Australian airlines and airports could face mandatory reporting, clearer passenger assistance responsibilities and new accessibility requirements under reforms being considered by the federal government.
Released on 6 August, the Aviation Disability Standards consultation paper sets out options intended to remove barriers encountered by people with disability when booking flights, moving through airports and travelling aboard aircraft.
The government has not settled the final standards. The 112 page paper presents regulatory options, voluntary guidance and existing arrangements for public and industry feedback.
Airlines may face mandatory reporting
One of the most consequential proposals would require airlines to report accessibility performance to the government each year.
Every airline, regardless of passenger numbers, could be required to disclose the number of mobility aids lost or damaged while in its care. Reporting could also cover disability related refusals, assistance animals refused carriage, complaints involving injury or discrimination and staff training outcomes.
The government would collate the information and publish it annually in accessible formats.
Larger airlines and airports could also be required to report on their overall compliance. The paper uses 150,000 annual passenger movements as an example of a possible threshold, although the final figure remains open for consultation.
Compensation for damaged or lost mobility devices is being considered separately through the proposed Aviation Consumer Protections Framework.
Passenger assistance profiles could follow travellers
Airlines may be required to offer an optional passenger assistance profile that allows customers to record their accessibility requirements for future bookings.
A profile could contain seating and communication needs, mobility aid specifications, medical equipment details, assistance animal documentation and information about an accompanying carer.
With the passenger’s consent, airlines would save the information and provide relevant details to departure, transit and arrival airports. Requirements could also be passed to another airline when a passenger is connecting between carriers.
Passengers would be able to update or delete their profile and contact a designated airline representative with questions.
Airlines consulted during the process acknowledged the potential value of the profiles but warned that implementation would be technically complex, particularly when information must move between different booking systems, airports and carriers.
Responsibilities could be divided more clearly
The government is considering how responsibility for passenger assistance should be divided between airlines and airports.
Under one option, airports would assist passengers between airport entry points and check in. This could include movement from public transport stops, car parks and drop off areas.
Airlines would assume responsibility from check in through to the flight and baggage collection. The destination airport would then assist the passenger from the terminal to an agreed exit point.
Other options would place primary responsibility with either the airline or airport.
The aim is to address gaps created when airlines, airports and ground handling companies apply different processes or disagree about which organisation is responsible at a particular stage.
Mobility aids are a major focus
Airlines could be required to let passengers remain in their own mobility device until a specified time before the gate closes. Passengers may also be allowed to choose whether they transfer at check in, the departure gate or on the tarmac, where conditions permit.
Staff could be prevented from leaving a passenger unattended for an extended period after that person has transferred into an airline wheelchair.
Other proposals include tracking mobility aids, providing protective handling processes, accommodating disability aids in the cabin where possible and returning equipment promptly after arrival.
The paper also considers whether disability aids should always be transported without an additional charge.
Booking, seating and communication could change
The proposed standards could require passengers with disability to receive the same fare regardless of whether they book online or through an assisted channel.
Airlines may also need to provide clearer information before booking, explain when medical certificates or travelling companions are required and give specific reasons when a passenger, assistance animal or disability aid is not accepted.
Passengers could receive greater choice over seats that meet their needs. Critical announcements, disruption updates and safety information may need to be provided in multiple accessible formats.
Options covering future aircraft and major cabin refurbishments include accessible passenger controls, more seats with movable armrests, improved toilets and accessible inflight entertainment.
Airports could face new service requirements
For airports, the proposals cover accessible check in facilities, assistance points, consistent wayfinding and accessible information during delays or gate changes.
Airports may need to test signs, symbols and navigation technology with people with disability. They could also be required to consult disability reference groups when planning facilities or services.
The paper considers improvements to drop off and pick up areas, ground transport connections, security screening information and passenger transfer equipment.
The public can have its say
The government is inviting people with disability, their families and carers, advocacy groups, aviation businesses and other members of the public to comment on the proposals before consultation closes on 2 October.
Feedback can be provided through an online survey or as a written, audio or video submission. Three online information sessions will also be held in September, including one open to everyone, one for disability representative organisations and one for the aviation industry.
The government will use the responses to refine the standards and assess their likely effects before deciding which options will become mandatory.
