Great Job (WJ CSA)

[Blastor]

Disabled teen denied flight on WestJet


Teen medevaced back home on a LearJet air ambulance
Braden Husdal and Katie Daubs, Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, July 04, 2008


After a travel nightmare that stranded her in Ottawa, a teenage quadriplegic finally landed home in Regina late Thursday night. But instead of the regular WestJet Airlines Ltd. flight she had planned to be on, 15-year-old Avery Ottenbreit arrived at about 11:40 p.m. local time on board an air ambulance after the airline decided her harness didn't meet flight regulations.

"She's become very upset and she's very tired," Deb Ottenbreit, Avery's mother, said Thursday.

Avery is a spastic quadriplegic with cerebral palsy. She has no control over her torso and requires a harness to stay upright.
After missing last year's Active Living Alliance Conference for Youth with Disabilities, she flew to Ottawa last Friday after months of excited preparation.

It was her first flight alone, after a dozen family flights on carriers that didn't have a problem with her harness.
But when it came time to fly home, the homemade harness she uses to keep her upright was deemed unsafe by WestJet officials.

The episode angered Avery's father, who had to console his disabled daughter on the phone when she asked if she would ever travel again.

"The challenge of travelling for a person with a disability is not over. It's definitely not over with us and WestJet," Randy Ottenbreit said from Regina. "I'm personally disgusted."

The issue of Avery flying home arose Monday after she had already been in Ottawa for three days. WestJet contacted her father, Randy, to tell him the harness she uses was not approved by Transport Canada for air travel.

Officials said the harness did not allow her to bend into the "help" position and grab her knees in case of a flight emergency. Randy argued that because of Avery's disability she was not even able to bend to the "help" position, so the harness did not make her any less safe.

Transport Canada has since decided that although the device isn't approved, there is also nothing banning its use.

"There is no specific regulation regarding this type of bracing device," said Jean Riverin, a spokesman for Transport Canada. "Each device requires assessment by the particular airline in regards to their specific configuration and equipment.

"Transport Canada requested WestJet perform the risk assessment on the impact of the bracing device on their equipment."

The decision, therefore, fell back on WestJet.

On Thursday morning, Ken McKenzie, the executive vice-president of WestJet Operations, decided, in conjunction with WestJet seat manufacturers, that it was unsafe for Avery to fly home using her seat harness, despite the fact she has flown numerous times in the past while using the device.

"We were told that if you were to use this device then it would compromise the safety rating of the seats," said Robert Palmer, the manager of public relations for WestJet. "Based on that, we decided that we could not risk Avery's safety, the safety of the crew, or the other guests on the aircraft."

WestJet began to look for another way to return Avery to her family.

When options were exhausted, the airline decided the best course of action would be to medevac her home on a LearJet air ambulance.

The airline paid for the arrangements.

The resolution was a relief for Avery's family, but there was still anger the girl had to go through the ordeal in the first place.

"What's been done is completely unacceptable," said Randy. "Not only have they made my daughter's travel an unpleasant situation for her, it has been crazy around our house the last few days.

"There's also the situation that because of the decision they made, she might not be able to fly in the future, and she's very upset about that prospect. There has not been an official precedent set, but this is not a good decision for people with disabilities who want to use air travel."

Ottawa Citizen, Regina Leader-Post

[aroundthewing]

Hmmm...lets see if that makes the headlines.

[Bugz]

Hey Blastor, consider what the alternative headline could have read:

Home-made restraint breaks, spastic quadriplegic with cerebral palsy dies after hitting bulkhead!


It's always safer to cover your ass!

[whiteguy]

Hmmm...lets see if that makes the headlines.

No, it was a couple pages in. The incident about AC last week was front page though in the Hearld.

[tonysoprano]

Hmmm...lets see if that makes the headlines.

No, it was a couple pages in. The incident about AC last week was front page though in the Hearld.

...and had this been AC, this too would have made front page, top story, period. Catch his drift Whiteguy?

[yyz monkey]

Solution? Find an approved device and she can travel all she wants.

Problem solved.

[marquisman]

Westjet paid for the air ambulance, why is everyone pissed. Again, we go above and beyond. End of story.

[tonysoprano]

Westjet paid for the air ambulance, why is everyone pissed. Again, we go above and beyond. End of story.

Good for WJ but that kid will never fly airlines again given this incident. Personally, I think TC has to get more involved and not leave the ball in WJ's court.

[Gear Up]

I really feel badly for the young girl. Almost makes me embarressed to work here at the moment. But hey, I'll get over it. Not so sure the girl and her family will though.

GU

[WJ700]

How about the lack of leadership from TC? Chicken shit response and you know for sure they would have blamed the airline had there ever been an incident.

[express]

we medevaced her home on a lear? holy crap! there goes my profit share.

[marquisman]

I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to say it. lol

[Four1oh]

I really feel badly for the young girl. Almost makes me embarressed to work here at the moment. But hey, I'll get over it. Not so sure the girl and her family will though.

GU

embarrassed because we not only did the right thing? We went WAAAAY beyond a reasonable expectation to get her home.

[mighty mouse]

You cant just take her half way across the country and then leave her stranded. WJ would be sued. There was no choice, WJ had to get her home.

[tonysoprano]

Since TC hasn't provided any guidance, the homemade device which had been used before (on other airlines as well) should have been enough. These people sound like they have done this before and feel confident about it. Any liability would rest on their shoulders and not WJ. Was the captain involved in this decision? I would not have hesitated to take her having heard all the above info. Sounds like the policy was made on the spot because WJ brought her to YOW without a problem to begin with. Not only did the family go through unnecessary stress but as it stands, she will not be able to travel for some time if ever. Other airlines will find it hard to take her as well now that a precident has been set. But who knows? She should see what AC or other carriers think about this now, after this has happened. Very sad.

[Biff]

On a slightly different take, I find it odd that she would be travelling alone, or that Westjet would permit someone with no mobility to travel by himself or herself. I understand that she has a need for some independence, but perhaps a plane is not the best place to exercise that wish.

[Biff]

"We were told that if you were to use this device then it would compromise the safety rating of the seats," said Robert Palmer, the manager of public relations for WestJet. "Based on that, we decided that we could not risk Avery's safety, the safety of the crew, or the other guests on the aircraft."

As for the thread discussion, I think once TC made the decision not to make a decision and Westjet got the above information from the seat manufacturer, they would be negligent to not take the seat manufactures advice. The fact that they didn't have that information prior to her first flight would have made it ignorance rather than negligence.

[Mach75]

"Ladies & Gentlemen, I apologize for the abrupt stop but it appears that we've ingested a Canada Goose into our left engine and, as a result, have had to reject our take-off. It will just be a short ... what's that ... we have a spastic quadriplegic with cerebral palsy on board? ... what's that ... she has no control of her torso & requires a harness to stay upright? ... what's that ... her harness was home made? ... what's that ... it was neither approved by Transport Canada nor the Boeing out-sourced seat manufacturer? ... what's that ... her spine is now fractured in 3 different locations and she's not breathing? ..."

Flight from Ottawa to Regina on WestJet = $430
Flight from Ottawa to Regina in a last-minute chartered Lear Jet (in today's fuel market) = $16,000 (best guess)
Arriving home safely = Priceless
Gratitude towards the people that were looking out for your safety & best interest = Non-Existent

I implore you to find any other airline on the planet that would have gone to the trouble and expense of arranging a last-minute charter in a Lear Jet to appease this situation.

[C23flyer]

Mach75 - exactly.

These people sound like they have done this before and feel confident about it. Any liability would rest on their shoulders and not WJ. Was the captain involved in this decision? I would not have hesitated to take her having heard all the above info.

I think if you check with a liability expert you would find that regardless of the plaintiff's prior knowledge and actions, the defendant in a case like this would suffer serious exposure. Consider that they had new information, apparently in the days following this passenger's arrival in Ottawa, which indicated that passenger safety might be compromised in certain emergency configurations. This is information that would likely go beyond the passenger's (or her family's) capacity to obtain. As for the captain making the decision, he/she would then add themselves to the list of people to sue in the event of injury, and inadvertently would have caused the airline to be exposed to the liability.

We don't know how long WJ agonized over the decision, but I'm sure it was not without considering the political fallout, hence the fancy chariot home. Either way, she's home safe. That has to be the bottom line.

[tonysoprano]

Mach.

I implore you to find any other airline on the planet that would have gone to the trouble and expense of arranging a last-minute charter in a Lear Jet to appease this situation.

That's just it.They wouldn't have to get her a Lear. This person apparantly travelled on airlines all the time including WJ. The only time she had a problem was with WJ in YOW. In fact, while it all sounds warm and cozy, I think this kid probably felt isolated for being "medivacted". I still maintain this is for the feds to address and not the airlines. Untill then, each airline has to make its own assesment on a personal basis. This crew in YOW was well within their rights to do what they did, no question.

C2.

As for the captain making the decision, he/she would then add themselves to the list of people to sue in the event of injury, and inadvertently would have caused the airline to be exposed to the liability.

Well, perhaps. But we're in a bit of a grey area as there is no precident or guidance from TC or the airlines. If we applied all the theories you guys have mentioned above, we would have to stop taking any quadriplegic of any kind and in fact any person with a disability. What do we do with someone who is blind in case of evacuation? I would say that people with a handicap could easily win their day in court. Don't get me wrong, I can see the YOW's side of the story too. Again, bottom line, because TC has left this up to the airlines, we have every right to refuse a situation we deem dangerous. Period.

[Mach75]

Tony,

You're absolutely right. I'm sure the source of this girl & her family's frustration is that the incident has left her feeling isolated, hurt, and overall embarrassed. However, it sounds like the decision not to allow her to travel was ultimately made by someone much higher up the totem pole than a CSA. I'm sure that all of the relevant facts and consequences were considered, and I'm sure that it was a very difficult decision to arrive at. With the difficult decision having already been made, they now had to make a decision on an alternative way to get this poor girl home.
What would have been a more suitable alternative? Buying her a plane ticket home on another airline? This would have been pure negligence & hypocricy. Should they have purchased her a Greyhound bus ticket home? Should they have chartered a King Air?
In my opinion the company in general handled this overall situation in a responsible, compassionate, and professional manner. I hope the CSA's and everyone else involved at the gate handled it discretely and professionally as well.

[Legacy]

Any liability would rest on their shoulders and not WJ.

In a perfect world that would be correct Tony but your staement in a court of law would be incorrect. We all remember the 2 million dollar coffee suit when you spill hot coffee on yourself? Same thing. They will agree to accept liability now BUT when they see that they can suit and get a few million the whole story changes. In my opinion went far beyond what any (not just airlines) company would have done and paid for the lear. How much was that flight? 15K? I don't see transport canada stepping up to the plate on that one even though it is our tax paying money that would pay for it. This a story that has been going on for ages in the airlines industry. Father whines because she can't get on BUT would suit if something did happen. good for you WJ for covering you arses AND maintaining the safety. Sad that she never got back right away but when do you draw the line and comromise safety. A lot of companies walk to walk about safety but its nice to see a company that will talk the talk.

[tonysoprano]

Mach. I have no doubt the girl's best interest was considered, as well as that of the entire flight. Unfortunately, in the media things tend to get sensationalized and the full story is always missing.

Legacy. Yep I can see that too. Not being a legal expert I can only give an unqualified opinion, but I think that TC would share the burden of that lawsuit. In light of the fact that the family accepted their own homemade device, you would think the airline's only responsibility is to get her home. Again, this could open up a can of worms for other scenarios and honestly I don't know wether we really need to go there. This was a very unique case though and again, I think your YOW people had a right to do what they did. I don't think we've heard the end of this.

[Biff]

I think the issue is that Westjet went to the seat manufacturers who said this wasn't approved(like they would say anything else). I'm also not a lawyer, but I imagine the seats are part of the airworthiness of the airplane. If the device makes them unairworthy, then it is not just a matter of Westjet being liable for the girl, but liable for anyone around her as well.

Imagine if the seat broke, injuring or killing someone else, and it was discovered in a court room that Westjet knowingly flew with a seat that wasn't airworthy. Not only would the company be liable but the individuals that were aware of this fact could be help criminaly responsible. Why put the company or the individuals in this position, $11,000 seems cheap with this in mind.

[CD]

Actually, the part of the government most likely to get involved with this particular issue will be the CTA:

The Agency is responsible for ensuring that undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities are removed from federally regulated transportation services and facilities. The Agency removes undue obstacles in two ways: on a case-by-case basis by resolving individual complaints, and on a systemic basis by developing regulations, codes of practice and standards concerning the level of accessibility in modes of transport under federal jurisdiction, such as air, rail, and marine.

Canadian Transportation Agency - Accessible Transportation

Here, also, is a sample of one of their rulings:

A Self-reliant Passenger

A person who is deaf and blind booked a CanJet flight from Toronto to Halifax through a travel agent. At the time of booking, the person told the travel agent that she is both deaf and blind, but that she has travelled by air unaccompanied before and that she is self-reliant. The travel agent relayed the information to CanJet, but on the day of the flight personnel at the CanJet check-in counter in Toronto told the customer she could not travel unattended. A CanJet supervisor explained that, in case of emergency, personnel would be unable to communicate with her. The traveller was told she would have to be escorted on the flight, or she could take a later flight if she could find a fellow passenger to act as her escort. A fellow passenger agreed to act as the traveller's escort on a flight later that day. On the return trip, the applicant's brother accompanied her.

In response to a complaint from the traveller, the Agency found that CanJet's policy and procedures constituted an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons who are visually and hearing impaired and who are self-reliant. Further, the Agency found that the failure by CanJet's personnel to communicate the carrier's policy at the time of the reservation and in advance of travel, and the lack of sensitivity of CanJet's personnel, constituted undue obstacles to the traveller's mobility. Among other things, CanJet was required to amend its policy and procedures to allow a passenger who has disabilities, but who is self-reliant, to travel unattended.