Qantas refused guide dog and stranded blind woman

[Monopole]

If QF discriminated againt the poor lady because she had a guide dog, well then that is completely disgracful and they should be investigated.

But, discrimination works both ways. If she did not meet QFs published policy on traveling with 'service animals' then why should she get priority. If disabled people want to be treated like 'normal' people, then they should be treated like 'normal' people.

More and more, these guys are crying fowl every time they do not get their own way. Fence Posts post being case in point.

Common courtisy of course should still apply. Stand up for on a bus or train, open a door for or help an old and frail, disabled or just anyone who plainly just needs a seat or helping hand.

I hope you're not saying blind people should turn up earlier?

YES. If it takes longer to check in, process and board the aircraft. Just like when my wife travels on her own with an infant and a toddler. She checks in EARLY

[p.j.m]

If you are not allowed on a flight then you can call it whatever you like but it is refusal of carriage

You are refusing to acknowledge that she did not have a valid ticket or reservation for Qantas, and just expected everyone to drop whatever they were doing, break the rules & policies of their employer and make some sort of special arrangement for her.

The rules are in place for a reason. The people on the ground have no discretion to break or bypass them. This is yet another media beatup.

She was told what the documented procedure to follow was, but apparently did not want to follow it, in fact she has no doubt been through it before, if she's ever flown Qantas.

I'm getting sick and tired of these "special" people who think the world revolves around them.

[p.j.m]

Totally agree, the resolution to the problem was in the hands of Tiger.

The lady who booked with Tiger must be aware of the risks she takes when booking with a LCC and take that into consideration.

I know I have seen so many people delayed or late due to Jetstar's seeming inablilty to organise a flight, that I would NEVER fly with them.

Tiger is in the same category. You pay peanuts, you hope that nothing goes wrong, but expect that it will.

[Mstr Caution]

I know I have seen so many people delayed or late due to Jetstar's seeming inablilty to organise a flight, that I would NEVER fly with them.

If you choose to fly with a LCC, simply plan your flight schedule to arrive 24 hours before you really need to be somewhere.

[sixtiesrelic]

Whoever was on duty at that time should have understood what an opportunity this was for a positive story about QF.Instead it's the complete opposite.

Unfortunately THAT story wouldn't make the papers or magazines unless it was a letter to the editor and the writer was known.
The media is only interested in the negative.
For example... women's magazines. Ooahh! or Ha Ha! is what most publish and don't the readers love it.

[ampclamp]

why is this thread allowed to continue?

Dear Mods,
I've seen some threads closed for much less than what is going on here.
It surely has been done to death?
She's been home for days and we're still trashing the place.

[T-21]

The guide-dog is far better behaved than airline passengers.

[boy-wonder]

Hey,let's get this straight.

If a black person tried to book a flight and the airline said "sorry, no blacks", the airline would be hauled before the courts and given a massive fine, so fast their feet would not touch the ground.

Now substitute "guide dog user" for "black". This is EXACTLY THE SAME sort of discrimination.

If Qantas told the guide dog user to "stand aside" whilst other Tiger passengers were booked in, then this is UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION.

If Qantas told the guide dog user to book by phone whilst the other Tiger passengers were processed without having to phone, then this is UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION.

The law is very clear. A person cannot be discriminated against merely because they have a guide dog. I do not know what the Qantas guide dog policy is, but it MUST comply with the law.

I lost my eyesight ten years ago and use a guide dog. I am sick and tired of the hassle at check-in and the condecending attitude that they are doing me a favour by allowing my dog on board.

I don't want "special" treatment, I just don't want to be subject to blood pressure raising arguements every time I check in.

[Dual ground]

"The law is very clear. A person cannot be discriminated against merely because they have a guide dog. I do not know what the Qantas guide dog policy is, but it MUST comply with the law.

I lost my eyesight ten years ago and use a guide dog. I am sick and tired of the hassle at check-in and the condecending attitude that they are doing me a favour by allowing my dog on board."

You're right it must, and I'm sure it does otherwise they would have been pulled up for it long ago. Who is giving you hassle at check-in then? I guess it isn't Qantas if you don't know their T's and C's of carriage.

[boy-wonder]

Dear Dual ground. No it is not Qantas, it is another domestic carrier that I won't name as I have a complaint lodged with the Human Rights Commission.

There seems to be widespread ignorance amongst ground staff that the accommodation of a guide dog is a discretionary or good will issue for the airline. It is not.

All public transport organisations are required by law to accommodate a guide dog with the owner.

They would need to have a very good reason to refuse.

[flying-spike]

It's not the first time!

Apparently a skydive mob refused this woman lessons. They said it would scare the cr@p out of her guide dog!

[RedTBar]

You're right it must, and I'm sure it does otherwise they would have been pulled up for it long ago

So dual ground QF does nothing wrong in the eyes of the law as they stand?
How do you explain the cargo price fixing debacle?
The problem boy-wonder is that dual ground must be suffering from the cold in sweden and thinks that QF can do no wrong and this was probably a set up by the media.
The reality is that if someone is not allowed on board they have been refused carriage.Plain and simple.
This could have been a perfect time for a PR coup but as usual it was a stuff up.
Any airline that is giving the new generation 787 aircraft to it's Low cost off shoot before it's loyal premium pax you begin to understand it's priorities.Jetstar have brand new aircraft while QF are using 767's that have been around for years and now Jetstar are getting the first 15 787's.
Small wonder a lot of Australians feel no loyalty to QF and are happy to fly with other carriers.

[boy-wonder]

"You're right it must, and I'm sure it does otherwise they would have been pulled up for it long ago."

Not necessarily. For example, if Qantas have the "two dogs max" policy, like other carriers, this is open to challenge. If it went to court it is possible that it would be ruled unlawful.
.

[p.j.m]

Apparently a skydive mob refused this woman lessons. They said it would scare the cr@p out of her guide dog!

Such discrimination is atrocious!

They definitely should have let her go, and given the guide dog appropriate instructions about how to pull her rip cord at the appropriate time!

[plainmaker]

'Right' to service

Not necessarily. For example, if Qantas have the "two dogs max" policy, like other carriers, this is open to challenge. If it went to court it is possible that it would be ruled unlawful.

BW you are incorrect. There is a provision in the legislation that allows for the 'capability' of the provider. Best way to describe it is by booking a 5 seat taxi. It is permitted to carry 5 pasengers, but clearly is not permitted to carry 5 disabled persons PLUS their assistance animals.

QF's 'two animal' policy is quite legal, in that they are NOT refusing to carry animals, but clearly limiting the number based on their ability to adequately cater for their duty of care responsibilities.

That extends also to being able to adequately prepare and provide for such an event. Their policy requires that sufficient notice is provided to allow them to perform the service. Hence the restriction on disabled pax rocking up to the counter and expecting a level of service inconsistent with the carriers normal service provision. Do you expect if 150 disabled pax fronted for a particular service that the carrier MUST provide them with the capability?

From my reading of the (reported) facts, QF did not refuse to carry her. They said they could not carry her at the time for the flight she requested. I suspect that the lack of delegation at the counter to book /onload is a method of ensuring that the airline has sufficient time to prepare for the event (allocation of staff, time to brief, provision and fitting of protective mat etc) and thus meet their obligation under the legislation. It would be UNLAWFUL for them NOT to provide the facility, but it is reasonable in the circumstance to require a period of notice to ensure that their obligation is met.

Do we know what the timeframe was between her fronting to the counter, and the STD? That is the most relevant issue as to whether QF met their (implied) obligation.

An area of the law I am well acquainted with - even more so now having obtained a disability in my later years. I sure as heck do not front up at -26 like I used to and still get on. Disability requires adjustment by ALL parties.

Plainmaker