Christmas Day and what did you do? Unwrap that crappy jumper from Auntie Joan? Force back those spuds that your mother overcooked for the third time in the row? Or do what loyal ABLE2UK reader, James did and email us about a story we covered last year? James pointed out to us that our story about Iberia airlines had been misguided by a press release from the airline itself to the media. The story we covered outlined the fact that a group of deaf passengers were kicked off a plane because they needed a 'hearing' adult to accompany them on their journey. The story we published ended as follows...
"If something happens on a flight with 23 unaccompanied deaf people, it could be a very difficult situation, It is against international transport rules for that many deaf people to fly unaccompanied. The rules say four deaf people can travel unaccompanied, or 10 deaf people as long as they are accompanied."
There is however a twist in this story, according to the Disability Rights Commission there has never been such a rule.
Which lead to speculation that there was something fishey afoot, although we didn't know the full explanation back then. Something had been missed out from the press release. But now, a few months later we can bring you what actually did happen and what Iberia airlines never wanted the press to find out..
Before the students stepped foot onto the plane Iberia staff questioned their age. According to resources the students didn't look over the age of 18. Even though they were. The decision was made that 23 'children' could not travel with parental guidance. Although nobody bothered to check their birth of dates on their passports, probably the simplest blooming way to check somebody's age, especially if you work in a bloody airport!
Realising their cock up the airline knew that if this story was ever leaked to the press it wouldn't look good for them. Not only had they overlooked the simple task of not checking a passenger's passport (23 in total!) but they had managed to cheese off a group of deaf students. They knew that they had to cover this incident up as quickly as possible, so they opted for plan B. Send a press release out that they asked the passengers to leave because they were worried of their safety because of their impaired hearing. The statement to the 'Guardian' newspaper read...
"It is against international transport rules for that many deaf people to fly unaccompanied. The rules say four deaf people can travel unaccompanied, or 10 deaf people as long as they are accompanied."
When questioned about this 'rule' the UK Civil Aviation Authority and the UK Disability Rights Commission were confused. As there is no such rule and the fact that a passenger can hear or not is neither here or there. Let's face it, if a plane crashed all passengers would be in the same boat - well aeroplane in this case! Another thing, if the airline was concerned that the safety regulations which are demonstrated by either a fit air hostess or gay airline host wouldn't be beneficial to a deaf passenger maybe they should consider all the bloody foreign people which board aeroplanes on British soil. Or should that read 'walk off aeroplanes on British soil!'. At least they can read the safety pathlet in front of them!
So, what did Iberia say in their defence? Here's the second statement following the press reports,
Last week the media ran several features informing of an incident on
an aircraft with a group of young people with hearing problems and some
reports describe it as a form of discrimination. Iberia as the airline
operating the flight feels that the reports have been rather one-sided
and a more in depth look at the facts would have shown the incident in
a different light.
We apologise to the young people and their families for any inconvenience
caused but we feel we followed the correct course of action under the
circumstances.
The reservation for this group was incorrectly made in 5 different bookings
where the correct procedure with any group would have been to contact
the airline directly.
There was no remark in any of these reservations with reference to the
condition of the passengers. A mandatory requirement, which allows the
airline to make provision for any special needs of our passengers. Iberia
does not exclude any passenger but we do need to know of any special circumstance,
which may need to be catered for.
This mistake placed Iberia in an impossible situation. When faced with
an aircraft about to take off with an indeterminate number of passengers
with hearing problems who had not been identified, for whom no seating
arrangements had been made and for whom there was no group leader accepting
responsibility. Imagine the chaos in an emergency situation during their
flight where the crew is not aware that more than 20 passengers cannot
hear or speak and it is not even known where they are seated or how to
communicate with them?
>
>We could have allowed them to take off in the hope that nothing would
happen as many have suggested. This would certainly have been the more
comfortable solution for the airline. Nevertheless, we opted for the more
sensible route and asked the passengers to postpone their flight, provided
them accommodation, tickets for carers, and rebooked them on a flight
the next morning.
We at Iberia decided to take an unpopular and costly decision knowing
we might face some criticism. However we do not compromise on safety and
we expect this is something that our young passengers and their families
appreciate."
On the email he wrote to us on Christmas Day James gave time and consideration to look more in depth to the statement, more than we do here at ABLE2UK. His comments relating to the above press release are..
Why are their families any of Iberia's business, given that all of them
were over 18 and therefore were adults? Would a group of, say, 30 year
olds have needed a so called 'group leader? The crew must have know that
most of them could speak English as the group argued with the staff for
several minutes in fluent English before being forced to leave. This totally
destroys any argument Iberia may try to make that it had reasonable cause
to believe that the deaf people could not communicate and therefore were
not self-reliant. Shall I record Harry Potter on BBC1 this afternoon and
watch a Bond movie instead? (Um, we added that one!)
All these points are very valid. Whilst we wait for any more news from the airlines, as we have to state that Iberia airlines have not confirmed that the age was the main concern and are still sticking to the rule about deaf people not being able to travel alone. The rule, we might add again, doesn't exist we will leave the last words to one of the actual passengers who was kicked off the plane..
I emphasise the first paragraph for your consideration. Iberia KNEW it
had made a mistake, and yet it disgracefully had the cheek to try and
cover up its discrimination by citing 'international travel regulations'
that it KNEW full well did not exist.
Given that they were all over 18 and therefore adults, why did Iberia
tell them that they 'needed to be accompanied by 3 adults', if they did
not wrongly believe them to be children?
Why did the airline try to insist on the deaf adults taking Rikki with
them for the rest of holiday as a "responsible adult"? It appears
that, although Iberia considers hearing 19 year olds to be adults, it
still regards deaf 19 year olds as being children, needing an 'adult'
to accompany them on holiday. The deaf group's lawyer may well have something
to say about that!
When we were told to get off the plane, I asked one of the staff for a
statements that states that we needed a carer to escort us to Gran Canaria.
He said he would provide me with the relevant information, but 5 minutes
later, I asked the same question. He then told me that there wasn't a
statement. I think they then realised the mistake they made.
One thing I noticed, they said we needed 3 adults to escort us on the
holiday. It was I who provided one, my friend Rikki. He was a CSW and
a hearing person. The ironic thing is that he was just 19 at the time.
One person in our group, David Hay was older than him. The other two were
representatives from the company who made the booking, ebookers. Iberia
actually had the cheek to ask if we would mind taking Rikki with us for
the rest of the holiday. But they were paying for the representatives
to fly with us, drop us off at the hotel and they were to fly back the
next day. The same for the return journey. Luckily the people in the group
did not mind Rikki coming with us.
It is my strong opinion that deaf people should be allowed to fly unaccompanied,
as they, are, at the very worst, in the same position as non-English speaking
foreigners with regard to being able to communicate (assuming that the
airline is operating from the UK). Indeed, many deaf people can speak
fluent English, can lip-read, can read safety cards, follow safety demonstrations
and communicate with staff via pen and paper if necessary. On all of these
topics, non-English speaking foreigners surely pose more of a safety risk
than do deaf people, (as they cannot communicate with staff),yet they
are allowed to fly 'unaccompanied' whereas deaf people are not. This could
lead to the palpably absurd situation where a British deaf person, unable
to hide his or her deafness, is thrown off an aeroplane 'because they
are not accompanied by a carer', but a foreign deaf person from a non-English
speaking country is indistinguishable from a hearing compatriot and hence
is allowed to fly! Surely this is indirect discrimination on the grounds
of nationality and illegal.
So if you are booking a Summer holiday this year - you know which airline to avoid don't you?