SAA, South African Civil Aviation Authority & ACSA: Policy on People with Disabilities

Meeting report

JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS
19 May 2006
SAA, SOUTH AFRICAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY & ACSA: DISABLED PEOPLE POLICY

Chairperson: Ms W Newhoudt-Drunchen (ANC)

Documents handed out:
SAA Passenger Report
South African Civil Aviation Authority Presentation: Part 1, 2, 3 & 4
The committees minutes 10 and 24 of March
Briefing on unavailability of Minister of Transport
ACSA Presentation on social responsibility

SUMMARY
Twelve disabled people had experienced frustrations while traveling with South African Airways. The briefings and discussions concerned the airline’s policy on disabled passengers. The committee selected 16 persons to be short-listed for interviews for the National Youth Commission.

MINUTES
The Minister of Transport could not attend the meeting due to a scheduling conflict. Mr E Harris (Chief Director at the Department of Transport) attended the meeting in place of the Minister.

South African Airways (SAA) briefing:
Mr A Meyr (SAA representative) read aloud the Passenger Report, dated 21 April 2006, signed by Jacqui O’ Sullivan (SAA Corporate Communications Head). Twelve disabled people had been on a flight from Lilongwe, Malawi on 17 March 2006. The crew became aware of the safety implications only after the passengers were loaded on the aircraft and one of the disabled persons, Mr Harris, had decided not to travel on the flight. The presentation explained how the problems had arisen, how they could be avoided in the future, and included an apology for SAA’s handing of the situation. An Airline Forum for the Disabled had been established and would meet monthly to resolve the problems. The 12 passengers were offered compensation in the form of tickets from Lilongwe.

Mr Meyr went through the former meetings covered in the Joint Committee minutes of proceedings of 10 and 24 of March 2006. He noted that SAA did not make policy decisions on behalf of SA Express and SA Airlink.

Discussion:
Mr L Nzimande (ANC), who had been a passenger on the Lilongwe flight of 17 March 2006, said that he had not been allowed to prepare for the meeting since he had not known who would be attending. He further noted that the passengers were discriminated against; some of the report was faulty, in terms of the waiting times and what was said; that no one from SA Express had been present and that the compensation offered was not adequate since the ticket offered was not flexible. He was concerned as to whether Mr Meyr had been mandated to speak for SAA at this meeting.

Ms J Chamlers (ANC) told of an incidence on an SA Express flight where she had had to wait 30 to 40 minutes on a bus for a disabled person to be brought off the plane and even more for another disabled person to be brought on because there were not enough PIU (a chair that helps disabled persons enter the aircraft) units available.

Mr M Swathe (ANC) asked when the forum will come to be.

The Chair wanted the question regarding the different policies for SAA, SA express and SA Airlink clarified. She asked who owned the PIUs since Nationwide airlines charged for the use of them.

Mr D Gamade (ANC) said that the report was incomplete because it did not cover the version of those affected.

Mr T Setona (ANC) argued that it was unacceptable that SA Express and SA Airlink were not held responsible by SAA.

Mr M Moss (ANC) explained that sometimes when a ticket was bought from SAA the person might automatically travel with SA Express. The meeting was a time wasting exercise as no one from SA Express was present.

The Chair told of an incidence where her husband, who was completely deaf, nearly got arrested because the crew thought his aid was an iPod. They later found out that the crew had no disability training and did not learn about the different types of equipment used by disabled people.

Mr Meyr said that he also had been notified about the meeting only the day before. He apologized on behalf of SAA for all the incidents described. Because SA Express was an ‘own company’ it decided its own policy, but they should be engaged in the policy-making forum. A larger forum should be encouraged which included all airlines. He claimed that all airlines charged for the use of the PIU though it was not always specified. He agreed that the report was not complete because the affected passengers were not included in making the report.

The Chair hoped this would not be a waste of time and that other airlines should also be called to meet with the Committee.

Mr E Harris (Department of Public Enterprises, Chief Director of Transport) said that disabled persons were covered in the Avian Transport Policy Draft and that the issue was important because it concerned a vulnerable group in society. If the airlines could facilitate a luxurious first class it should also be able to meet the needs of disabled people. He noted that the established forum should be an industry forum and not an SAA forum.

Airports Company of South Africa (ACSA) briefing
Mr G Uresi (Manager: Cape Town International Airport) said that he had thought the meeting would concern the social responsibility of the airport, but had only then realized that it concerned the operational responsibility and did therefore not present the planned briefing. Regarding the operational issues, the design of the airport and the service offered was of importance. The airport considered the needs of the disabled when designing the parking, the check in, the actual airport and the loading on to the aircraft. The design of the new terminal at Cape Town Airport facilitated all eventualities. The service was mainly the responsibility of the airline, but ACSA was concerned because it reflected on the airport if the passenger had a bad experience.

Ms C Lodewyk (ACSA Group Executive for Communications and Branding) briefed the Committee on ACSAs charity work. ASCA had spent R500 000 in 2005 and would spend R600 000 in 2006 on a Wheelchair Programme. The programme was targeted at giving disabled children better mobility and access to school by providing them with wheelchairs. ACSA had thus far spent R1.3 million and would spend R 1 million in 2006 on the Wheelchair Tennis Programme, which was designed to help disabled children enter sports. ACSA was also spending R1.5 million on a new school for disabled children in the Limpopo province.

Discussion:
Mr Setona was concerned because the standard was still pre-1994 and thought that the airport should reach international standards.

A member of the Committee said that the maple floors were impressive and looked good but was dangerous to people with crutches. He had also had trouble finding the disabled toilet at the Durban Airport.

Another member of the Committee asked who was responsible for the standards and was concerned about Cape Town Airport when moving towards 2010.

The Chair said that the disabled mainly complained about the PIUs and asked again who owned them and if the cost of using them was added to the price of the ticket or was absorbed by the airline. She also argued that the smaller airports should be made more accessible for disabled.

Mr Uresi answered that the Minister of Transport and the Department were responsible and that ACSA worked through their office. He claimed that Cape Town International would look like Johannesburg International by 2009. The lack of toilet facilities at Durban Airport would be followed up. The problems with the maple floors had been resolved since a chemical had been added that reduced the slipperiness but retained the shine. The PIU chair was a service provided by the service handlers at the airport; some airlines did however have their own chairs. The service handler charged the airline for the use of the PIU. It is a global practice not to charge the passenger for this service since the cost of the facility was minuscule for the airline. He did not know if or which airlines charged for the use of the PIU. ACSA was only responsible for nine airports and many smaller airports were not ACSA airports.

Mr Harris said that the forum would be an opportunity to do analysis on the use of PIUs, why some airlines charged for the use of them and whether smaller airports should be funded to make them more user-friendly to the disabled.

A member of the Committee asked if disabled people were employed by ACSA and if ACSA was doing anything to help the people living in the informal settlement located at the land of Cape Town Airport.

Mr Uresi answered that they did in general not receive applications from disabled persons but they have engaged employment agencies to look for people. ACSA had jobs designated for disabled people in their control rooms. This was a good location because they did not have to move or deal with costumers. They do also hired disabled people in other areas. ACSA was working with the City of Cape Town regarding the relocation. They had built a kindergarten for the children but had suffered problems with vandals. ACSA had met with community leaders regarding the matter and the project of hiring some of the unemployed people in the settlement.

A member of the Committee was concerned that the disabled employees were hidden away in control rooms.

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) briefing
Mr T Maputla conducted the power point presentation which included:
An evacuation video
Actions to date
Concerns
CAA regulations and proposed changes

The Committee was invited to take part in the CAA workshop 30 June 2006 between the disability sector and the Aviation Industry.

Discussion:
Mr Setona welcomed the invitation but was concerned about the test of ‘must comply with safety regulations’. The test was claimed to be unfair, uncertain and difficult to understand.

A member of the Committee agreed that they should attend the workshop but noted that the industry had changed since the Regulations had been adopted around the time of the Second World War and that the way airlines handled the disabled caused a lot of pain and suffering.

The Chair wanted an evaluation of how long it took to evacuate disabled people and commented on the development in facilities since Second World War. She further asked how mental illness was defined, if hearing aids affected the plane and if the ‘assistant’ (mentioned in the Regulations) was a member of the crew.

A member of the Committee said that legislation should be put in place regarding the disabled. They were not asking for favors, but rights.

Mr Maputla and the other delegates from SACAA had to leave to catch their plane. He suggested that the Committee put down their concerns in writing for the workshop in June.

Mr Uresi said hearing aids were not condemned.

The Chair noted that the whole disabled sector should be invited to the workshop.

Mr Harris said that it was important that the test in the safety regulations was fair. The test was also important for the financial liability sector, since the passenger might sue if injured on board.

National Youth Commission (NYC) Candidates
Sixteen persons out of 50 candidates were chosen for interviews at the National Youth Commission.

Mr Setona nominated 13 candidates and noted that gender and class issues were taken into account.

The Committee expressed an opinion that no more than 15 persons should be called for interviews.

Mr D Mkono (ANC) offered two more names.

Mr Swathe did not agree with the number and nominated one more candidate since the Limpopo province had to be represented.

The meeting was adjourned.