Tiger Airways refuses to board disabled passenger
-
On a side note....tamago's new avatar is sooo.... chio...
i like.
-
Well,
If the article is accurate, then that is another typical case of Singapore's 'go-by-the-book' style. This is not the first time some big or small Singapore companies demonstrated such illogic inflexibility because the rule say so. Our big local bank also made a big joke few years back in Hong Kong destroying safe deposit boxes. I personally had bad experiences when NUH guard shouted at me(sick patient + customer) for making a wrong entry from automatically opened exit door.
Doing business is about customer service. We need to be flexible sometimes. Although some rules can not be bent, well, at least it must be managed nicely, not a straight 'NO' to people's face.
Not that I am critical of Singapore companies. My own future is very much tie to Singapore's success. But the military top-down no-question-ask approach of many Singapore GLCs have to adapt with time. -
not sure in SG can sue or not???
Originally posted by LazerLordz:Tiger Airways refuses to board disabled passenger
By Flora Liveris
December 11, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Northern Territory News
A NORTHERN Territory family's dream holiday has been left in tatters after not being allowed to board a Tiger Airways flight from Darwin to Singapore because their daughter is disabled.
Savvas and Irini Maillis were taking their four children on a month-long holiday to Greece, but could not board the Tiger Airways flight on Saturday.
They have now lost about $15,000 in airfares, transfers and accommodation.
Their daughter Artemis said the family got special permission to board the budget airline flight with her disabled sister, but as they were about to board the plane they were told they could not go on.
"We weren't allowed to board the flight,'' Artemis, 24, said.
"We had checked in and were told not to expect any help from the staff, but we said that was ok.
"We went through customs and were all ready to board the plane and then a man stopped us and said we couldn't go on.
"We told him that we had special permission from Tiger Airways in Singapore, and he said even if we did have the ok from the airline, the captain does whatever he likes.
"If we knew that we weren't allowed to travel we would have made other arrangements - now we've lost $15,000.''
The family had their travel agent contact Tiger Airways in Singapore in September and write a letter confirming that Anastasia could board the flight.
The letter says: "I spoke to Sarah from the Tiger Air office in Singapore ... who stated that providing Anastasia has assistance from the people that she is travelling with and does not require assistance from Tiger Air personnel she will be fine to travel on board the flight.''
Artemis said the airport staff made the family demonstrate that Anastasia could walk in front of all the passengers.
"The man said, 'why don't you leave your sister here and you all still go','' Artemis said.
"We asked to talk to the captain, but he didn't even come out - he didn't even see my sister.
"The man then asked what's wrong with my sister ... she has been crying all weekend, just because she can't talk, doesn't mean that she doesn't understand.
"They accept wheelchairs on the plane, but they don't accept the people.
"They treated us like garbage, like we were clowns.''
The Maillis' were told by Tiger Airways that they could not get a, refund and if they wanted their money back they would have to go to court.
A Tiger Airways spokesperson in Singapore said last night it was "unfortunate'' and would investigate the matter further.
"The truth is at this point our planes are not wheelchair friendly,'' she said.
The spokesperson then added: "We do have a policy that if the passengers themselves can actively assist the disabled person on to the plane and everything is sorted out, it is up to the travellers, that's our policy.''
--
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20906607-17001,00.html
Shameful, utterly shameful. -
x10Originally posted by nightzip:On a side note....tamago's new avatar is sooo.... chio...
i like. -
On a flight, the captain has the final say on who gets to board, although I do not understand his objection. The captain usually objects on issues of health and safety. Await the response of Tiger airlines with interest....Originally posted by LazerLordz:I'd say that the airline staff could have had more brass ones to insist that the captain allow them to board.
Unfortunate, but it's a shared responsibility. -
Under article 8Originally posted by oxford mushroom:On a flight, the captain has the final say on who gets to board, although I do not understand his objection. The captain usually objects on issues of health and safety. Await the response of Tiger airlines with interest....
your conduct, status, age or mental or physical condition or the physical condition of your baggage is such as to (i) require special assistance or (ii) cause harm, discomfort or make yourself objectionable to other passengers or our crew or (iii) involve any hazard or risk to yourself or other persons or to property;
The above condition will form the basis of who the captain can reject. And it's free seating so it means EVEN if the lady is seated up in front for easy boarding ...she must be able to make it to the toilet as well and since the airline is not wheelchair friendly - how is the passenger going to go to the toilet in an 8 hr flight if her family members cannot hold her up ? In the seat ? That makes it objectionable. And IF she is allocated a seat near the toilet , how is she going to walk to the entrance if her family members can't hold her up to stand?
I got a feeling that the family might have been asked to show how they will assist in her mobility and probably could not show it. No enough details except from one side .
They should have just booked a qantas and qantas has a special allocation for disabled passengers and they are able to take off some of their seats in certain airplanes for medical transportation ( repatriation of patients have been done this way) . The family will just pay more and less the hassle . -
seriously, they might just put a sign that says 'disabled not allowed'
-
wtf is wrong wiht these companiesOriginally posted by alwaysdisturbed:first candy empire, now tiger airways.
wth is with all these discrimination with disabled people. -
Hmm, in what way was the passenger disabled? THe article gives the impression that she was hearing impaired or something.
-
She was wheel-chair bound too.Originally posted by iveco:Hmm, in what way was the passenger disabled? THe article gives the impression that she was hearing impaired or something. -
Ah, a non-verbal quadriplegic. I have seen adverts requesting carers for this sort of people.Originally posted by LazerLordz:She was wheel-chair bound too. -
then i wonder if buses(not wheelchair accessible) will reject handicapped people?
-
machiam newcomer 3rd rate av actress still young n innocent right?Originally posted by nightzip:On a side note....tamago's new avatar is sooo.... chio...
i like. 
-
You want young & innocent must try Harry Potter child actresses. They are really eye candy.Originally posted by Ito_^:machiam newcomer 3rd rate av actress still young n innocent right? -
why has the thread degenerated to AV and harry potter?
-
One thing that needs to be understood - there are varying forms of disabilities , you have the blind who can walk , the mute who can walk etc.
The thing is we don't know the policies of the company or the whole situation. However they did say they will take her if she is able to be assisted by the family. Now if you are an airline hostesss or steward - would u want to carry a person who is a quadriplegic ? Not I , I have enough injury to my own back to know the pain that comes with it.
Occupational Health and Safety regulations in Australia state clearly that no employee is to risk their own health in their jobs and that they have a right to refuse any requests which may endanger their safety. If the employee chooses to do so and injure themselves , they are not covered by the company fully.
So if the girl cannot walk and the family is assessed as fully requiring the assistance of the staff to help lift her , therefore endangering the staff in terms of occupational injury i.e. back injury. They have a right to refuse her onboard . I would say that it is fully justified. -
As usual, Singaporeans are quick to demand their rights but are unwilling to pay the price for it. It is always the government's faultOriginally posted by fymk:One thing that needs to be understood - there are varying forms of disabilities , you have the blind who can walk , the mute who can walk etc.
The thing is we don't know the policies of the company or the whole situation. However they did say they will take her if she is able to be assisted by the family. Now if you are an airline hostesss or steward - would u want to carry a person who is a quadriplegic ? Not I , I have enough injury to my own back to know the pain that comes with it.
Occupational Health and Safety regulations in Australia state clearly that no employee is to risk their own health in their jobs and that they have a right to refuse any requests which may endanger their safety. If the employee chooses to do so and injure themselves , they are not covered by the company fully.
So if the girl cannot walk and the family is assessed as fully requiring the assistance of the staff to help lift her , therefore endangering the staff in terms of occupational injury i.e. back injury. They have a right to refuse her onboard . I would say that it is fully justified. -
The family are Australians with a handicapped daughter. I won't be surprised if the public has sympathy for them tho . I won't call that demanding - misguided is the word I would use - some of those who think Tiger airlines is at fault are not wrong but their views might not be right either if it was according to the scenarios I have given.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As usual, Singaporeans are quick to demand their rights but are unwilling to pay the price for it. It is always the government's fault
Like I said it is only one side of the story and I am just playing devil's advocate. -
Were they whites?
-
I m a SQ frequent flyer n believe in them 2 do the right thing!!!
perhaps, he or she may not fit for travelling at the material time!!!
I dont trust Aus travelllers,they may make up a loss 2 claim from Insurance company.
Dont judge the book just by the cover!!!!!! -
break the pilots leg and force him to a wheel chair and let him sit tiger airways.. see how that MF feels..
-
I think you've touched a chord with this.Originally posted by fymk:One thing that needs to be understood - there are varying forms of disabilities , you have the blind who can walk , the mute who can walk etc.
The thing is we don't know the policies of the company or the whole situation. However they did say they will take her if she is able to be assisted by the family. Now if you are an airline hostesss or steward - would u want to carry a person who is a quadriplegic ? Not I , I have enough injury to my own back to know the pain that comes with it.
Occupational Health and Safety regulations in Australia state clearly that no employee is to risk their own health in their jobs and that they have a right to refuse any requests which may endanger their safety. If the employee chooses to do so and injure themselves , they are not covered by the company fully.
So if the girl cannot walk and the family is assessed as fully requiring the assistance of the staff to help lift her , therefore endangering the staff in terms of occupational injury i.e. back injury. They have a right to refuse her onboard . I would say that it is fully justified.
It's all fine and dandy if the airline staff and captain are all smiles and allows the family to board. But assuming that along the tarmac and while being 'assisted' up the stairs, she accidentally falls and suffers serious injuries, what are the odds that the family will sue TIGER airways for 'gross negligence'?
Those same airline staff and captain may suddenly become red-faced for being 'naive' in going above their call to bend the rules out of compassion.
The fact is, the rules are there to protect the airline from legal issues; while it may be seen as inhumane, it is a required fundamental in running a service-oriented company.
The real question is: why did the SG office give a 'green light' to the family in the first place if the Australian office was going to veto it? Was any consensus between the two offices agreed upon before responding to the customer?
As a gesture of goodwill, they should negotiate a compensation package for the family. -
Right.. read it again. Is it wrong to side with the Australian family?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As usual, Singaporeans are quick to demand their rights but are unwilling to pay the price for it. It is always the government's fault
Fymk makes a good point here, which is more than your one-liners which do not serve to contribute more in terms of effective debate. There is a strong civil litigation culture in Australia, more so than Singapore.
The main issue here is why one party said A, and the other said B. -
Wrong !! Counter staff are not tiger airways staff !!! In a lot of country like australia - the airport have sub contract out the counter staffing , thus the airline have no say but to use the service and pay a fee for it. The counter staff are unusually strict. I encounter that before, for SIA even if you luggage weight over a little by a few kg , usually at other place, they will just let you go, but australia side even 1/2 kg they will not let you.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I'd think that the captain is the key issue here. But perhaps the ground staff were as stubborn or hideously ignorant here, still there's no excuse that they as the staff, cannot overrule that captain who is allegedly to have made a turnaround on the policy.
Even if the counter staff were Aussies, they are still employees of Tiger Airways, which puts the spotlight back on the management and reputation as well.
Before anything is done, the right thing for HQ here would be to apologise and do the right thing. IA can take over later.
As for the article , it is highly strange !!! Disable ? if a normal disable person on wheelchair , I would guess there may not be much trouble..... but what happen if the person is disable ...... and really does not seem able to survive the trip without special medical care, which airline does not have- thus she maybe disallow on board..... the story maybe just 1/2 the story, as the writer seem to be purposely leaving out the detail of the disability. -
Litigation??Originally posted by LazerLordz:Right.. read it again. Is it wrong to side with the Australian family?
Fymk makes a good point here, which is more than your one-liners which do not serve to contribute more in terms of effective debate. There is a strong civil litigation culture in Australia, more so than Singapore.
The main issue here is why one party said A, and the other said B. Read the terms of the contract again...the passenger must be able to board without assistance.
To have a proper debate, you must first get your facts straight. We still do not know the full picture. To make criticisms based on allegations alone is myopic at best..