The rights of disabled passengers
Last week I was asked to represent the European Parliament's Disability Intergroup on a roundtable discussion addressing the proposal for a regulation on the rights of persons with reduced mobility travelling by air (COM 2005/47), presented on February...
Last week I was asked to represent the European Parliament's Disability Intergroup on a roundtable discussion addressing the proposal for a regulation on the rights of persons with reduced mobility travelling by air (COM 2005/47), presented on February 16 this year. Once entering into force, this will be the first disability-specific legislation at European level.
The Disability Intergroup brings together 110 members of the European Parliament from the different political families. What brings us together is the belief that persons with special needs must have access to full rights in all spheres. During the meeting we were at the table with the rapporteur Robert Evans - a British Labour member who is a very good friend of our country, the airline industry and the European airport representatives.
We discussed the salient points of the proposal which will essentially make discrimination against disabled air passengers illegal. The proposed regulation, which has already started being discussed in Parliament, provides that disabled persons cannot be charged directly for the assistance they require. Instead, costs must be shared among all passengers in a spirit of solidarity, thus reducing them to a very low minimum.
Also, passengers cannot be refused booking or boarding because they are disabled. This practice is common among certain airlines, especially the low-cost ones. Recently, a Mr Ross won a landmark case in British courts after Ryanair charged him for using equipment to deal with his disability at Stansted. The airport authorities have also been found at fault.
Ryanair and other low-cost carriers currently also limit the number of persons with disability to four on each flight. This will no longer be acceptable.
The regulation also provides for the setting up of a centralised system to deal with assistance from the point of arrival at the airport - and not from check-in - to the point of arrival at the airport of destination. This system will be financed by means of contributions by the airlines using the airport. The contributions will vary according to each carrier's traffic.
The scope of a centralised system is the seamlessness of the assistance. Certain airlines, especially the larger ones, want to opt-out of the centralised system and instead continue using their own services. Those contrary to such a proposal argue that there could be problems with handover of passengers and certain instances where the responsibility is not clear. Furthermore, the viability of a centralised system could be jeopardised if the main contributors were to withdraw. On the other hand, these airlines state that the lines of responsibility would be clearer if each carrier binds itself to carry out the services outlined in the regulation.
The proposal states that the disabled passenger should receive assistance if giving notification 24 hours beforehand.
Unfortunately, the regulation issued by the Commission states that only airports handling more than two million passengers per year should be bound to introduce such an assistance system, with the others being bound only by less stringent quality standards.
This could mean that Malta International Airport would not fall in the scope of this directive and that persons with disabilities using our airport would not get to benefit fully from this regulation. The disability movements want to do away with this threshold.
Having said that, I must say that from what I hear the assistance at MIA is of a good standard.
One point that could be improved is that regarding definitions since some players, namely the airlines, think the definition of "persons with reduced mobility" is far too wide. Another point subject to debate is the demarcation of responsibilities between airlines, airport authorities and the centralised system.
This regulation is one which really improves people's lives. Legislation that secures a better lifestyle - and not the ones dealing with size of bananas and the subsidies to butter mountains - is what Social Europe should be all about.
Mr Muscat is a Labour member of the European Parliament.
www.josephmuscat.com