cost burden to serve a non essential need for a small number of clients is unfair and unreasonable. Why not carve out the special needs demographic? Technology has advanced such that the requirements of these people can be met. Why not ensure that some seats are equipped with appropriate technology that addresses the needs of the majority of hearing impaired customers? For example, there are headphones for the hearing impaired that amplify sound from a TV. In any case, shouldn't an airline deal with basic service issues first? Wouldn't it be nice if AC could provide gate connection info on the screens? Or a notice of a delay, or conditions at the arrival airport? Wouldn't it be nice if all pax had the option of communicating with the FAs via the screens. E.g. requesting a drink or food. AF/KLM offer all of the aforementioned. It makes life easier for the deaf as well as the non deaf.
This chap has his priorities backwards. Key services first, then the entertainment.

flyquiet

It's late and I haven't yet read all the other posts, but I agree with the initial complaint: I flew >75,000 miles last year and had nothing to watch.

Mostly what is captioned is franco-cinema and some of the films are, like, 7 minutes long. I also don't "get" franco-cinema. It's too arch or cryptic for me. TV, not captioned. Hollywood films not captioned*. Nothing on rouge iPads, as best I recall from the last time I bothered checking. There's that deaf waves show that is captioned, but it's in international sign language/gestuno so it doesn't need captions. (It's also horrible, and I feel bad for saying that and am so glad I'm anonymous here in case any of them read my "review" and disown me.) If there are flights that show English captions on Asian movies, great, but that doesn't cover most of my flights.
* some Hollywood films are indicated as captioned on those long-haul aircraft with the fancy schmancy entertainment system, but some of the media listed as captioned is not. Either techno fail or mis-tagging of the content.

Open captions are allegedly a "nuisance" to non-deaf audience, notwithstanding that people around the world watch media with subtitles all the time without complaint. North American hearing people are such special snowflakes if their very tolerance for entertainment is shattered by the appearance of letters on the screen.

If captions are closed, they must be decoded at the receiver. TVs have this; onboard TVs may not, if the customer (airline) has not demanded this functionality. There still is a method to display captions only to individuals who want them even without decoder: Simply duplicate the channels and show one without captions and the other with open captions. This was an interim approach used by, e.g., hoteliers, before they could get their TVs all converted. They brought the TV feed in, split it up into a second band of channels, and turned the captions on the upper tier. Where there is a will, there is a way.

In my opinion, the lack of captions is largely due to one thing: lack of initiative to pay the license fee for the captions. The media has been captioned, i.e., the spoken content has been transcribed. Sometimes it requires reformatting due to the changes of time codes when syndicating the material or repackaging for airline, but often it's just a licence issue. Due to the way captioning of video is organized, a third party performs the captions and holds the licence, and the production company cannot just give the captions to the customer that purchases the rights to the programs themselves. Is it stupid? Yes, it is stupid. However, that is the way the captions have been organized. The cost to caption the program would be higher if it included the rights to resell to secondary customers. It's basically the same as an entertainment royalty deals.

Sure, only about one percent of the population is deaf as in more or less no meaningful residual hearing, but FOUR percent of the population has a hearing loss significant enough to interfere with full comprehension with the headphones. If that isn't enough of a population to make it meaningful, I guess I'd ask why you all get your 5% and 10% codes each time your little TV set doesn't work, while AC's TV inherently and by design never "works" for me, and nobody shaves 5 to 10% off my fare, not even sometimes.

I know there is no on-board entertainment, but no, I do not bring my own. Netflix has its own lawsuit from deaf people for not providing captioned media. Apple downloads can be lacking captions. You don't find out something is missing captions until the app store has your $20. It is not habit forming. I used to be keen to watch media - when captions became available, I had such hope. I am now so thoroughly embittered by it that my resentment of the inaccessibility is itself a barrier. Every time I decide to give it another chance, and this happens, I become even more bitter, resentful, and infuriated. It's not healthy.

As with any time that I try to give AC simple suggestions to make themselves more accessible and accommodating in return for all my money, the airline's defence is not that the captions are not needed nor that there is no audience. It's simply that they are not obligated. The lack of specific obligations in law empowers them to simply stare down deaf passengers one by one, daring them to choose between feeding their kids or paying a lawyer to make a human rights complaint. They don't care, and I can't make them. More power to the complainant for being that guy.

Doc Savage

Funny. Some of the flights I take on Fri/Sun have a large contingent of both deaf and blind students flying home for the weekend and back to school late Sunday. They all know exactly how to get around and the crews know exactly how to escort them. With the deaf kids, you'd really never guess if the crew weren't dealing with their extra paperwork, handing it to them, etc.

Cheers,

Doc

WoodlandCreature

One doesn't need to be profoundly deaf to appreciate closed captioning. I have ordinary age-related hearing loss, and I always use closed captions at home to help my understanding (especially so that I can keep the volume at a level tolerable to the other members of the household). I need the closed captions even more when in the noisy environment of an aircraft — even with the business-class noise-reduction headsets, let alone ordinary earbuds in other classes.

WoodlandCreature

In every survey I have had from AC about IFE I have pounded on them about the lack of closed captions. Clearly, they don't care. If it takes a lawsuit to get their attention, then let's have a lawsuit.