Guidance

Reforming aviation consumer policy: protecting air passenger rights – consultation response

Published 30 August 2022

Introduction

DPTAC welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation and particularly welcomes the recognition of the link between accessibility, damaged equipment and the impact on disabled customers travelling with mobility equipment. However, the consultation only shines a partial light on a partial solution to a larger challenge continuing to face passengers and industry.

It rightly emphasises that everyone should have the confidence to travel by air and that flying should be a positive experience for all. It also seeks to better understand how driving improvement in passenger confidence can support the aviation sector’s recovery and growth.

But while the focus in the consultation on redress and compensation is important, the historical failure of the aviation sector to tackle some of the key risks many disabled people face in air travel have not been tackled, such as:

• improving procedures and training in the handling of important assistive equipment to prevent damage arising
• the lack of access for everyone to a mandatory redress scheme
• awarding compensation levels that truly reflect the actual levels of harm and loss disabled people suffer, such as in the event of a delayed or cancelled flight, or that arises from the loss of or damage to important equipment

The consultation fails to fully explore the crucial issue of prevention of harm and the measures that need to be in place so that disabled passengers can feel confident to fly knowing that harm is unlikely to arise in the first place.

There is no doubt that this review of the rights of passengers and the obligations on industry is much needed and long overdue, so the consultation presents a real opportunity to refresh and improve the way the aviation sector treats its disabled customers.

The size of the domestic aviation market is significant and the spending capacity of disabled passengers and their families substantial. The business case for attracting disabled passengers is clear – the disposable income of households with a disabled person is estimated to be £274 billion per year. Exclude disabled people and their families, or fail to make aviation services easy to access and the industry and society loses out on so many levels.

The UK society is ageing. Between 2010 and 2030 the number of people in the UK aged over 65 will have increased by 50%. And there’s a direct link between age and disability. That’s a real challenge because age brings many other things, notably because most disabilities increase with age.

This is a timely moment to consider the opportunities and benefits of clarifying existing rights, applying and enforcing those rights more robustly, as well as the potential for improving those rights in the future.

Considering the maximum damages awarded when mobility equipment is broken, damaged or in need of repair or replacement on other modes of domestic transport should be factored in to provide consistency and make air travel a realistic choice, with similar expectations. Rail, for example, has no maximum limit on the cost of the equipment.

Logistical issues should be noted when considering redress, as there will be disparities and logistical challenges depending on how remote a location is. Getting a replacement chair to a city for example will be less challenging than to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Skye.

Finally, we wish to stress the importance of the consumer/passenger voice in responding to this consultation and would encourage the Department for Transport (DfT) to ensure that it is given fair weighting when compared to the likely louder voice of industry.

Industry respondents often have multiple opportunities to share their views (for example, through individual company responses and via trade associations) and are likely to have more resources at their disposal to generate their response.

Consumer bodies on the other hand and particularly organisations representing disabled people, are fewer, less well-resourced and generally do not benefit from collective representation. Though the consumer voices will be quieter and fewer in number they are critically important in informing any future improvements to the rights of passengers and the responsibilities on the industry and therefore should be proactively sought and amplified by DfT.

Section 1 – tools for the regulator to protect consumers and ensure fair treatment

Question 1

What, if any, additional powers to enforce aviation consumer protection laws directly through civil sanctions should the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) have? What specific issues would these powers address beyond the enforcement powers already available to the CAA?

While DPTAC does not have any specific views on what, if any, specific additional powers the CAA should have we would support the introduction of any additional powers if they would allow the CAA to act more quickly and decisively than it is able to at present.

Currently, the CAA is unable to apply financial sanctions for breaches of consumer laws, which limits its power to deter non-compliance. As the specialist regulator of the aviation sector a framework of civil sanctions could enable the CAA to undertake investigations and make decisions on appropriate sanctions without the need for lengthy court processes.

The CAA’s current powers are not being used robustly or are not delivering good outcomes for consumers because the procedures are slow, overly formal and costly.

What is important is that the CAA should have the right tools to be able to quickly identify when and where consumer harms are occurring and to have in place processes and powers to effectively target those harms in a speedy and effective way that not only stops the harm, but also prevents further harm being caused to other consumers.

To achieve this the CAA needs to have a clear ‘prevention objective’ as part of its legal consumer protection responsibilities together with the right tools to deliver that objective and the ability for its regulatory and enforcement outcomes to be measured and reported on.

We would like to see more use of reputational regulatory tools, involving ‘naming and shaming’ poor practice and businesses, calling out those service providers who consistently fail to adequately serve disabled consumers.

Question 2

If the CAA were to have increased enforcement powers, should their enforcement remit remain as it is currently, that is, only for cases of collective harm? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of the CAA having increased powers to enforce consumer laws in individual cases?

Currently, individual complaints arising from the harm individuals have experienced can only be resolved by those individuals bringing their own complaints to the business concerned and, if that fails to resolve it, to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) body – if indeed there is one available see our response to question 4 – and for some issues to the CAA.

For many consumers and particularly for many disabled passengers who experience poor service, damage to or loss of assistive equipment, or harm arising from delayed or cancelled flights, the path to redress is often long, complex and confusing.

Many people inevitably give up at some point and this then means that lessons are not learned within the industry, consumers remain uncompensated and without redress and prevention of similar harm to others does not result.

Question 3

Are there any specific issues for the aviation sector that should be considered in the development of any administrative framework for the CAA?

No further response.

Section 2 – resolution for individual consumers

Question 4

Should ADR be mandatory for all airlines flying to and from the UK? Please explain the reasons for your answer.

Yes. For ADR to work most effectively for consumers it needs to be mandatory for all businesses operating in the sector to sign up to a single approved scheme. As a regulated sector where the activities of businesses are governed by clear legal and regulatory rules, the single mandatory aviation ADR scheme should be a formal part of that regulatory regime.

Despite the 2015 UK ADR Regulations, gaps in ADR provision remain in key sectors, notably aviation, property, motor and home improvements.

The consequence of having ADR as voluntary in ‘key’ sectors are starkly illustrated by Ryanair’s decision to withdraw from Aviation ADR after the scheme made decisions the airline did not like, leaving millions of consumers without easy access to redress. And this is compounded by the decision made by Jet2.com not to join any scheme from the start.

Because ADR is not mandated in the aviation sector the practical result of a number of major airlines (Jet2, Aer Lingus, Ryanair) making the choice not to sign up is that many millions of passengers do not have access to either of the two schemes currently approved by the CAA.

Yet for many disabled passengers the relationships and transactions between those passengers and airlines can be complex, with high value equipment at stake (wheelchair and mobility equipment) and the risks of consumer harm occurring when things go wrong substantial see our responses to questions in Section 3.

Across the aviation sector ADR schemes the available data on whether claims are ‘in scope’ or ‘refused’ by any particular scheme is also confusing and unreliable. While these figures are required as part of each approved schemes’ annual ‘activity report’ there are wide variations in how these requirements are interpreted. Examples come from the activity report produced by Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) and Consumer Dispute Resolution Limited (CDRL) to the CAA for their aviation schemes.

CEDR states that it received 16,965 cases in 2019 of which 280 were refused – 86% of those were refused as they were ‘out of scope’. Figures for the year to March 2020 show 6793 cases, of which 556 were refused – 66% as they were ‘out of scope’ and 20% of those were out of scope because the airline was not a member of the scheme.

CDRL says it received 23,236 cases of which 2,556 were refused – 71% of those were ‘out of scope’, 10% because the airline was not a member.

One well-recognised benefit of an effective ADR scheme is that it incentivises business to focus on early resolution of complaints “… it should be remembered that airlines pay for ADR providers to consider complaints and so there is a clear financial incentive on them to assess complaints properly first time round and to provide appropriate redress to consumers in the clear-cut cases.

“For this reason, ADR should, over time, have a beneficial impact on airlines’ own complaint handling. The financial incentive provided by ADR aligns well with the other regulatory and commercial incentives on businesses to comply with consumer law and treat their customers fairly. Indeed, we are aware anecdotally of some airlines making more resources available to handle consumer complaints in response to this combination of incentives.” CAA’s first review on ADR in the aviation sector (PDF, 526KB)

In its 2019 policy report Which? found that “…despite the ADR regulations setting out that there should be on-going oversight by the relevant competent authority – and other schemes being closely associated with the relevant economic regulators (for example, aviation) – there is limited evidence that the relevant authorities routinely check how schemes are working and make sure they are performing effectively for consumers.”

In the most recent published CAA consumer survey (PDF, 4MB), 3 in 5 (60%) disabled respondents reported that their disability makes, or would make, accessing and using airports difficult.

This is the highest proportion since tracking began and clearly demonstrates that when using aviation services disabled passengers face substantial challenges around access to those services that non-disabled passengers do not face.

And just over three-quarters of disabled passengers (76%) say either that they have a hidden disability or that they have both a hidden and a non-hidden disability, meaning that the vast majority will not necessarily have their condition immediately recognised by others. Of those who have a disability, 7 in 10 would require assistance when flying.

The CAA’s own statistics (PDF, 6MB) show that satisfaction levels for disabled passengers have decreased in most metrics and remain poor in some key areas such as assistance during the flight and with the carriage of any special items (for example, medicine, mobility aids).

The level of complaints from disabled people that are generated by failures in the aviation sector to provide the services and support disabled passengers need is high but may only be the tip of the iceberg. It also appears that many passengers are not aware of their rights, or do not know where to complain and so do not pursue their complaint. This lead to a lack of data so the true picture of the passenger experience cannot be known and it means that there is no incentive on airlines and airports to improve their services.

Question 5

Should all airlines flying to and from the UK be required to register with the ADR provider, or should parent organisations be able to register on behalf of all businesses within their parent group? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these options?

We have no specific response on this. What is important is the outcome for all passengers, that is, to have easy access to a single, free, compulsory redress scheme as outlined in our other responses in this section.

Question 6

How successful are the current compliance and enforcement mechanisms for the voluntary ADR schemes and what alternative enforcement mechanisms should be in place to ensure compliance with any determinations made by an ADR body?

The CAA should actively consider the outputs from ADR scheme decisions and monitor the response of each airline and airport to assess whether the scheme is delivering the right outcomes for all passengers including disabled passengers.

It should use its existing powers as well a reputational regulatory approach to ensure that there is transparency around the response of industry players to those decisions, underpinned by a ‘naming and shaming’ approach.

This should go alongside the publication of all recommendations made by the ADR bodies (for example, recommended changes to the policies or practices of an airline) and the actions taken (by the airline) so that consumers can make more informed choices about the airlines they choose to travel with.

Although the aviation ADR bodies sit within a regulated sector the fact that airlines and airports are not required by the CAA to be members of an ADR Scheme is a substantial problem.

As outlined in our response to question 4, this leaves a large number of consumers without access to ADR as airlines including Jet2 (over 14 million passengers in 2019), Aer Lingus (11.6 million passengers in 2019), Emirates and Ryanair (152 million passengers in 2019) have chosen not to be part these ADR schemes.

This huge gap in the provision of ADR for many millions of passengers is untenable in a sector where there are many examples of large numbers of consumers experiencing harm, where the confidence among disabled people is too low and where the impacts of poor quality service on disabled passengers is often far greater than for non-disabled passengers.

The voluntary nature of ADR membership highlights a problem across all sectors where ADR is not mandated – the risk that businesses can withdraw from the scheme for any reason.

In 2019 Ryanair withdrew from the CDRL scheme and the substantial impact on consumers of losing access to ADR was highlighted by Which? Jet2.com made a decision not to volunteer to sign up to ADR and in a letter to the CAA set out its reasons why.

Question 7

What mechanisms could be put in place to ensure compliance with mandatory ADR for non-UK registered airlines?

The CAA should explore options such as mandating ADR as a condition of the system of licensing UK-registered airlines and granting foreign carrier permits, or by some other mechanisms that would allow for robust enforcement and penalties for any failures in compliance by all airlines flying into the UK.

This needs to be supported by a focused and proactive monitoring system. Other sectors both within transport (for example, the Rail Ombudsman Scheme) and elsewhere (for example, the Motor Ombudsman, Financial Ombudsman Service) could provide some other models to consider.

All of this is crucial to underpin consumer confidence in the regulatory and redress systems operating in the aviation sector – key issues that will support the aspiration for growth in the sector.

Question 8

Are there any other alternatives to mandatory ADR? What incentives could be used to encourage more airlines to voluntarily utilise ADR?

None that would be as effective as mandatory ADR

Question 9

Do you have any further evidence on the likely impact of mandatory ADR on the number of ADR cases brought forward by consumers?

No specific data. But history shows that many of the concerns voiced by industry when faced with the potential introduction of mandatory ADR (such as a flood of vexatious, frivolous or spurious claims) do not in fact materialise.

ADR is a step in the complaints process and is only available once the business concerned has failed to deal effectively with the consumer complaint. ADR has an important role in the ‘prevention’ of complaints arising and in concentrating the minds of businesses to deal with complaints fairly, transparently and effectively when they do arise.

The existence of mandatory ADR and the associated costs for business serves to reduce the opportunity for the business to simply ignore the complaint, or to deliberately delay the complaints-handling process or simply not take complaints seriously. There is comprehensive evidence of this positive impact on complaints-handling from across many different sectors.

Question 10

What, if any, considerations should be had in relation to whether ADR should be mandatory for airports in relation to complaints around services for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility?

ADR should be mandatory for all providers of aviation services that could give rise to claims by passengers, including airports, for all of the reasons set out in our responses to the questions above.

Question 11

What incentives could be used to encourage more airports to voluntarily use ADR?

No comment beyond those already made. Provision of access for consumers to a single, free mandatory ADR scheme should be a requirement across the aviation sector.

Question 12

Should ADR be completely free for consumers or would an ‘nominal fee’ in the event of an unsuccessful claim across ADR be advantageous to deterring frivolous claims?

Yes. See our response to question 9. The ADR scheme should be completely free to the consumer.

Question 13

Should the cost per ADR case for the airline be capped at a specific amount? If so, at what level? Should there be different cost levels for different types of case and if so, how could those be determined?

No comment

Question 14

What are the advantages and disadvantages of CAA approved ADR entities as opposed to other options such as a single ombudsman? What benefits would there be to moving away from the current model?

A single ombudsman model would be far preferable to the current model. As set out in recent research and policy publication by Which? the government now has an opportunity to overhaul and rationalise redress in this key sector. We agree with the policy position taken by Which? in their April 2021 paper which states specifically that, “Consumers should have access to a single mandated ombudsman service in key sectors. The government should require a single mandatory ombudsman service in key sectors where transactions are commonly complex or high value and there are a large number of complaints. Ombudsman services typically provide additional support to resolve complex cases, support vulnerable consumers and find appropriate solutions.

“A single mandatory ombudsman service is already available for some regulated services such as…rail, but one should also be established in sectors … such as the aviation sector.”

ADR should provide an accessible, affordable and convenient means for consumers and businesses to resolve disputes, but beyond this it should also be a fundamental tool in the regulatory and enforcement environment.

This must be spelled out in law by strengthening the ADR regulations as part of wider consumer landscape reforms, creating clear and consistent rules for all ADR bodies, strengthened powers for competent authorities and a single authoritative oversight body across the entire ADR landscape covering all sectors.

The case for change is clear. If ADR works well it not only saves consumers from financial loss and the stress and anxiety of a protracted dispute, it also has the potential to improve businesses’ own complaint handling and raise standards.

Section 3 – compensation for delays and cancellations

The consultation refers to calls from industry to ‘rebalance the rates for compensation, to be more representative of the cost of travel’ and to reflect the newer ways consumers choose to travel by air, for example, using more low-cost airlines.

We suspect that these calls are being made loudly and forcefully by most if not all industry players. However, we would urge DfT to adopt a more outcomes-based approach to compensation for delays and cancellations based on the actual impact on the passenger as this would introduce principles of equity that do not exist in the current system.

In our view, it is crucial to seize the opportunity we now have to significantly raise standards beyond what is required under the existing regulatory regime. We welcome what appears to be DfT’s ambition to do this in some key areas, but we believe that the consultation does not go far enough and fails to target important remedies that will prevent harm rather than simply compensate for it, which means that policy changes will not deliver on this ambition.

We do not believe the proposals will be effective in preventing harm to disabled passengers or in fully compensating for harms when they arise. For example, compensation should be representative of the impact of any loss, damage, delays or cancellation on the passenger.

The current blanket approach, while providing some consistency in the compensation for all passengers may not reflect the actual impact on disabled passengers for whom the effects of a delay or a cancellation may have wider and more damaging consequences – for example. the need to find suitable, accessible accommodation during the delay, or the extra costs of a carer.

Consumer choice to use ‘low-cost’ airlines is not always an easily available or simple choice as there will be other factors that are built into the services on offer that may lessen the attractiveness or actual or perceived accessibility of some airline services, such as the location of the destination airport and how easy it is for onward transport to the passenger’s final destination, compared to a destination airport with well-established infrastructure links on.

What is clear is that the cost the passenger paid for the flight is irrelevant when it comes to the actual impact of a delay, particularly if travelling with a carer which could impact on the costs to the disabled passenger of the expense of the carer, or the impact of having to find accommodation that is accessible if that is needed.

Yet the current compensation regime fails to take any account of additional care expenses, additional hotel expenses and additional travel expenses.

The opportunities this consultation presents to revisit the key issues around the purpose of providing compensation for delays and cancellations must be seized by DfT to deliver a compensation regime that is truly reflective of the actual impact on the passenger.

Question 15

Should compensation for delays to domestic flights be calculated as a percentage of the cost of the ticket?

See our response to question 23.

Question 16

What are the advantages and disadvantages to the above proposal for compensation for delayed domestic UK flights?

No comment beyond those already made.

Question 17

What other options, if any, are there for delay compensation, delay triggers and proportion of ticket price for domestic UK flights?

No comment beyond those already made.

Question 18

Should similar changes be made to compensation for cancelled flights and denied boarding? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?

No comment beyond those already made.

Question 19

If compensation for delayed domestic UK flights is linked to ticket price, what should the definition of ticket price include?

No comment beyond those already made.

Question 20

Government is keen to understand the impact of the proposal to link compensation to ticket price:

• please provide any evidence on the number of passengers on domestic flights who are currently eligible to claim compensation for delays
• please provide any evidence on the proportion of eligible passengers who currently make a successful compensation claim for delays of domestic flights

Question 21

Is there anything else that can be done internationally within the confines of the 1999 Montreal Convention to help link compensation to the costs of travel for delay?

No comment beyond those already made.

Question 22

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of enabling package organisers to seek a refund for cancelled flights that are part of a package holiday through legislation?

No comment beyond those already made.

Section 4 – accessibility

This part of the consultation only covers domestic flights so there needs to be some consideration given for passengers whose journey is partly domestic and partly international.

Question 23

What are the advantages and disadvantages of special declarations to anyone travelling with a wheelchair or mobility equipment?

The expectation that those passengers travelling with a wheelchair or mobility equipment should have to make a special declaration in order to secure a level of additional compensation in the event of loss or damage is discriminatory towards disabled people and should be removed.

Special declarations are often sought for expensive luggage or sports equipment. Mobility equipment can be seen as quite separate from these items as it is essential for the disabled passenger to travel and is crucial to an individual’s independence and mobility reaching far beyond the journey itself.

On a practical level many disabled passengers do not have knowledge of what a ‘special declaration’ is, nor where and when one should be made or indeed how to make it.

The need to make and pay for a declaration is an additional cost that arises solely because an individual passenger is disabled by the way the aviation sector operates. Mobility aids should be seen as essential equipment and not discretionary items that passengers can choose whether or not to take with them.

The cost of a declaration differs from operator to operator and often has a maximum claim value. The cost of many powerchairs and sports chairs far exceed these maximum limits.

Again, on a practical level we question whether many disabled passengers would know the cost of their equipment, especially if issued by the NHS and so would be unable to provide an accurate evidence-based declaration. The onus is currently on the consumer and passenger to research and possibly pay for an independent assessment cost of equipment.

If a piece of mobility equipment is damaged or lost during an outbound flight, it is not just a matter of inconvenience to the passenger. That individual’s entire life experience from that moment on can be impacted in a very negative way.

If a powerchair is damaged, the passenger who relies on it can no longer move independently and the lack of their own chair can, for example, affect posture and lead to consequential damage including physical damage and muscle wastage. Wheelchairs can often take many months to design and deliver, equipment is often bespoke and even ‘off the shelf’ chairs can take many months to arrive.

Compensation levels should factor in the actual cost of the equipment plus associated physical, psychological and financial damage to incentivise airlines and industry to take suitable precautions, recognising that the impact of broken equipment often far exceeds the cost of the equipment alone. Additional short-term costs could include an assistant to push the individual around, extra travel and hotel costs and the inconvenience and damage to feelings that result.

Question 24

What would be the impact of removing the need to pay a supplementary fee for wheelchairs and mobility equipment?

As stated above we believe the current special declaration is discriminatory and potentially illegal, as disabled customers are paying more to ‘secure’ the carriage and care of essential items. Removing the requirement to pay a supplementary fee would be extremely welcome. And the requirement needs to be considered in the context of that fact that for a disabled person life costs on average an additional £583 per month.

A removal of the fee could also lead to improved standards within industry to secure equipment appropriately and to prevent damage arising in the first place.

Question 25

What evidence would it be reasonable to expect a passenger to provide to demonstrate like-for-like replacement/repair of a wheelchair or mobility equipment for a special declaration?

DPTAC believe that this question demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the authors. The process to replace equipment is complicated, specialist and varies significantly. Waitlists for wheelchairs and seating and much mobility equipment, whether bespoke or relatively standardised, can be very long and getting a like-for-like replacement is difficult.

Many disabled people may fund all or part of their equipment, but may not have knowledge on the cost of specific parts. Researching this could take a lot of time and expense in itself.

Another challenge is when older pieces of equipment need to be replaced with new. Quantifying depreciation and/or working out whether model upgrades are still appropriate will be a challenge. These specialist pieces of equipment may take months to assess and procure and are very different from ordering something ‘off the shelf’ like a musical instrument, set of golf clubs or a pair of skis.

DPTAC recommends speaking to stakeholders like the British Healthcare Trades Association and other manufacturers and specialists to gain a better understanding of the challenges disabled people face here and of the frequent inability to secure a like-for-like replacement or repair.

Question 26

What, if any, steps could be taken, beyond special declarations, to provide sufficient compensation for wheelchairs and mobility equipment damaged during transit on a domestic UK flight?

As set out in our response to question 23, we do not believe that special declarations are appropriate for providing compensation for wheelchairs or mobility equipment which should be treated as a separate and unique category in their own right.

During the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, British airports had engineers on site to temporarily repair or replace broken parts of chairs. In some circumstances, this would be a way of offering a short-term interim solution, not as an ultimate solution for a damaged piece of equipment. But it would be very welcome to implement such a solution for minor damages that occur. This could bring peace of mind and increase confidence when travelling.

At airports, stock could be readily available of some standard types of mobility equipment (like basic manual wheelchairs, crutches, walking frames, hoists or bath boards. This could enable people to continue their journeys. Clarity and thought would be required for impact and redress on connecting and international flights – if identifying when damage occurred and how this would work logistically, particularly when the final destination isn’t domestic.

Question 27

Other than compensation for the damaged or lost wheelchair or mobility equipment, are there any additional provisions that would reduce the impact on an individual whose wheelchair or mobility equipment has been damaged in transit on a UK domestic flight?

Where there is loss of or damage to a wheelchair or mobility equipment the current obligation to provide a temporary replacement is wholly inadequate as a final remedy. There is no requirement for that replacement to even be adequate for the passenger’s needs and in practice it generally means that a wholly inadequate alternative is provided because that’s all that is available.

We suggest that airports should have a duty to maintain contacts with distributors and suppliers of wheelchairs so they can source something that’s closer to the needs of the passenger even if not exactly the same. Not to do this raises the risk of causing injury to the passenger through use of inappropriate equipment (leading to extra harm such as pressure sores or additional permanent injury).

As we have already stressed above, fear of damage and other harm reduces the confidence of many disabled people to travel and more attention needs to be given to prevention in the first place – including a requirement that ground handlers have proper training.

Largely because of the current regulatory and monitoring regime, ground handlers are assessed by speed and results (for example, to meet European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) and other requirements) and this does not encourage the kind of careful handling that wheelchairs and other mobility equipment requires.

Additional provisions would be welcome. If a crucial piece of equipment – for example, a wheelchair – is broken completely, the severe impact is felt not just in the short term, but until a new replacement chair is delivered. This impacts on a person’s work, health, social life, education and independence. Without their chair or equipment, some people can become confined to bed or to their house.

Airlines should be compelled to pay for all the losses that flow from the damage they and their agents cause and this could include transport, a personal assistant or companion to push the replacement chair around, additional hotels, flights, the cost of a cancelled trip. Putting the obligation on airlines to pay for all the costs would incentivise them to take more care to avoid the initial damage and it would also recognise the real impact on the loss of independence and extra costs incurred by the individual affected.

Question 28

What else could be done to protect wheelchairs and mobility equipment during carriage? What would the impact on the individual and the airline be?

Wheelchairs and mobility equipment should be pinned down within the hold. Some aircrafts have ‘bins’ for powerchairs, but this could be extended to all wheelchairs and mobility equipment. Any delicate parts should be adequately protected with material supplied by the airline.

Airlines should create space for a dialogue between themselves and passengers beforehand.

Handlers should have to be trained on how to pack and load and unload equipment at the induction stage of their roles and on an ongoing basis. In the future, where feasible wheelchair users would feel much safer if they were able to stay in their chairs, or have them in the cabin rather than the hold, as this would minimise chances of damage by a third party.

As stated above the training of baggage handling staff is crucial yet there are currently no binding provisions that require this. During the COVID-19 pandemic there are clear indications that training has been put on hold and there is currently little sign that as passenger numbers increase so training is being prioritised in this area.

DfT has some existing tools that set out the type of disability and equality awareness training that is expected of the transport sector to achieve accreditation as part of the Inclusive Transport Leaders Scheme and we would advise that this becomes a requirement of airports to have in place for baggage handlers and all staff, with particular focus on how to handle wheelchairs and assistive devices to prevent damage.

Question 29

What other reforms can we consider to encourage more support of passengers with accessibility needs travelling by air?

DPTAC believes this consultation is a small step in addressing all ways of encouraging more travel by disabled passengers or those with access needs. In reality, this question could only be answered by more consultation and engagement. There needs to be acknowledgement that damaged equipment is only part of the challenge and compensation only begins to look at the effects, not the causes.

Speaking with key stakeholders, much more can be done to improve support of disabled and older passengers and encourage confident usage. Now, more than ever, it is important to consider all disability, as not every disability is visible and staff and other customers should be aware of this and be reminded through regular training.

It is necessary to think about access for people who need supplementary oxygen to fly. Often people who do not need oxygen on the ground require it in air because of the increased cabin pressure. Different airlines have different policies, some charge, some don’t and some limit how many people can use oxygen on a plane.

A lack of transparency on policies means disabled people may miss out on competitive flight prices or may not be able to travel after spending their cash. Clarity and consistency for domestic flights would be welcome.

Technology could be used to support passengers with access needs to travel by air. Quite often, people enter detailed information on equipment on numerous occasions when booking a single flight. A passport for equipment could help with efficiency, reliability and convenience. Information on what support a customer needs is also often input multiple times and inaccuracies lead to delays.

The value of access related information to multiple agencies, including anyone making a claim, shouldn’t be underestimated.

Airport facilities and aircrafts should acknowledge challenges and address barriers for as many people as possible. Much of this may be beyond the scope of consumer policy and would fit more clearly into guidance on airport facilities. Mobility aids are only part of a bigger picture. Clarity on travel with assistance dogs and the cost of accessible seating on flights are examples.

More facilities like Eagle hoists, Changing Places Toilets, sensory rooms and quiet spaces being available at airports could also lead to people feeling more confident and able to fly.

There is currently no central hub or resource to gather data on damaged equipment. This could be useful to identify cost, type, extent and frequency of damage and could help identify pinch points or gaps when problems arise. Some airlines already gather data to comply with regulations in the United States and there could be opportunity to improve and build on this.

This consultation is a welcome stepping stone to improve access to aviation for disabled people or those requiring support to travel. This final question is welcome as an opportunity for the department to begin to identify some new and existing challenges and solutions for the future .

Public Sector Equality Duty

Question 30

Please provide an indication of how you think the policies set out in this consultation would affect people who share the following protected characteristics. When answering please consider the 3 objectives set out above. Please indicate in each box whether you consider the proposed policy to affect the protected characteristic positively, negatively, no affect or don’t know.

This is difficult to respond to as no policy has been decided and the consultation could lead to positive or negative impacts on disabled and older people, depending on outcomes. The fact the policies related to damaged equipment are being considered is a welcome step and can be seen as positive, depending on outcomes. But policy and more robust obligations may be needed in order to have a materially positive impact as our responses make clear.