Disabled air passengers need more protection

Injury lawyer Catherine Leech explains why she believes laws need to change to properly protect disabled air passengers.

The government needs to urgently look into the regulation of the airline industry for disabled passengers and fast. The simple fact is that for people travelling abroad with disabilities it can already provide difficult barriers, both on an emotional and physical level, prior to even getting on board an aircraft, but it seems the level of protection consumers have is woeful and significantly weighted in favour of the airlines.

Things do go wrong occasionally and that is part and parcel of any form of service or travel and the majority of customers are accepting of this fact; humans have flaws and nothing ever runs perfectly. But for people with medical conditions that have an inhibiting effect on everyday basic requirements and activities, small issues can quickly snowball to larger issues given that every aspect of a holiday has to be carefully planned in advance.

In the worst case scenarios of when things go significantly wrong, it seems like customers are not given the necessary protection when travelling abroad. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled on a case between a passenger, Christopher Stott and his airline, Thomas Cook, that provided a good example of this issue.

Whilst there is an argument that the airline could have resolved this much earlier to avoid it escalating this far, ultimately the customer felt aggrieved by the lack of redress offered by Thomas Cook and so, due to the trauma experienced, had to take it to the highest possible level.

Sadly for Mr Stott, despite the court labelling it ‘disgraceful’, they were unable to rule in favour of him because of a loophole in the Montreal Convention. Quite frankly, the Montreal Convention is both antiquated and not fit for the purpose anymore, as I wrote here, and it is for this reason that steps need to be taken to close this and protect the disabled and elderly passengers travelling by airline.

Mr Stott lost out because the Montreal Convention supersedes European law, which can protect disability rights, and so is the first port of call when it comes to cases of this nature. The problem is that it offers no scope for mistreatment of disabled passengers, even when in a scenario such as this, the customer is entitled to something for the distressing situation they have encountered.

The Montreal Convention was signed in the late nineties and amended provisions under the Warsaw Convention, which was signed and adopted in 1929. The fact that we are still using a law with its roots nearly a century old is worrying. Times have indeed moved on since then, exemplified by society’s stigma towards mental health and also human rights being eradicated or completely removed in some cases. We are much more cultured, sensitive and sophisticated in this regard. Surely it is time for the regulations we have in place to be equally bending and hand back some power to the customer.

This convention should provide adequate cover for affected individuals but fails miserably, and so I implore the current government to take the next step and revisit this before something worse happens. Airlines should be just as accountable as any other organisation on the ground for the wellbeing of their customers.

Catherine Leech specialises in cases of serious injury and is an expert in the field of aviation accidents, working in this area for over 20 years. She is a multi-award winning solicitor and has a strong reputation after representing claimants in transport disasters in the 1980s and 1990s.