Lakelad Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 . 90-year-old in wheelchair forgotten by airlines at Calgary airport Woman says she flagged down a WestJet employee after Air Canada and United failed to get her on her flight Wed Jun 14, 2017 - CBC News A 90-year-old airline passenger in a wheelchair says she was twice forgotten by airline staff during a stopover at Calgary International Airport. Mary Ellen Fallis was heading back to Texas Saturday after visiting her grandson and his family in Kelowna, B.C. She arrived at Calgary International Airport on an Air Canada flight to transfer to a United Airlines flight home. An Air Canada employee took her in a wheelchair to a transfer point between airlines, and Fallis said she was told to wait there for someone from United Airlines to take her to her next flight. "There was no indication that this was a transferring spot, but I trusted the Air Canada lady, and she said United would be there, but they didn't come," Fallis said Tuesday. Rescued by WestJet employee Fallis said she eventually managed to flag down a WestJet employee for help, and that's when she learned she'd missed her flight. Eventually, United Airlines booked her on another flight to Houston and an Air Canada employee escorted her to the gate, she said. But soon after, Fallis said, there was a gate change, and she was again forgotten and left on her own to sort things out. "It was very frustrating that day and very exhausting," she said. In a statement, Air Canada said it recognizes the inconveniences Fallis encountered at the airport. In a separate statement, United said the airline refunded and rebooked her flight. Both airlines say they are working together to improve procedures for wheelchair transfers. Fallis confirmed she eventually made it home to Houston, but said she has vowed not to fly with United again or travel through Calgary when she comes to visit her family in Canada. The incident comes after both Air Canada and United have faced a number of public relations challenges over the treatment of passengers. The federal government has promised to bring in a passengers' bill of rights following recent public incidents. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runaway Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Has CBC become a shill for Westjet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 The CBC has so many urinalists that they run out of stories to cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.k. Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 I can't believe they sent a non-ambulatory 90yo on her own... what's wrong with her family? It's like a UM but worse... I hope Westket bought her pizza at least sheesh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st27 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Happens all the time ... I refused boarding to a 90'ish female that had health issues, could not walk on her own and could not speak English/French. The family had left her on her own at checking, assumin the co. would take care of her. The agents had tee'd up another passenger who said she would volunteer as a travel companion...when the volunteer had a look at the elderly passenger, she quickly changed her mind. And this was going to be an 8 hr flight. The agents were **bleep** because she had gotten over to India and was now returning to Canada via Fra ( what were they going to do with her)...it's not fair to our f/as (who are short staffed as it is) to babysit, or our other pax should she need in flt assistance, or worse, a medical diversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Anyone requiring special handling can and often is problematic for all involved. Nonetheless, and family responsibilities aside, 90 year olds still have Rights too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Right to what? If you mean she has a right to hire an attendant and to pay for the attendant to accompany her on her journies, I agree. She definitely has the right to exercise all reasonable care for her own safety. But does she have the right to insist that other revenue passengers assist by sharing the costs incurred by a public carrier to provide " special attention"? There are such costs and presuming the costs aren't simply absorbed ( at the expense of shareholders), they must be paid by all pax or, more fairly I submit, by the pax who requires such special attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Alright then, let your favorite airline refuse service in this Country and watch what happens to all your rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 13 hours ago, UpperDeck said: Right to what? If you mean she has a right to hire an attendant and to pay for the attendant to accompany her on her journies, I agree. She definitely has the right to exercise all reasonable care for her own safety. But does she have the right to insist that other revenue passengers assist by sharing the costs incurred by a public carrier to provide " special attention"? There are such costs and presuming the costs aren't simply absorbed ( at the expense of shareholders), they must be paid by all pax or, more fairly I submit, by the pax who requires such special attention. RE "sharing the costs incurred by a public carrier to provide special attention" , that is exactly the norm here in Canada. You only have to read the various CTA decisions / order for the past number of years to see how the airlines are required, for passengers with disabilities to provide services that are normally in the realm of "public health". That is not likely to change and are not bad but they do add to the airline's cost for providing the "free" services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outside Looking In Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 From my perspective the entire thread lends itself to the discussion of airline provided assist vs. common use provider. I am sure there are some on here that can speak to how that exercise went in YYZ. certainly added incremental cost to larger carriers with minimal benefit. Wonder how much of this specific issue could be attributed to the layout of the new terminal noting a TB to Domestic cnx. There has has been no lack of feedback from able-bodied pax on the impact of terminal layout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 10 hours ago, Malcolm said: RE "sharing the costs incurred by a public carrier to provide special attention" , that is exactly the norm here in Canada. You only have to read the various CTA decisions / order for the past number of years to see how the airlines are required, for passengers with disabilities to provide services that are normally in the realm of "public health". That is not likely to change and are not bad but they do add to the airline's cost for providing the "free" services. I acknowledge that service providers are required to expend reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. That is a cost of business. I am not certain that "aging" should be classed as a disability though certainly I agree.....I now more often feel "less able" than I did 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
better4me Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 On 6/16/2017 at 9:03 AM, Malcolm said: RE "sharing the costs incurred by a public carrier to provide special attention" , that is exactly the norm here in Canada. You only have to read the various CTA decisions / order for the past number of years to see how the airlines are required, for passengers with disabilities to provide services that are normally in the realm of "public health". That is not likely to change and are not bad but they do add to the airline's cost for providing the "free" services. The biggest CTA decision on disabilities and accommodation for the semi-ambulatory has been "One Person, One Fare" ("OPOF"). In making its decision, the CTA weighed the opportunity costs of requiring airlines provide a seat for the travelers attendant. It was estimated that OPOF would require 80,000 free seats out of 10,000,000 pax. Note this includes OPOF instances where the person's disability is extreme obesity. The cost to the airline is not considered to be significant. The big obstacles preventing widespread miss-use of OPOF and similar programs are: (1) pax must be under physician care for the underlying problem, (2) doctor must sign off regarding the severity of the disability, (3) pax condition is reviewed by the medical desk, (4) Pax is still extremely uncomfortable and cumbersome to get the semi-ambulatory into, move around, and out of the aircraft (5) other travel obstacles make frequent travel by the semi ambulatory near impossible. One area that all airlines could improve on is communication, especially communicating the qualifications that entitle pax to utilize the accommodation. The present website resources would suggest that far more people could use accommodation than what the law actually requires. Plain language should give way to medical terminology. The passenger that qualifies for accommodation will know their condition inside and out, so a decent method to weed out the pretenders and layman is through using the proper terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakelad Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 . Ads from company fighting for passenger rights banned from 2 airports Flight Claim believes Montreal, Toronto airports won't run ad because of pressure from the airlines Tue Jun 20, 2017 - CBC News By Sophia Harris Montreal's airport has abruptly pulled an ad campaign promoting a new company, Flight Claim, that fights for compensation for wronged passengers. Toronto's Pearson Airport is also refusing to display the ad created by the company. "We're just there to protect and help the rights of the passengers, so we feel it's kind of sad that we're not able to publicize in a free market," said Jacob Charbonneau, general manager of Flight Claim, based in Montreal. Charbonneau co-founded Flight Claim with the notion that most Canadian air passengers don't know their compensation rights for things like delays, cancellations and overbooked flights. Flight Claim offers to take on passengers' cases and fight their battle with the airline for 25 per cent of the awarded compensation. To promote the company, Flight Claim created a video ad informing air travellers they could receive up to $1,800 in compensation, and to contact the company if they want help fighting their case. In April, Flight Claim signed a $73,000 contract to run the ad on screens in the baggage claim area at Montreal's Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport. The campaign started last week and lasted four days before the airport suddenly pulled it. According to an email sent by the airport's advertising agency to Flight Claim, the ad was pulled because of pressure from airlines. Montreal airport spokesperson Stéphanie Lepage says the person who wrote the email made a mistake because the airlines made no such request. Instead, this was purely an airport decision to not create trouble for the airlines. "Passengers, but also airlines, are our customers," Lepage said. "We did not want to have a conflict between airlines and passengers." 'Too confusing for passengers?' . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Do they still sell life travel insurance at airports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geminoid Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I remember that. I think it was Voyageur Insurance who had the pamphlets in racks in the airport. Fill in the form and there was a drop box. I can't remember if payment was only by credit card or if there was a way to pay by check. I guess most credit cards used to buy airline tickets these days provide some insurance coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.