Stranger

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...n-discrim.html

Safety vs. discrimination?

Not too sure about this one.

ogmios

It doesn't seem to be discrimination to me, although I am unsure what the difference in mobility would be between this injured person and someone who is extremely obese or very old with arthritis.

negotiator

This is not discrimination based on 'Handicap' as the complainant alledges!

The rule that AC has put forward justifying the exclusion of 'persons' that cannot bend their knees at 45 degrees is completly justifiable for safety considerations. The fact is that you have to be able to get up and move if the aircraft faced an emergency situation. If there is any doubt about the legitimate requirement that PAX must be able to move in an emergency situation just refer back to the Air France crash in YYZ last year. Those PAX needed to move quickly and, indeed, they did.

This potential litigation is a waste of time and resources for all concerned. Again, there is a 'legitimate' and bona fida reason behind the exclusion of the person and that is permissible under the Canada Human Rights Code.

Clipper801

Another good example why to buy travel insurance.

Assuming she sustained her accidental injuries during the trip, the insurance company would have to arrange to bring her home, in a medical private jet if necessary.

sadiqhassan

wouldn't that be fun

Wally Bird

But where is this 'new rule' documented ? Not at http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelin...cialneeds.html
that I can see. And why was it not a problem for CanJet or Air Labrador ? IMWTK.

negotiator

I don't know why it's not a problem for Canjet or Air Labrador? I wouls say however that if those two carriers ever experienced an emergency wherein the aircraft has to evacuate, and PAX couldn't exist because of the immobility of one of the other PAX, they would face one very serious law suit.

As for AC not posting the rule, the rule could be implied in the following statement which is, in fact, AC policy and, indeed, if it could not be implied, I would argue that it's 'just common sense' and, therefore, no written rule or reference is required!

Stretcher service


From AC policy:

In view of the limited demand for stretcher services, as of August 1, 2005, Air Canada will no longer accept stretcher bookings. Requests for this special service will be referred to government approved air ambulance operators.

ac/elite

So maybe on that basis they should ban people in wheelchairs too.

negotiator

No. Because if you're in a wheelchair you can bend your knees at 45 degrees.

greywolf

I realize you're being facetious, but I've been in a wheelchair before with a leg that had to be extended out straight

ac/elite

MapleLeaf

But no miles

negotiator

In that case they let you fly, but only half way!

tracon

Most Air Ambulance flights are in Lear 35's. These aircraft though safe are older than the 767s. A route across the ocean would look something like this:
STN-KEF-YFB-YVR. There would be some 4+ hour segments with no washroom...except that special tube they keep for patients who can't wait.
The cabin is small and you can't stand straight up....not an issue if you're a stretcher patient.

robsawatsky

There are many people permitted on aircraft now with a variety of disabilities that preclude or restrict their ability to get up and move around the aircraft on their own. So, your argument isn't going to hold up as primae facie evidence in any hearing on this matter. This specific rule will have to be tested as a unique safety concern and given previous CTA rulings it will be examined seriously.