Home | OST Filings by Number | OST Orders and Notices | OST Filings by Carrier
OST Filings by Proceeding | OST Filings by Day | Office of Intl Aviation Filings by Carrier | Office of Intl Filings by Day

OST-02-12378

 


Dr. Maureen Lynch v. British Airways

OST-02-12378 May 6, 2002
Docketed May 23, 2002
Complaint of Dr. Maureen Lynch Violations of Air Carrier Access Act of 1986

The Complainant charges the above named Respondent, British Airways, with unlawful discrimination pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41310(a), and requests the Department of Transportation to take action to eliminate this discriminatory activity. The Complainant further charges Respondent with unlawful discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual with disabilities, by reason of such disabilities, in the provision of air transportation in violation of 49 U.S.C. + 41705. The enforcement of these laws is in the public interest, and t11c violations of these laws alleged herein warrant the commencement of a formal enforcement proceeding by the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 302.407.

Counsel:  Maureen Lynch, 404.639.2680, mul1@cdc.gov


Dr. Maureen Lynch v. British Airways

OST-02-12378 July 9, 2002 Answer of British Airways Violations of Air Carrier Access Act of 1986
Exhibits 1-5:  Advertisement, Voyage Report
Exhibits 6-9:  Schedule, Special Passenger Needs, Letter
Service List

The facts do not warrant enforcement action with respect to either incident. On July 15, 2000 CityFlyer had an effective means of boarding Complainant in Cork that would have been employed if she had not arrived late at the gate. She was treated the same as any other passenger whose boarding would have delayed departure of a flight: she was asked to wait for the next available flight. Moreover, neither the ACAA nor its regulations applied in Cork or to CityFlyer and no violation occurred.

With respect to the incident in Atlanta on September 5, Complainant was permitted to board her scheduled flight without an attendant. Accordingly, no violation of the ACAA occurred. The Complaint should be dismissed.

Counsel:  British Airways, Paul Jasinski, 347.418.4250


Dr. Maureen Lynch v. British Airways

OST-02-12378 September 18, 2002 Request for Additional Information/Response from British Airways Complaint - Air Transport Enforcement

In a letter dated July 22, 2002, we sought additional information from Dr. Maureen Lynch on the incident described in her formal complaint against British Airways. We were interested in learning how Dr. Lynch was transported from Cork, Ireland to Atlanta, Georgia, after being unable to board the July 15, 2000, flight from Cork to London on which she held reservations. We are providing British Airways a copy of our letter and the response of Ms. Sheila A. Bedi, Dr. Lynch's counsel.

We request that British Airways review Dr. Lynch's letter of August 22 and respond to the following questions. First, state how Dr. Lynch was transported from Cork to Atlanta on July 16, specifically indicating whether the aircraft used on that day was the same type as that used on July 15 (Avro RJ 100) with the same seating configuration. Second, state how Dr. Lynch was boarded on July 16 and whether the aircraft's seats had to be moved to make room for the aisle chair. If they did not, explain the contention advanced in British Airways' answer that in order to accommodate the aisle chair the seats on board the aircraft had to be moved. This procedure required, according to the carrier's Answer (p. 6), that all seats be unoccupied at the time. British Airways may also present any further views it may have regarding whether any advance notice requirements apply, if in fact an aisle or boarding chair was required, as opposed to an on-board wheelchair.

By:  Aviation Enforcement, Samuel Podbersky


British Airways

OST-02-12378 October 4, 2002 Response  Complaint - Air Transport Enforcement

British Airways assumes that both the July 15 and July 16, 2000 flights were operated with similarly configured Avro 100 equipment. On July 15, Dr. Lynch arrived at the gate late. CityFlyer, the operator of the flight, was unable to seat her in the economy class section of the aircraft in which she was ticketed without adjusting the aircraft seats and disembarking the passengers already on board. 

On July 16, Dr. Lynch presumably arrived at the gate earlier. At that time, the CityFlyer staff elected to upgrade Dr. Lynch, seating her in a second row business class seat, thereby avoiding the difficulties encountered the previous day. To our knowledge, all actions taken were consistent with the laws of the United Kingdom and of Ireland. Moreover, even if Part 382 had applied (which it did not), it would not have required that CityFlyer seat Dr. Lynch in a class of service different from that for which she was ticketed (see 14 CFR 382.38(1)).

Counsel: British Airways, Paul Jasinski


Dr. Maureen Lynch v. British Airways - Violation of 14 CFR Part 382

Order 02-11-11
OST-02-12378
November 22, 2002 Order Dismissing Complaint

Word Document

Dr. Maureen Lynch v. British Airways - Violation of 14 CFR Part 382

On the basis of the pleadings and supplementary information provided in response to requests from the Enforcement Office, we have determined that no violations have occurred and are dismissing the complaint.  Although the carrier was unable to accommodate Dr. Lynch on the Cork-London flight on which she held a reservation, it had a means for rendering the boarding assistance that would have been practical had the carrier received advance notice of her boarding requirements or if she had arrived earlier in the boarding process so that an on-board wheelchair, which was available, could have been used. We are unable to find that a foreign air carrier, in these circumstances, including the lack of advance notice, is under an obligation to remove passengers already on board, causing a flight to be delayed, or to provide a specific kind of boarding chair that would have been compatible, without a reconfiguration of seats, with the small aircraft used on the Cork-London flight, in order to accommodate a disabled person. With respect to Dr. Lynch's return flight, while the misunderstandings that arose prior to her boarding her return flight should not have occurred, they do not constitute a violation of 49 U.S.C. 41705 since Dr. Lynch was permitted to board the aircraft without an attendant and no evidence exists that she was denied any requested assistance during the flight. In addition, in the absence of a specific regulatory requirement relative to the training of foreign carrier employees, it would be unreasonable to hold that a foreign carrier is subject to the detailed training requirements of Part 382. Dr. Lynch's complaint, therefore, cannot support a finding of a violation of 49 U.S.C. 41705 based on inadequate training by the carrier.

By: Samuel Podberesky


Dr. Maureen Lynch v. British Airways

OST-02-12378 December 20, 2002
Docketed December 23, 2002
Answer of British Airways to Petition for Reconsideration Dr. Maureen Lynch v. British Airways - Violation of 14 CFR Part 382

Counsel: British Airways, Paul Jasinski, 347 418-2250

OST-02-12378 December 20, 2002
Docketed December 23, 2002
Complainant's Petition for Reconsideration Dr. Maureen Lynch v. British Airways - Violation of 14 CFR Part 382

By:  Dr. Maureen Lynch


Dr. Maureen Lynch v. British Airways

Order 03-01-26
OST-02-12378
Issued and Served January 27, 2003 Order Dismissing Complaint Violations of Air Carrier Access Act of 1986

On review of the Complainant's petition, we see no reason to alter the determination in Order 2002-11-11 to dismiss her complaint. The Complainant concedes that she was late in arriving at the departure gate and has offered, as basis for a revision of our prior decision, only the bare assertion that she is not satisfied with the air carrier's explanation of the difficulty in bringing a wheelchair aboard the aircraft used on the flight. We do not believe that it is reasonable to impose further evidentiary requirements on the carrier absent a prima facia rebuttal showing by the Complainant which would call into question the carrier's submissions that on their face are credible. The Complainant has failed to make such an initial showing. We therefore affirm the prior decision to dismiss the complaint and find that further review of this matter is not in the public interest.

By: Rosalind Knapp


 

Home | OST Filings by Number | OST Orders and Notices | OST Filings by Carrier
OST Filings by Proceeding | OST Filings by Day | Office of Intl Aviation Filings by Carrier | Office of Intl Filings by Day