The point here is that most airlines allow wheelchair bound pax to use their own wheelchair to at least the gate
From the JQ policy shown on their own website, it would appear that JQ (at the time) did NOT fall under this category of 'most airlines'
I'm not saying JQ's policy was correct, but at the time Mr Fearney travelled the policy said 'at check-in'- so why complain that JQ were not following policy? I don't understand- I know several people in wheelchairs and they have said to me they prefer to transfer at check-in rather than be 'on the spot' at the gate in front of everyone else. I know each case is different but it seems to me that this man could have brought up his issues with the policy in a better way. Instead, they've taken the 'cheap shot' by targeting Jetstar for something that isn't their fault- his choice.
Sure you say they should be accommodating- they were. They offered an alternative, he chose not to use it. At the end of the day JQ are still a business and given that people want to fly on cheap fares, there are shorter turnarounds which mean less time to do things like take pax chairs at the gate. Maybe that's the reason for the policy of taking chairs at check-in?
We have a free choice when we travel and it's up to us to choose the best carrier to meet our needs. I hate being cramped up in a tiny seat and like some decent service so I pay more to fly Qantas or Singapore rather than use Tiger or Air Asia. That's my choice. If I flew Air Asia and got what was in the T&C's, I'd have no fallback to complain, even if it didn't meet 'my' standards.
Maybe the JQ policy should be changed, end of the story is they had nothing to apologise for if they followed their policy which was IN PLACE AT THE TIME and NOTED ON THE T&C's. Mr Fearnley admits the staff were fine, the resulting 'humiliation' was created by his own actions. I understand that wchr pax are dependent on their chairs... but we all are humans and we all need to accept help from others at some point in our lives. I think an apology should have gone both ways. Mr Fearnley could have raised his issues in a more civilised manner and I'm sure would have gained far more respect & attention for his cause for it.