Interesting case. I wonder if what’s the final resolution for this. Here’s what I know, as of this post:
1) Protests by BEAT against AirAsia
Back in July 2007, it was reported in several sources — ‘The New Paper’ (Singapore); newspapers in Malaysia, disability-related blogs like Rolling Rains and PeterTan.com — that AirAsia (a budget airline operating out of Malaysia) that the airline came under fire from members of the Barrier-free Environment and Accessible Transport Group (Beat), also based in Malaysia.
About 40 members of Barrier-free Environment and Accessible Transport Group (Beat) staged a peaceful protest at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport Low-Cost Carrier Terminal after one of them was unable to book a ticket online.
Mr Peter Tan said he could not tick the box confirming he did not require special assistance on the AirAsia website.
HAVE TO BE ABLE TO WALK
‘I couldn’t proceed because of it. And each time I contacted the call centre, I was told: ‘If you can’t walk. then we can’t take you. It is company policy’,’ he said.
Mr Tan, who is Beat’s assistant co-ordinator, said the AirAsia operator at the call centre informed him that if he could not manage the steps of the airplane by himself, he had to bring someone along to help him.
Apparently, it’s not that AirAsia won’t take the business of people with disabilities. As I learned from this post, AirAsia’s Terms and Conditions were as follows:
- AirAsia is unable to accept passengers who are completely immobile.
- As access to our aircraft is by the boarding stairs, the carriage of persons with limited mobility is subject to whether they are able to climb the boarding stairs unaided or aided.
- A passenger who is able to walk up the boarding steps unaided may travel without a carer.
- If the passenger is unable to climb the boarding stairs without any assistance, then AirAsia will request that the passenger travels with a carer.
Pictures of the protest here, posted by Peter Tan.
2) AirAsia takes steps to make provisions
Very soon after that, as I learned from Peter Tan’s updates, AirAsia took the complaints seriously and promised to resolve the problems. Seems to me a classic case of AirAsia turning a problem into an opportunity: having its CEO personally meet members of BEAT to hear them out, publicly announcing their plans to make their flights more accessible, training the trainers from BEAT (so that they could, in turn, train other potential customers who had disabilties). That the government stepped in was probably a deciding factor as well, but AirAsia was seen as taking the lead in resolving matters:
3) But is discrimination still being practiced?
On 1 Nov 2007, Peter Tan blogged about how he, as a passenger with disabilities, was asked to sign an indemnity form (among other less-than-pleasant encounters in the aircraft). It was, as Rolling Rains reported, a “waiver of liability”.
4) End of story?
I’m not sure what has happened next. Peter Tan has since left BEAT, apparently because he made it public about him signing the indemnity form.
I can only speculate that BEAT or AirAsia preferred to resolve matters quietly rather than create adverse publicity.
Or news about such a practice by AirAsia could cost the airline potential business in the UK. Rolling Rains mentioned in the same post that AirAsia’s attempt to extend its route to Coventry, UK met a hitch when “disability advocates there [in UK], having learned of their practices, and have alerted officials to review the company’s practices in light of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)“.
5) My personal reflections
Whatever the reasons for Peter Tan leaving the group, I suppose one has to look back in perspective. From a non-service to a select group of people with disabilities, to having them being able to fly with the budget airline — that’s progress.
But asking a select group of customers to sign indemnity forms just is being discriminatory, and worse, it comes across as grudgingly taking them on as passengers.
Running a business means taking risks. Maybe AirAsia would have been better off looking at those particular group of passengers as a calculated risk rather than excluding them totally.
Customers will take note, whatever their physical abilities.
Being able-bodied today doesn’t mean we won’t suffer from some form of disability tomorrow (if so, would we have time to make business change?)
The full-service airlines take on all passengers with disabilities because they have factored that into their cost of operations. While I’ve not surveyed or studied the practices of other budget airlines, I’m guessing that budget airlines generally have that exclusion clause to limit its service for certain type of passengers, because of cost considerations.
I’m also guessing that the common defence of such a business practice are safety considerations for such passengers (i.e. the aircrew would not be able to assist certain type of passengers), and that such passengers have recourse to other alternative airlines.
I think unless specifically prohibited by law, it’s the business owner’s call to decide who they want to take on as customers (the PR fall-out not withstanding).
But let’s not be mistaken — whatever the business reasons, it is discrimination by definition.
Of course it’s doubtful if all customers would boycott budget airlines because of discriminatory practices. At least not when cost is a concern, and not when most do not appreciate the constraints that people with disabilities have.
But I suspect two factors will force budget airlines to rethink such discriminatory practices: one — competition from other budget airlines; two — legislation from countries granting air-rights.
So I agree with Scott that “it is simply better business to adopt Universal Design in airplane and airport design and extend the philosophy to business practices and policy“.
He also suggests that “at the line level, management needs to read and apply the research done by Darcy & Daruwalla on discrimination in the travel industry” (the link to the research article can be downloaded from his post).
Businesses should take note: We’re all living longer, with more discretionary income.
I believe the longer term solution isn’t legislation either, but widespread adoption of the principles of Universal Design — designs that do not discriminate.
It would make good business sense for any sort of entity, profit or non-profit.
