Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

(EC) 1107/2006 - New rights for disabled and less mobile passengers in EU wef 27 July

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

(EC) 1107/2006 - New rights for disabled and less mobile passengers in EU wef 27 July

Old 7th Aug 2008, 18:46
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
(EC) 1107/2006 - New rights for disabled and less mobile passengers in EU wef 27 July

This looks to be quite an onerous change to the likes of the quick turnaround brigades - has anyone noticed a difference? I flew on 2nd August but a disabled passenger was not embarked first but last - being man-handled up the built in stairs of a 737NG to Row 2 without too much care for dignity.

European Commission air transport video
slip and turn is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2008, 12:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow, nearly 20% of Europeans have a disability (sorry, no mamby pamby PC terminology in my vocab). So assistance must be provided which is exactly what used to happen in the good old days when FR was still a full service and Stelios was in high school.

My pensioner mother could be in that 20% due to a spinal injury and reduced mobility, but instead she grits her teeth and gets on with being a normal member of society.

My fear with legislation like this is that it is open to exploitation by those elements who take the proverbial p***. My mother can walk and would walk within an airport, but many others could milk the system in order to make a point or build themselves an ego they really are not entitled to. When said individuals have paid only 5 euros for their flight, they really are taking the proverbial out of the system.

I find it quite incredulous (sp) that there is not a clause of providing assistnace relevant to an individual's disability or specific need. A deaf person needs only to be pointed in the direction of the departure monitors while someone with a genuine mobility restriction may need anything from knowing where the lifts are through to full wheelchair assistance. In my mind these regulations are simply an open invite for LCC PAX to cause mayhem and errode the service provided to those who genuinely need it.
Romeo India Xray is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2008, 23:02
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well well well. This thread got well and truly buried, did it not?

I guess the unsaid MO'L view of transporting the elderly and not so mobile is the way the industry wants to leave it, then?

My Dad drives but he can barely walk thesedays. He is still too independent to bother with a disabled badge for his car.

I'd very much like to tempt him on a LCC flight or two, but in the absence of any industry intention to embrace the new regulation, I must keep my mouth shut for fear of risking serious incovenience and embarassment to my father for daring to believe the country might be ready to provide him with this right of freedom, and to myself in making a no fuss service happen to the letter of the law.

Oh well, another time, another generation perhaps ...
slip and turn is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2008, 06:49
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by slip and turn
Well well well. This thread got well and truly buried, did it not?
That's because it quickly turned into the inevitable rant about "namby pambys" and political correctness, which is of little or no interest to those of us who wish to read (and occasionally engage in debate) about airline matters.

Why would you want to tempt your disabled father onto an LCC flight? What's he done to deserve that? If you want to treat him then take him somewhere on a proper airline. It will probably not cost any more and he will be treated with respect.
Michael SWS is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2008, 10:23
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
S&T there will always be the case where a 'passenger of reduced mobility' is boarded last otherwise there will be no chance of any aircraft departing on time purely due to the co-ordination of getting a wheelchair passenger through the terminal and to the gate at the relevant time.
Lifting passengers onto the aircraft may not be aesthetically pleasing to watch but, again, it may be a necessity due to the unavailability of an ambulift vehicle or in fact the incompatibility of an aircraft with a particular type of aircraft.
IMHO, tact and respect go a long way in these situations whereas the blind application of directives will surely cause an unworkable logjam. As for some people taking the p!&& out of the rules, it is amazing how some people jauntily climb the aircraft steps returning from holiday only to suddenly require a wheelchair just before top of descent!
Torque2 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2008, 14:35
  #6 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
S&T, thank you for posting that. Watched it to see if there were any changes to procedure that I should know about, but the video shows exactly what my airline does.
When all goes well that is.
Thanks to passengers wanting ever lower fares (your Dad on a LoCo, very ill advised IMO) even proper airlines these days farm out as many services as they can get away with.
To the lowest bidder of course, otherwise how will they match the LoCos' fares? These lowest bidders claim they will provide the same service for less money, which is of course a bland faced lie. Always!

So while the chances of PRMs being treated properly are better with a normal airline than with a LoCo, it is still, regrettably, a game of chance.
Kudos to the EU for trying to regulate BTW, PRMs should be able to travel like everybody else and be treated with dignity. If that means we all pay a bit more for our tickets, I don't mind.


and yes, regretably I daily see the same as Torque2; abuse of the system by able-bodied blatant egoists to the detriment of those genuinely in need of assistance....
Juud is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2008, 19:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why should PRM's be treated with dignity? The able bodied aren't.

I recall having to stand in a chock full transit bus in a baking hot day for nearly fifteen minutes while a grossly fat woman was loaded using an electric scissors type goods lift.

The banter started out quite funny but pretty soon reached extreme hostility.

But why the hell was it organized like that? Stupidity? Thoughtlessness? Rules? We could have loaded at the rear while she faffed around at the front surely.

The magic of air travel eh?
Flapping_Madly is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2008, 21:46
  #8 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well it's all very well giving these 'rights', and showing a semi-mobile example of someone who can move themselves a limited amount, but this charter effectively allows a seriously disabled person to demand special treatment. What if they are a stretcher case? Even an iron lung case! Who is to take a seriously disabled person to the toilets? How is a seriously obese person to the extent of disability going to fit themselves in their seat, and not take their neighbours? Who is going to take them to the toilet, and how will they be moved up the aisle on boarding when they won't fit? It's all very well saying equipment will be provided at no cost, but equipment is provided by the airport authorities who charge the airline, so who will pay......the other passengers. So on turnarounds, as well as disembarking, cleaning and re-catering, all this loading of people with their new rights takes precedence? So schedules get shot to hell. The expense will fall on the general public. It's given disabled people the rights without also specifying that they have a responsibility not to be an obstruction to the smooth flow of normal life. I'm sorry if that sounds hard hearted, but imagine 3 or 4 people exercising their new rights- just loading each flight and unloading the previous load will take a significant time and seriously impede turnarounds.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2008, 22:05
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are occasions when at booking/boarding an exception may be made to deny a PRM boarding. The examples you give Rainboe are exactly in that category.
Reading the legislation, the airline/carrier are quite within their rights to require a carer to accompany the PRM, this would then address the situations you highlight.
Of course delays may be incurred if each situation is not managed carefully, most however are just the run of the mill evryday cases that we deal with most days.
Torque2 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2008, 16:49
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Still on earth
Age: 79
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As someone who has limited walking abilities and has to use a stick as an aid, I wish to say that the majority of us take our disability in our stride. We do not ask for special service/facilities unless there are exceptional cercumstances involved. My last request was to ask a nearby cabin crew whilst I was at the top of the airstairs and there was a step up into the cabin but NO hand grip to maintain balance. There was no hesitation by the cabin crew and as soon as I was on the aircraft I thanked her and proceded to my seat unaccompaned, albiet a little slow.
My problem is when well meaning people attempt to help on my behalf and as a result cause disruption to others.
I am aware that I have become disabled ("crippled" in non pc language when I was much younger) but I do not ask for special treatment unless I have to.
My disability was not caused by lifestyle but through genuine illness but even I get upset when people who have a lifestyle problem (obesity??) demand special attention from fellow passengers and cabin crew and then procede to order as much drinks or food as they can consume so making their problem even worse. The people who annoy me most are those who demand a window seat on a long haul flight "forgetting" they have a weak bladder and then order many drinks so that during the sleep period they keep pushing their way past their fellow passengers who have a stronger bladder and require their sleep. I may be an invalid but my bladder will last almost all the way from Frankfurt to Singapore with only a brief visit to relieve myself just before landing.


rtb
Return to base is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 12:28
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks everyone for engaging in the second attempt at getting this thread off the ground

Despite the locos having been astoundingly successful in creating a whole new breed of travellers thirsty for a taste of hundreds of new destinations, there are a huge number of the population who have not been mobilised in the same way. I think a large part of that deprived group overlaps with the group which is our senior citizens.

We all know seniors who are bright as buttons and who have engaged with the opportunities as much as the rest of us, but I don't believe they typify their age group who are mostly stay-near-home-conveniences types, people who avoid commercial conflict which theseday passes as common business practice, and people who are justly worriers about whether it will all work smoothly for them or whether they will be bustled like cattle or left endlessly in corridors (to name but a few reasons that come to mind).

Actually no-one should be bustled or herded like cattle, not even cattle. When his legs were a little more supple my father was occasionally known to advise cattlemarket operatives on the very subject. They generally weren't too happy to hear it either. He knows how to be kind to animals even when they are for the chop, you see.

Senior citizens deserve better than to be told that if they don't like the sound of a particular business they should avoid it.

The main locos are now monopoly businesses, you can argue against it, but you'd be splitting hairs now. Airports are designed around them, not the others.

To change it to something more comfortable to the seniors then yes, the general public would have to fund it. That's what responsible European democracies do, and will do more and more as people realise who is voting. Those that don't understand that will then find themselves with a choice, i.e. pay the extra to share the cabin with lots of smiling seniors and to wait a bit longer whilst they enjoy a stroll to their seats or adjust their corsets in the aisle in front of you before sitting down, or choose some airline (if there still is one) that isn't supported by the seniors.

I am very annoyed with airports like BAA because their managers are obviously unthinkers with no thought of questionning whether bounding up a stationary escalator is a reasonable expectation (nay, its a common occurrence) nor whether being on the lookout for sellotaped photocopy in a corner somewhere out in a satellite warning "There are no toilets in the main terminal baggage reclaim due to improvement work." is reasonable either

I am very annoyed that on the one hand loco ground handlers and/or cabin crew manning gates will wander the queues and "check" passports like they were seeking advance orders from people at the back of long McDonalds queues, but do not seem to have the gumption to spot seniors wobbly on their feet who should be offered a seat and discretionary priority. Not their job, don't consider themselves morally responsible either apparently. Same applies to say single Mum's with their hands full with two or three young kids. And again, same applies when they block off six rows for weight and balance but don't ever tell the mother with infant on her knees crammed in a single aisle seat in row 8 that she is welcome to move forward and spread out a bit after the seat belt sign goes out. It's all a bit of a bad show. Well I think so.

The current message to these unfortunates, much as Flapping_Madly describes, is tough sh*t/or I'm all right Jack/or maybe "You had your chance when you were young, now its our turn." That I'm alright Jack tag even goes for the chap above who is an invalid but doesn't appreciate the weak bladdered types! (No offence meant, but its interesting how we all compare ourselves to others, isn't it?). Torque2 recalls someone who requested a wheelchair off despite not having a wheelchair on. Were they a hooligan who had been fueled by six double BullsEye-Baggies and wanted a photo of themselves in a wheelchair to show their mates, or were they perhaps a genuine flagging traveller? Started off well perhaps, but found it all a bit much and spoke to someone in the next seat who offered that a wheelchair request might be a good idea?

I truly believe things will change just like all businesses have finally been effected by the need to provide good wheelchair access and good disabled toilets and good seats at the venue. Hopefully it will all change a bit faster this time. Afterall, this law is explicit enough and it provides rights to a significant minority group who may even be a majority group within twenty years.

Now then, who amongst you dare to continue to break this law? Maybe those that do should expect to receive a letter in the post with an invitation to cough up hundreds or thousands on the spot, much like serial pirate downloaders now do anytime now. Or do we think (EC) 1107/2006 might be a teenzy bit more serious than that?
slip and turn is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 18:52
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
S&T the people I referred to who asked for wheelchairs were eventually seen pushing the same wheelchair themselves with all their attendant junk on board or were setting themselves up to be received by family and friends who had no idea how well they managed to look fter thmselves before their return.
You seem to give the impression that we who deliver these people every day to their destinations and return have absolutely no idea who genuinely neads assistance, who desrves assistance and who else are just swinging the lead.

There is such an ideal as customer service, there is also still he outmoded case of actually caring.

I think you ought to give credence sometimes to the staff who deal with the public and not be so quick to assume your assumption is always correct.

Nuff said.
Torque2 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 19:47
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry Torque2 that is not my experience. Too many cabin crew frightened to approach someone already tottering on the steps is my experience. Something to do with lawyers and who might be liable when they fall.

And why do I find one key escalator or another not working in my path almost every time I use Stansted thesedays? Who cares about that?
slip and turn is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2008, 09:52
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,630
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
If the aviation world thinks the disability regulations cause some increase in costs, you should look at other means of transport.

The railways have found the cost of trains has been doubled, just by the disability provisions. Wider doors, toilets that take up space for 16 seats and have to be duplicated for each class. And also they cannot use on any new operation older but still serviceable trains well inside their lifespan, that were built just before the regulations were changed.

Urban transport is worse. Underground stations can cost 3 or 4 times as much as the designs of only say 20 years ago, with lift access needed to every point. It's for this reason that much of what could have been built doesn't get built any longer. Just too expensive to meet the regulations now. So everybody loses.

It would be more acceptable if it were done for genuine need rather than political correctness. Out by me the London Underground Jubilee Line has all of these modern provisions for disabled access, with the wheelchair symbol everywhere. I have never, ever, seen a wheelchair user on the train. And if you ride on it, you won't, either.
WHBM is online now  
Old 22nd Aug 2008, 13:08
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So it would be more acceptable if it were done for genuine need rather than political correctness? Well it depends when a want becomes a need and a need becomes genuine. This is indeed what happens and it might be called cultural evolution. Or put another way it depends when political correctness becomes accepted correctness and is evidenced by new law as this is.

Both public and private sector responses often go in fits and starts and some of the starts may turn out to be false (not needed(?)/not used/avoided/neglected/failed implementations).

I think there needs to be a few more starts in aviation's response to (EC) 1107/2006. I have seen none yet. Anyone?
slip and turn is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2008, 13:37
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The reason that you rarely, if ever see a wheelchair user on the London Underground is the very patchy provision of facilities. On one line (can't remember which as I've not got my tube map with me) wheelchair useres can get on at one end and off at the other, not much use unless you just like travelling for the hell of it!

As far as determining the difference between a want and a need, who decides that? Should disabled people only be allowed to travel where there is a pressing need for them to? I have one leg, for walking around an airport it's not normally a problem but standing in queues casues me real problems. From time to time I fly for business. Is this a want, as I chose what I do for a living or is my travel a need as I need to be able to earn a living?

On a more prosaic level, do I really have a 'need' to go shopping? I can shop on line but I prefer to actually choose the veg and meat I buy. Deciding that a certain class of the population has to justify the reasons for them travelling about the country they are citizens of reduces them to second or third class citizens. As a society we may as well go back to the instututions were disabled people were corralled in apalling conditions in the 1920s and 30s, after all, out of sight is out of mind.

With an aging population these access measures will become more and more inportant. It should also be remembered that disablity can strike at almost anytime without warning, all it takes is a virus, a small clot or someone else driving drunk.

As for the carriers' ability to make progress on this, I'm not holding my breath as the airports can't comply (in the UK at least) with the earlier legislation yet.
OneOffDave is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2008, 15:29
  #17 (permalink)  
Too mean to buy a long personal title
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,968
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by OneOffDave
As far as determining the difference between a want and a need, who decides that? Should disabled people only be allowed to travel where there is a pressing need for them to?
I think that there is a genuine question to be asked about how far one goes (and how many resources are devoted) to accommodate a small proportion of the travelling public, and whether there are alternative ways of doing it which would be better all round, even if it means that disabled people can't use a certain mode of transport that able-bodied people can. Put another way, should every mode of transport be made "accessible", whatever the costs and disadvantages to the whole of the travelling public?

I have heard a story that NYC discovered, when legislation came into force in the US, that it would be cheaper to provide every disabled person in NYC with a chauffeur-driven car than to adapt every subway station and bus so that they could be used by disabled people. Was that true or was that urban myth? I don't know, and I don't wave the "political correctness" label around because of its connotations, but it seems to me that the question highlights a question that does need to be asked and thoroughly discussed at every planning point.

I know exactly what WHBM means about the Jubilee Line. A lot of money has been spent making the stations "accessible". But the reality is that these facilities are simply not used by wheelchair users. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen a wheelchair user on a Tube train. And I understand why: Frankly, it's a nightmare trying to get on and off a Tube train at most stations if you have any form of leg injury, even if you can still walk. Trying to do it in a wheelchair would be "courageous", in the Sir Humphrey sense.

And so, if the requirement to make everything "accessible" means that there is less public transport all round for everyone, I think some serious questions need asking.
Globaliser is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2008, 16:00
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree serious questions need asking because we are talking about law and rights and provision of opportunities in the present, the 'here and now', and it seems to me it is all being ignored.

We are well beyond the analysis based on what the position was with previous law, rights and denial of opportunities for travel on this one.

Your question "...how far one goes (and how many resources are devoted) to accommodate a small proportion of the travelling public", if it belonged anywhere, was rooted in the past.

We are talking about Equal Opportunities here for a group which may indeed be a small proportion within the current profile of the travelling public, but they are a growing and significant proportion of the general public who might dream of travelling.

In a democracy we lobby, protest, fight and vote to get change in the law. A new law was borne out of it on this one.

Are we therefore condoning the consignment of this law into the same bin as the Hunting Ban? I.e. those controlling the purse-strings surrounding the outlawed activity set themselves above such a law and claim common support, and the man in the pub either nods, nods off, or goes quiet?
slip and turn is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2008, 16:26
  #19 (permalink)  
Too mean to buy a long personal title
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,968
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by slip and turn
Your question "...how far one goes (and how many resources are devoted) to accommodate a small proportion of the travelling public", if it belonged anywhere, was rooted in the past.

We are talking about Equal Opportunities here for a group which may indeed be a small proportion within the current profile of the travelling public, but they are a growing and significant proportion of the general public who might dream of travelling.
The question remains: should we have these "Equal Opportunities" (why the capitals?) no matter what the cost, and no matter what the disadvantages for the whole community?

Is it more important to have a lift at every Tube station, so that wheelchair users could in theory get to the station platform, even though it means that fewer Tube stations or fewer Tube lines are built, and even when no wheelchair users actually take advantage of the lift anyway? Or might it be more important to secure more and better public transport for the majority, and work out alternative means of providing for disabled people?

These are not questions rooted in the past, whatever your views about what the answers should be. They are very much questions of today.
Globaliser is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2008, 19:31
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They are very much questions of today.
Only if you are lobbying for the repeal of existing laws are they questions of today. Otherwise they belong firmly in the past.

PS Not sure why I used the capitals in 'Equal Opportunities' other than the subject seems quite capital . Oh ... and it did or does have its own Commission in the UK called the EOC not the eoC
slip and turn is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.