V-Flyer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-22365898

Can't see much logic in Thomson's decision and looking around the Interweb it seems they are blaming the DoT as much as themselves.

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour by Thomson Holidays.

Airlines allow passengers to board in wheelchairs and children to fly unaccompanied; who, exactly, is going to assist them in exiting the aircraft, in a timely manner, in an emergency?

And what about people with a broken arm?

Or amputees?

Hmmm this may very well be the copious amounts of beer I have consumed today talking but I am with Thompson on this one.. B) B)

They stipulated they could not accommodate them on this particular flight and offered them a refund.. fair enough. There are a couple of unknown variables that the article does not cover, how many other pax in need of assistance are on this flight? Thompson offered to add someone known to the travellers to their booking for assistance - I wonder, is this at the cost of the airline?

If Thompson cannot accommodate the requests without compromising the safety of others on board then i think they have done the right thing in denying carriage.

Cabin crew should only be expected to help to a certain degree before it becomes necessary for an assistant or medical escort to also fly with the pax in question. Thompson have stated the level to which their crew are able to accommodate and unfortunately these pax are unable to fly.

I also find this, said by the passenger, curious:

Taking someone with me defeats the object of going abroad for the first time without parents...

Sounds to me that this is not really about Thompson, I know... ever the cynic

joeyc wrote:Hmmm this may very well be the copious amounts of beer I have consumed today talking but I am with Thompson on this one.. B) B)

Thompson or Thomson? This is like a Tintin adventure

at240 wrote:

joeyc wrote:Hmmm this may very well be the copious amounts of beer I have consumed today talking but I am with Thompson on this one.. B) B)

Thompson or Thomson? This is like a Tintin adventure

Ha, good spot. Well I did love those books as a kid, where's snowy?

Yeh, would love to blame autocorrect but not sure so will simply say a slipup as I am trying to multitask, not easy after an afternoon in the beer gardens of London

It is a CAA regulation that if a person is unable to evacuate themself from the aircraft then an assistant must accompany them

Presumably every blind passenger flying to the Paralympics was refused a ticket unless they personally paid for someone to accompany them?

Joeyc - you are on very dangerous ground there and I'll assume it's the beer talking.

Of course, we only know what the BBC reporter has decided to include in the article, but it seems to me these guys were going abroad for the first time themselves, and the comment you quote simply means that, apart from the cost, taking a companion with them would nullify the point of going by themselves for that first time.

In my opinion, the mistake they made was to say they were unable to put on a life jacket - a strictly-by-the-letter-of-regulation (jobsworth) would therefore conclude they cannot comply with safety regulations and should consequently not fly.

In a sense, they were being niaively honest - before getting on the plane (at which point they would be able to handle a life jacket and work out how it works), they simply stated they didn't know how to do it and could they have help.

I wouldn't mind betting that 50% of the general public would have very little idea as to how to put one on, but then, they aren't asked before getting on the plane.

This strikes me as an unfortunate chain of events, handled with very little apparent sensitivity or flexibility by the airline.

And, I do have some experience in this matter.

virginboy747 wrote:It is a CAA regulation that if a person is unable to evacuate themself from the aircraft then an assistant must accompany them

I used to travel frequently on BA between Gatwick & Glasgow, usually on the same flights each week. On umpteen occasions I saw a chap with a labrador guide dog sat at his feet. This was around 5 years ago.

Thanks
James

Why aren't airlines bound by DDA / Equality Act? They should make reasonable adjustments. In my opinion a reasonable adjustment would be to assign a member of crew to them in case of an emergency. I think Thomson's actions are disgraceful, they should be ashamed of themselves.

You see, and here is the irony, it is assumed that just because someone is blind, they will be unable to get out of an emergency exit.

Leaving aside for the moment, that not every blind person is the same, and therefore has differing levels of mobility, awareness, strength, physical fitness etc, the really funny thing is this.

It is more than likely that the events leading to an evacuation have probably lead to smoke, debris, dust in the cabin, and the person not reliant on sight might actually be more capable of finding the exit than many others.

But, and here's the point, because they are "disabled", their capabilities are assumed to be the lowest common denominator assumed by some beaurocrat with zero knowledge in the matter.

I been on planes with passengers that can bearly string two words together, can't read and are steaming drunk. But no-one ever questions their ability to get off a plane or follow safety instructions.

More broadly, the general nanny state we now live in leads to utterly farcical rulings on safety that begger belief and are totally inappropriate and unworkable in the situation they are supposed to remedy. I can quote examples, but then we'd be going off topic.

This was a bad situation, and I feel for those guys who had been looking forward to a holiday and didn't get it.

Choose another airline, next time.

Sounds like a subject close to your heart concorde and I apologise if any of my comments were taken personally or came across as being overly callous, it was certainly not my intent to cause any ill feeling.

My take on the quote lifted was perhaps a tad assuming of the circumstances of the person who made it, although it was definitely an interpretive quote for the reporter to add to the article in the first place. My experiences have left me slightly more weary it seems.

I have watched the interview and there are some very interesting points made, certainly tugs the heart strings at their disappointment and they do answer the question that Thomson would not pay for the helper's ticket.

Whilst my head was spinning last night I do stick by my opinion. Certain accommodations should be made, but these businesses have to have their limits and they simply cannot accommodate everyone, try though they may. The regulations are there and, as they say, it is reviewed on a case by case basis.

They reviewed the information at their disposal and informed them ahead of the flight as opposed to waiting until check in, or even worse, boarding that they were unable to accommodate them on the flight.

I was curious so checked out the VS line on special assistance.. appears they have their limits too and they are clearly indicated. The Thomson site on the other hand is a little more confusing and doesn't really go into that great a detail about what support can be provided, perhaps this incident will, at the very least, encourage them to issue clearer guidelines for their passengers.

Hopefully these friends will manage to get on that dream holiday soon y)

A blind person is certainly able to evacuate themselves. Part of the pre flight briefing given to them by the cabin crew will be how many seat rows it is to their nearest emergency exit. It is only people who cannot physically evacuate themselves that require an assistant.

Great opportunity here for positive PR. Imagine the headline:
"(insert airline name here) gives return flight to young blind couple refused flight by Thomson airlines"
Or, something like that - you can tell I'm not an editor!

New developments...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318893/She-lost-confidence-Mother-blind-woman-banned-flying-Thomson-slams-travel-firm-second-company-steps-offer-free-holiday.html

Very pleased for the pair and sadly not surprised Thomson made the offer only when the story hit the news. v(

Concorde RIP wrote:More broadly, the general nanny state we now live in leads to utterly farcical rulings on safety

I don't think it is just the nanny state, I think it is also to do with the dreaded compensation culture era we now live in.

If something goes wrong the first reflex nowadays seems to be to find someone else to blame and sue. That advertisement, by one of the "let us sue them for you" firms where the chap had an accident after being given "the wrong kind of ladder" always has me shouting at the tv "Why didn't you notice, you dickhead!"

And the most vociferous, the first people to moan about not being allowed to do something would likely be the first people to start legal action if they were allowed and whatever it was went wrong.

So I guess corporate risk assessment teams now have to factor in the likelihood of being sued to their decisions.

Doesnt necessarily make the decisions any less daft however.

Vegascrazy wrote:

virginboy747 wrote:It is a CAA regulation that if a person is unable to evacuate themself from the aircraft then an assistant must accompany them

I used to travel frequently on BA between Gatwick & Glasgow, usually on the same flights each week. On umpteen occasions I saw a chap with a labrador guide dog sat at his feet. This was around 5 years ago.

Thanks
James

Thats right James. In fact there was a thread over on the BA section of FT- the guy had flown ADL-SYD-BKK-LHR-GLA a couple of months ago with his guide dog. So to say someone must accompany them doesnt seem quite right.

virginboy747 wrote:A blind person is certainly able to evacuate themselves. Part of the pre flight briefing given to them by the cabin crew will be how many seat rows it is to their nearest emergency exit. It is only people who cannot physically evacuate themselves that require an assistant.

Evacuate themselves.

In what context?

Sealink wrote:

virginboy747 wrote:A blind person is certainly able to evacuate themselves. Part of the pre flight briefing given to them by the cabin crew will be how many seat rows it is to their nearest emergency exit. It is only people who cannot physically evacuate themselves that require an assistant.

Evacuate themselves.

In what context?

I too wondered about this, but having done a search it appears that 'from' can be inferred or not based on the context.