ࡱ> #` Objbjmm GX>>>R===8>\n>tR[`??F4@4@4@AAAZZZZZZZ$V^h`pZ>AAAAAZ4@4@[RkDkDkDA^84@>4@ZkDAZkDkD6EW&>X4@? `p6=qA^%XZR[[AX@.aA>.a8X.a>X,kDAAAZZ D^AAA[AAAARRRd)$RRR)RRR APPLICATION FOR AN EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 55 OF THE DIASBILITY DISCRIOMINATION ACT 1992 (CTH) REGIONAL EXPRESS AIRWAYS RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS PART 1: INTRODUCTION Application By letter dated 06 September 2007, Regional Express Airways (Rex) made an application to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the Commission) for a temporary exemption under section 55 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (the Act or DDA) from the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the DDA for a period of five years. As detailed in that Application, Rex is a regional airline based in Sydney and operating in rural and regional areas in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia. Its fleet consists of 33 SAAB 340 aircraft, likely to increase to in excess of 40 in the next three years. Rex currently carries disabled passengers on its fleet, with an escort or companion required for certain classes of passengers who are unable to self assist or understand safety directions. For certainty of both passengers and Rex, Rex seeks an exemption in the terms set out below in relation to restrictions and requirements on the carriage of passengers with specific disabilities. Call for Submissions A request for submissions in response to the Application was made by the Commission with the deadline of 5 December 2007. Ten submissions were received in response and provided to Rex. Rex has given substantial consideration to the submissions and welcomes the comments made by those who are impassioned to ensure access to air travel for those with disabilities. This is also Rexs aims, within the boundaries of practicality. Responses to each submission are provided below. On the basis of the submissions and continued discussions with interest groups, Rex wishes to amend its Application. Amended Application Rex seeks to amend its Application to read as follows: Requirement for a Facilitator If the wheelchair dependant passenger cannot assist him/herself to move between their own wheelchair and the Rex aisle chair and between the aisle chair and the aircraft seat, a Passenger Facilitator (provided by the passenger) may be provided to attend both the departure and destination airport to assist with moving the wheelchair passenger between the wheelchair and the aisle chair and between the aisle chair and the aircraft seat. Facilitators are not required to travel with the passenger and there is no additional financial burden on the passenger. If the passenger is unable to provide a Passenger Facilitator at either or both airports, the passenger must advise Rex during booking to allow sufficient time for Rex to source and deploy resources to assist the passenger. Requirement for a Companion If the passenger is unable to understand and follow safety directions (written, pictorial or verbal), is unable to don a life vest, requires the application of medication in flight, or requires assistance to the toilet or to eat, a companion is required to travel with the passenger. If the passengers only restriction is the inability to attend the toilet, eat or drink unaided, a companion is not required if the passenger elects to forgo catering during booking and advises that a toilet requirement would not normally be required for the duration of the flight. To help with the costs of this requirement, Rex will provide the lowest fare applicable to the flight, regardless of availability of that fare, for the companion. Wheelchair dependant passengers who are able to assist in the transfer between their own wheelchair and the aisle chair and between the aisle chair and the aircraft seat by bearing weight using their upper torso and arms will be carried without the requirement for a companion to travel with them or the requirement for a passenger facilitator to assist at the departure and destination airports. Scheduling Requirements Wheelchair dependant passengers must check-in no later than 45 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time at regional airports and 60 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time at capital city airports to allow sufficient time to prepare the wheel chair for carriage and to board the passenger without unduly delaying the flight. All flight bookings must be made with the Rex Customer Contact Centre on 131713 to ensure that all special requirements are notified to the airline in the proper manner. The weight of the chair will have to be notified to Rex during booking. No extra charge is applicable to this service. Bookings for disabled persons cannot be made on the Rex website. Wheelchair dependant passengers will be required to book at least two days in advance of the flight to enable Rex to make all necessary preparations. Disabling Electric Wheelchairs: Dangerous Goods Regulations Passengers with electric wheelchairs must either disable their own electric wheelchair or supervise Rex staff in disabling and reactivating the wheelchair after their transfer to an aisle chair. This will ensure that the chair will not be activated in the aircraft hold and, if the batteries are of a type that are required to be disconnected due to Dangerous Goods Regulations, they are disconnected and reconnected in a manner that will not damage the chair. Wheelchair Weights Wheelchairs less than 64Kg in weight may be carried with no restrictions. Wheelchairs weighing between 64Kg and 140Kg require approval from Rex to ensure that sufficient capacity is available on the requested flight. If sufficient capacity is not available, alternative flight arrangements will be discussed. Rex will not carry a wheelchair in excess of 140Kg. Rex will limit the number of wheelchair passengers per regular public transport flight to two. If either or both passengers have chairs between 64Kg and 140Kg approval from Rex must be obtained to ensure that the flight has sufficient carrying capacity. Rex will carry one chair per passenger free of charge. Any additional chairs will be carried as excess baggage and will be subject to the excess baggage conditions. Contagious Diseases Rex will not carry a passenger with a prescribed contagious disease unless notification is provided from a doctor stating that the person is fit to fly and poses no danger of infecting the crew or other passengers in the aircraft. Approach to Exemption Rex is not seeking to avoid its responsibilities under the DDA through this Application, but to achieve the Acts objectives within the constraints of its fleets infrastructure, size, and staff capacity. Rex recognizes the temporary nature of the exemption and intends to utilize the exemption period to achieve the Action Plan objectives set out in each section below to further travel opportunities for disabled passengers. Contrary to some submissions, Rex does not seek an exemption giving it absolute right to veto passengers with disabilities. It is not Rexs intention to stop carrying passengers with special needs, but to ensure that it does so with comfort, convenience and dignity. In preparing these submissions Rex has given consideration to the comments made in previous exemption applications and curtailed its request accordingly. In requesting the Commission looks favourably upon its Application, Rex draws particular attention to the following exemptions previously granted: Exemptions granted to Kendell Airlines in 2000, in relation to: Lack of access to aircraft or seats for passengers requiring lifting, where this cannot be performed consistently with the requirements of applicable occupational health and safety laws due to space constraints of the particular aircraft; and Requirement for a passenger to be accompanied by an assistant (so long as if an assistant is required by Kendell travel is at carer fare as presently applied by Kendells parent company Ansett) if specific circumstances; and Exemptions granted to Airnoth in 2003 and 2006, in relation to: Lack of access to aircraft or seats for passengers requiring lifting, where this cannot be performed in compliance with the requirements of applicable occupational health and safety laws due to space constraints of the particular aircraft; and Imposition on intending passengers of requirements for notice of disability access needs, where notice required is reasonable in the circumstances. Interaction with other Legislation and Standards Rex acknowledges that the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth) and Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport Guidelines 2004 (Cth) (the Standards) apply to Rex. However, an application for exemption from these Standards is not being made at present. The Standards are currently being reviewed and will be amended. Rex will make an application for exemption from the Standards, if necessary, following review of any amendments. In Rexs submission it would be a waste of Rex and the Commissions resources for an application for exemption to be made in respect of the Standards when these Standards will soon change. A substantial number of submissions, particularly those of the Cairns Community Legal Centre (CCLC) and the Disability Council of NSW, suggest the exemption Application should not be granted on the basis: Rex can rely on a defence of unjustifiable hardship to defend its failure to comply with the DDA or Standards in relation to a number of exemptions sought; Rex can refer to health and safety legislation and/or aviation regulations to defend its failure to comply with the DDA or meet the Standards; Rex has not sought an exemption to the Standards and granting an exemption to the DDA without such similar exemption will cause conflict; and/or The exemptions sought are not within the purview of the DDA. Unjustifiable Hardship and Applicable Legislation Rex adopts the Commissions comments in the Kendell Airlines exemption that the objects of the DDA are better served if organisations bring forward measures in the context of the exemption process than elect instead to defer any positive action until successful complaint action is taken against them. Rather than await circumstances in which an individual is put to the expense and concern of making a complaint against the airline to test any defence, Rex properly seeks to use the exemption process to address compliance issues while providing time for it to achieve greater compliance with the goals of the DDA even where defences would currently be available to Rex. Rex considers it misconceived to contend, as some submissions do, that it is preferable to wait until an individual is put to the cost of making and defending a complaint to rely on the defence of unjustifiable hardship, as this would involve individuals incurring substantial costs in making a claim where it would otherwise not be necessary. It would also necessitate Rex devoting considerable resources to individual complaints where these resources could be better spent on furthering the goal of making air travel more accessible to all passengers. Conflict with the Standards Rex considers the CCLCs contention the exemption shouldnt be granted because this will give rise to conflict with the Standards ignores the basic purpose of the exemptions to enable parties to achieve the Acts objectives within the constraints of existing infrastructure and other regulatory requirements. The exemptions sought will enable Rex to do this, while still being committed to meeting the Standards as required. Outside the Purview of the DDA The CCLC submissions further suggest that the exemptions regarding check-in times, low cost fares and excess baggage charges are not within the purview of the DDA and therefore should not be the subject to an exemption. Whilst Rex accepts that some of the matters contained in the exemption may not come specifically within the scope of matters which a complaint could be made about under the DDA, Rex considers that all of the matters the subject of the exemption application go towards the aims and goals of the DDA in making air travel more accessible to people with special needs. PART 2: RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS Rex sets out and provides its response to each submission on the relevant exemptions, as follows. Passenger Facilitator If a wheelchair dependant passenger cannot assist him/herself to move between their own wheelchair and the Rex aisle chair and the aircraft seat, a Passenger Facilitator (provided by the passenger) is required to attend both the departure and destination airport to assist with the moving of the wheelchair passenger between their wheelchair and the aisle chair and between the wheelchair and the aircraft seat. The Facilitator is not required to travel with the passenger and there is no additional financial burden on the passenger. If the passenger is unable to provide a Passenger Facilitator at either or both airports, the passenger must advise Rex during booking to allow sufficient resources to be deployed to assist. Submissions Ms Laura Carrington suggests allocating a small number of aircraft seats on the aisle of aircrafts and that aisle chairs should be fitted with removable arms to better enable independent travel by wheelchair users. Ms Angela Snow submits that to require a passenger to provide a Passenger Facilitator involves substantial organisation by the passenger and possible extra expense. It may also raise security issues. The NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre (NSWDDLC) similarly suggest the requirement for a Passenger Facilitator may restrict a persons ability to travel and questions who makes the determination a Passenger Facilitator is necessary. Mr Dougie Herd, a current Rex traveller, provides insight into the proposed exemptions from a personal perspective. He submits comparatively low cost technical, design and/or human solutions exist in relation to lifting wheelchair passengers, which are currently in use by Rex and other airlines (notably Qantas) positing the following as potential solutions: Safe manual handling practices involving one or two people; the purchase of slings or lifting harnesses designed to be used by two people; the purchase of one sliding/transfer board for each of Rexs aircraft; and/or the purchase of Eagle 2 and/or Eagle 3 hoists which can be operated by one person. The Disability Council of NSW endorses similar suggestions, submitting Rex should continue to assist passengers while considering improvements in techniques. The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) also submit Rex should look to the eagle lifter and suggest boarding arrangements are better controlled when staff provide assistance. The CCLC endorses the use of aircraft passenger hoists such as the Eagle 2 and Eagle 3 and notes Rex has purchased aisle chairs to assist with the transfer of passengers to aircraft seats and that these, and the strategic management of a number of passenger hoists, could overcome the problems for which the exemption is sought. Further, boarding devices to assist wheelchair passengers into and out of the aircraft should be used to load wheelchairs into the cargo hold. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) submit equipment for lifting and transferring passengers should be investigated. It notes regulations in the United States allow for an attendant to be required, but where this is determined by the airline it is at the cost to the airline and full refunds are provided if no attendant can be found. It states passengers should be able to stay in their own chairs until boarding and removable armrests should be fitted. Rexs Response The primary aim of seeking this exemption is to provide disabled travellers who cannot assist with the transfer from their wheelchair to seat with the option of travelling alone, replacing the current requirement in existence that a companion travel with the passenger. The primary aim of the exemption is to reduce the cost to passengers where assistance is needed. Its grant would place no additional burden or restriction on passengers, such as Mr Herd, who are able to transfer themselves to their seat. If requested during booking, assistance will be provided to passengers to transfer from their wheelchair to the aisle seat, however, an option will now be available for a Passenger Facilitator to assist if so desired. Rex currently allocates specific seats to disabled passengers in rows 2 and 3 of each aircraft, which have removable arm rests, as do aisle wheelchairs in use by Rex. Rex provides direct assistance into seats and will continue to do so. The exemption simply allows the passenger the flexibility of opting to provide a Passenger Facilitator to assist. These Facilitators would normally be people who are used to lifting the passenger or who lift such persons on a daily basis. This proposal allows the passenger the comfort and sense of security of being handled by familiar persons. The proposal poses no additional security risk, as Passenger Facilitators are permitted by both the Air Transport Security Act and Air Transport Security Regulations. In relation to boarding devices, Rex already has in place positioned standard Disabled Passenger Lifts (DPL) (DPL99 and DPL99A) at each airport it operates at. The Rex submission does not seek any exemption to this requirement. Rex plans to evaluate the Eagle 3 lifter in mid 2008. If acceptable and compatible with the aircraft, a unit will have to be purchased for each airport to which the airline operates, including ports to which no disabled passenger has travelled during the last five years. This process may, within financial constraints, take 2 to 3 years. The Banana board referred to has been trialled and found unsuitable. Other sliding board systems have been and will continue to be trailed. Strategic management of the assets in conjunction with another airline is not possible as Rex does not have the freight capacity to transport these units around the network, the unit may be required at the same time by Rex and the other airline, and/or the partner airline may move operations at any time with little notice. In any event, the introduction of this unit would not eliminate the option of the passenger providing a Passenger Facilitator. Recouping the cost of equipment and extra staff suggested by some of the respondents is not possible without raising the ticket prices for all passengers. In the current environment, such price rises could mean the cessation of some services as passengers seek alternative means of transport. Proposed Action Plan During the period of exemption, Rex will investigate the use of the Eagle 3 lifter and, if acceptable, purchase a unit for each airport to which it operates. Other sliding board systems will continue to be trialled. Rex will continue to ensure all aircraft flight crew are familiar with their occupational health and safety requirements and continue to assist passengers where there is no risk to individual health and safety. Rex will also conduct further research and seek further advice as to safe lifting practices and appropriate training for staff. In this regard, Rex notes that it has already sought the assistance of a leading ergonomist in relation to developing safe lifting practices. During the exemption period, Rex will report to the Commission any instances where a passenger has been unable to travel or has been required to travel with an assistant because of restrictions permitted by this exemption. Requirement for a Companion If the passenger is unable to understand and follow safety directions (written, pictorial or verbal), is unable to don a life vest, requires the application of medication in flight, or requires assistance to the toilet or to eat, a companion is required to travel with the passenger. If the passengers only restriction is the inability to attend the toilet, eat or drink unaided, a companion is not required if the passenger elects to forgo catering during booking and advises that a toilet requirement would not normally be required for the duration of the flight. The companion will receive the lowest fare applicable, regardless of availability. This does not apply to passengers who are able to assist in the transfer between their own wheelchair and the aisle chair and the aisle chair and the aircraft seat. Submissions The CCLC acknowledge that a similar exemption was provided to Kendell Airlines, but submit it should not be provided to Rex because its aircraft are larger and there is a Flight Attendant on each flight. The Commission subsequently declined Airnorths similar exemption application, considering it appropriate to leave the matter to a case by case determination the position adopted by CCLC here. Ms Samantha Smith, parent of a disabled child, submitted that the requirement is financially discriminating, regardless of the discount offered and consequently lessens the frequency of travel opportunities for disabled travellers. She submits the companion should travel at no extra cost. The NSWDDLC questions who determines a companion is required. They reject a blanket proposal that excludes assistance to the toilet or to eat and submit all personnel should be trained in disability awareness so they may assist individuals with disabilities rather than excluding them. The AFDO suggests this exemption is directed unreasonably at people with intellectual, cognitive or psychiatric disabilities and is an attempt by Rex to avoid its corporate responsibility for assessing each and every passenger in terms of airline safety, noting Rex may already exclude a passenger if the designated authority deems the passenger represents a genuine safety risk. It suggests Rex is wholly justified in retaining corporate responsibility on a case by case basis, making it clear no assistance will be provided to any passenger requiring the administration of medication in flight or assistance to get to the toilet or to eat. Acceptance of that condition of sale indicates the passengers acceptance of the condition and consequently, there is no need for a companion, nor a need for an exemption. It suggests the companion card applicable to other transport, used by blind people, should be considered here. The PIAC submit Rex should accept the determination made by a person that they do not require any extraordinary service. The proposed exemption requires crew to determine the intellectual capacity of an individual, meaning passengers with an obvious intellectual disability will suffer discrimination. It refers to the international practice of providing basic assistance to passengers during flights, suggesting Rex should be required to assist passengers: to and from the toilet, but not carry someone or assist with personal care in the toilet; and with meals by opening packages, identifying items and cutting large portions, but not require assisting someone to eat a meal. PIAC also contends the lowest fare applicable to the flight requires more clarity and if a disabled passenger refused access on safety grounds, the basis of the refusal should be put in writing to the passenger within 10 days. A number of submissions, including those of the NSWDDLC, AFDO, Disability Council of NSW and PIAC comment that this restriction would equally apply to unaccompanied children and people who cannot speak English. The AFDO suggest the companion card applicable in other public transport should be investigated. Rexs Response The SAAB 340 is certified to carry only one operational Flight Attendant. That Flight Attendant is responsible for 33 to 36 passengers. The Flight Attendant consequently cannot provide full and dedicated attention to certain classes of disabled passengers in the event of an emergency, nor provide extensive assistance during the flight. Of the 36 passengers, at any one time it is possible that five may be unaccompanied minors, two may be wheelchair passengers and any number may have other disabilities. Rex seeks to make certain that all disabled passengers who cannot assist themselves in the ways referred to are ensured the utmost care and attention during their travel, by requiring a companion. Rex acknowledges the CCLCs argument regarding the Standards and circumstances where they may not apply. Rex does not wish to rely on such circumstances, but to provide certainty to disabled passengers by advising them that the single Flight Attendant is not able to assist with toilet trips. If the passenger is one who will need such a visit during a 90 to120 minute flight, then a carer or companion will be required to assist. In relation to who shall determine whether a carer is required, Rex considers the provision of a carer or companion is at the determination of the passenger or their permanent carer. Rex wants to clearly define the requirements to assist the passenger or carer in making this determination. This is not discussed in the Application as it is already a requirement of the airline. The issue of the classes of passenger requiring a carer or companion has been widely embraced by airlines for a significant time and is an industry standard. With only one operating Flight Attendant allowed on the SAAB 340, this requirement must be stringently observed in order to satisfy civil aviation safety requirements. With clearly defined criteria published, the passenger or the normal carer for the passenger will be able to make the determination. Rex understands Ms Smiths concern regarding fees for carers. However, it notes the Standards state that all passengers must be prepared to pay fares. Rex wishes to charge the lowest fees possible. In relation to the AFDOs submissions, Rex provides the following. Rex does not consider the companion card to be a necessary requirement to obtain reduced fares for a companion under the exemption any person may be nominated as a companion and the lowest fare will apply regardless of the possession of a card. In relation to the AFDOs series of dot points in support of its submissions, Rex indicates most of these points do not apply to its Application. In relation to the comments regarding children and non-English speaking passengers, Rex notes that instructions are available in diagrammatical format for non-English speaking people in accordance with international aviation standards. The requirement for a companion is limited to passengers unable to understand and follow written, verbal or pictorial instructions. Further, Rex sets an industry standard minimum age for unaccompanied minors at an age where the average child is able to understand and perform the safety instructions given by the Flight Attendant. The Rex requirement is for passengers who do not have this basic ability. Action Plan Rex will report to the Commission on the usage of companion fares and identify any instances where issues arise in respect of companions. Previous Exemptions As noted above, the Commission has previously granted exemptions requiring a person to travel accompanied by an assistant in special circumstances, for example, where the passenger is unable to: understand and follow safety directions given by flight crew (both oral and visual); unable to don a life vest during an emergency; unable to exit the aircraft unaided in an emergency. The Commission held that this requirement is consistent with the approach taken in the United States in relation to Air Carrier Access regulations and with the approach taken in Australia in McLean v Airlines of Tasmania Pty Ltd [1996] HREOCA 37. On the same reasoning, Rex requests the exemption be granted here, extending slightly to circumstances where individuals are unable to administer their own medication, attend to the toilet and/or eat, during the flight the latter two exemptions being overcome if the passenger agrees to forego catering or toilet stops. Rex notes that Airnoth made a similar exemption that was not granted on the basis the Commission considered it preferable to deal with the issue on a case by case basis, with Airnorth relying on the unjustifiable hardship defence. Despite this, Airnorth were granted exemptions on the condition that it implement proposals for carrying passengers with disabilities and assistants at reduced fares where they required an assistant. For the reasons stated above, we do not think reliance on the unjustifiable hardship defence is appropriate. Rather, an exemption should be granted in the interests of certainty for both passengers and Rex. Scheduling Requirements Wheelchair dependant passengers must check-in no later than 45 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time at regional airports and 60 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time at capital city airports. All flight bookings must be made with the Rex Customer Contact Centre on 131713 to ensure that all special requirements are notified to the airline in the proper manner. Wheelchair dependant passengers will be required to book at least two days in advance of the flight to enable Rex to make all necessary preparations. Submissions The PIAC submit the refusal to offer web-based services for people with disabilities reduces the capacity of some people to be independent and internet services for frequent flyers should make airline processing more efficient as customer information is already entered. If prior notice is required for booking, Rex should abide by the clause in the Standards requiring priority seating and ensure staff are informed of the passengers needs. The AFDO similarly refer to the Standards, submitting extra booking information and longer lead time for bookings is discriminatory, with the Standards already detailing priority booking. Mr Nick Morris submitted the 48 hour booking requirement should not be permitted, particularly for business people. CCLC suggest these requirements are based purely on commercial operation decision. Rexs Response It is Rexs intention to use this exemption and early check-in to prepare to carry the passenger, particularly in relation to rural flights. Loading of passengers by their Facilitator or Carer may take longer than normal, delaying flights if an earlier check-in period is not required. Rex anticipates the notice period will be lessened for frequent flyers whose details and requirements are known to Rex and whose requirements will become familiar to Rex staff. Rex acknowledges that under section 28.2 of the Standards, it may request advance notice of a requirement for accessible travel. It understands that such advance period must be for the primary purpose of ensuring facilities and assistance can be made available where required and reasserts that the reference to a 48 hour advance booking is for this very purpose. Disabled business passengers may attempt to book within the 48 hour period, however, Rex cannot guarantee that an aircraft will be available with sufficient space and weight capacity for all of the passengers requirements. If the Commission considers a formal exemption is not required on this basis, we request that the exemption decision re-confirm that notice requirements are permissible if reasonable in the circumstances. Online booking is not yet available to disabled passengers as the booking system cannot provide sufficient notice to the airport and crew of the special requirements, nor can Rex negotiate a more suitable flight for the passengers uplift requirements should they initially book an aircraft with a high load. Booking through the Customer Contact Centre guarantees all required information is provided, any special requirements are relayed, and the lowest price for the route is found for any carer or companion (a facility not available in an on-line booking system). Rex does not charge any administrative fee for this service to disabled passengers. Rex does not seek an exemption from Standard 27.1 regarding access to information, as suggested by the CCLC submissions. All information required for booking is located on the Rex web site and by telephone from the Customer Contact Centre. In 2008 Rex will also produce a pamphlet advising disabled persons of the Regional Express provisions and requirements regarding their travel. Action Plan Modifications to the booking system are currently being investigated. Rex will report on any technical solutions which may be feasible to assist and diminish difficulties associated with boarding and seating passengers with disabilities safely, as and when they become apparent. Should on-line booking facilities be possible for wheelchair passengers, Rex will make attempts to implement such a system. Disabling Electric Wheelchairs Passengers with electric wheelchairs must either disable their own electric wheelchair or supervise Rex staff in disabling and reactivating the wheelchair after their transfer to an aisle chair. Submissions Ms Angela Snow comments that she doesnt see how this would be possible, noting that passengers using electric wheelchairs are usually severely disabled and there should be no compulsion placed on them to assist with disabling their wheelchairs. The AFDO submit the handling of electric wheelchairs should be supervised by the user as it is important equipment and can be damaged by poor handling. The CCLC submit granting an exemption is unnecessary because legislation prescribes safe carriage of batteries for powered wheelchairs. Rexs Response The purpose of this exemption is to ensure potential damage to chairs by incorrect disabling or reactivation is eradicated not to compel passengers to perform this task themselves or for Rex to do so without supervision. Passengers who are capable of dismantling or reactivating their chair themselves may continue to do so. However, if they are unable to, Rex requests the passenger direct and/or supervise Rex staff to do so. In relation to the comments made by CCLC, Rex acknowledges legislation prescribes safe carriage of batteries for powered wheelchairs, however, the Application doesnt make any request in relation to the nature of the batteries this is covered by applicable dangerous goods legislation. Wheelchair Weight Wheelchairs weighing between 64Kg and 140Kg require approval from Rex to ensure that sufficient capacity is available on the requested flight. If sufficient capacity is not available, negotiation may be initiated to provide a service with no restrictions. Rex will not carry a wheelchair in excess of 140Kg. Rex will limit the number of wheelchair passengers per regular public transport flight to two. If either or both passengers have chairs between 64Kg and 140Kg approval from Rex must be obtained to ensure that the flight has sufficient carrying capacity. Rex will carry one chair per passenger free of charge. Any additional chairs will be carried as excess baggage and will be subject to the excess baggage conditions. Submissions Ms Angela Snow contends that charging an excess baggage fee discriminates against passengers who are unable to use manual/lighter chairs. A couple with heavy wheelchairs may not be able to travel together. The fee should not be levied. CCLC suggest the restriction is based purely on commercial operational decisions. The AFDO, PIAC and Mr Nick Morris note the excess baggage provision doesnt allow for people who need to carry an extra chair, for example, a commode chair, sports chair or bath chair. The AFDO further contend the limit of two wheelchair passengers makes it impossible for some friends and partners to travel together. The AFDO and the PIAC note the Standards do not provide for the limitation of the weight of wheelchairs, with the PIAC suggesting a blanket ban limiting the weight and number of chairs would restrict access even in circumstances where weight is not an issue. Regarding excess baggage, the PIAC note the Standard clearly states that aids will be carried and additional charges will not apply. The NSWDDLC submit the proposed limitation of 64kg for wheelchair weight is unrealistic and discriminatory, as the majority of powered chairs are heavier than 64kg; the major brands weighing between 78-110kg, with accessories adding a potential further 10kg. An excess baggage fee is submitted as discriminatory. Rexs Response The sole motivation for this exemption relates to the weight capacity and weight restrictions of Rexs fleet. Weight limits on wheelchairs are based on the physical carrying capacity of the aircraft given high passenger loads. The Rex weight limit requirements (140Kg) cannot be increased due to loading and aircraft performance requirements as described in the Application. The DPL previously referred to has a lifting capacity of 300Kg. Normal wheelchairs will not fit in the DPL and an attachment to this equipment has been sourced and is being brought into service. This attachment limits the useable lifting weight to 140Kg due to structural and centre of gravity issues. The 140Kg limit is also dictated by aircraft performance limitations. The Standards mention the lifting weight to assist a passenger into the aircraft and do not cover the lifting of cargo into the hold. Rex acknowledges the natural desire for couples to travel together and in the company of friends. Should a couple both requiring wheelchairs in excess of 64 Kg, elect to travel together, Rex will make every attempt to identify a suitable flight for the couple that reports a lower load. However, unrestricted carriage of heavy chairs is not possible, as it would disadvantage other passengers by resulting in the need to offload baggage and/or passengers to meet weight restrictions. In relation to excess baggage, Rex has given consideration to the submissions and will waive charges for one chair per passenger. Second and subsequent chairs will be charged at normal excess baggage rates and will be accepted on the understanding that carriage on the particular flight is not guaranteed due to performance restrictions, in line with the requirement for all excess baggage. Extra chairs must be carried as excess baggage and treated accordingly. The SAAB 340 has limited carrying capacity and equal consideration must be given to all passengers and their baggage. Contagious Diseases Rex will not carry a passenger with a prescribed contagious disease unless notification is provided from a doctor stating that the person is fit to fly and poses no danger of infecting the crew or other passengers in the aircraft. Submissions The NSWDDLC question how Rex will determine what a contagious disease is and request further information regarding this exemption. The AFDO also submit the ambiguity around what is a prescribed contagious disease is unacceptable. In addition to similar concerns regarding how a contagious disease will be determined, the PIAC question why the exemption is necessary when other airlines already have provisions requiring passengers with contagious diseases to seek clearance before travelling. Rexs Response Airlines do not set the diseases listed as contagious diseases. These are set by legislation and are widely known by practitioners. Rex will not accept any passenger for carriage if they suffer from a prescribed contagious disease unless a physicians statement is obtained that the person may travel by air. Regional Express will publish this list in the website once the exemption has been granted. PART 3: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Impact of Proposed Exemption on People with Disabilities Submissions received from the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations suggests that the Application is taking place in the context of a broader decline in access to air travel by people with a disability. To the contrary, Rexs Application seeks to expand the current capability for disabled people to travel by lifting some carer or companion requirements and allowing disabled passengers the option of providing instead a Passenger Facilitator who does not have travel with them. This reduces costs to the passenger. The weight restrictions already apply and therefore have no further impact on people with disabilities. The exemption merely formalises current practice dictated by the equipment, aircraft design and performance limitations. Further Consultation Rex would be happy to accept the offer from the AFDO to consult with them to assist Rex to promote and advance the goals of the DDA in respect of air travel.      FILENAME \* MERGEFORMAT 070034-doc-hreocresponse-240408rg (V2).docPAGE   FILENAME \* MERGEFORMAT 070034-doc-hreocresponse-240408rg (V2).doc  FILENAME \* MERGEFORMAT 070034-doc-hreocresponse-240408rg (V2).doc ;_J T  "6mo~Wy   8 m   ᴯἨᴨᴨἠᠼhblhbl>*hblh[>* h[h[ h[>*hwh[>*h~h[>*h h[6h,h[5 h[5 hhh[h[h[5hh[56hh[5:e~ fFEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[gd[$a$gd[XLN 5 s-FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[ "6s-FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[6ms-FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[s-FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[ 8s-FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[s-FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[ s-FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[  s-FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[ p"s-FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[ (((((())\)i)r)+'+2+<+++/,6,./.J.K./x/ 00|0}000000011I2K2 33338393455566Q7p777::#;0;4;հ밬լh-Bh[56 hf>*hfh6*h~hX.h[6 h[56ha-h[56h8hbl h[5 h[6hGZ h[6h[h[h[5heGTh[>*>p"}#$$s-FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[$%&'s-FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[''((s-FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[(N+,,s-FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[,K--.K.s-% & Fgd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[K.}/3934sk%FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[ & Fgd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[455Q7q77kFEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[ & Fgd[77::n<?FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[ $ & Fgd[* & F$d!%d$&d!'d$N!O$P!Q$gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[4;9;<<<<==G=? ???V?[?c?f???????f@l@@@@@@@@ AAAA)B*B.B2BgBhB^CbC EEBEFEZEdEEEEEEEEFbFkFFFFFFFFGTGuGGGHHøøøøh:`h[B*phh[B*phh h7h[ h[56h<;h[5 h<;h[h=h2h[5h[hblHn<a=>iOEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[lBFEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[>?V?_OEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[lBOEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[lBV???_OEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[lBOEƀ׻Ŧ()gd[lB?_A8C Es-FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[ EEGJiFEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[ $ & Fgd[HHHHHHI/IGIbccc"d.d>d?d@ddddddeIeKeaeeeeejhi%i&i+iiiiƿhBh[B*phh[B*phhdh[B*phh h+h[hIh[56 h9 8h[h= h[56 h~h[ h[h[h[h[5h[ht+EPыҋ #:;)9HK]ƍǍٍ -4aƾƾƾƷѡhk&B*phhQFh[B*phh= h~h[ hTh[h[B*phh*h[B*ph h7h[hIh[56h[h[5 h3h[ h[56h6h[6:Fۇk%FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[ & Fgd[FEƀ׻Ŧ.gd[̈{5FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[ & Fgd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[ & Fgd[. & F$d!%d$&d!'d$N!O$P!Q$^gd[ǍٍsEEE= & Fgd[. & F$d!%d$&d!'d$N!O$P!Q$^gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[Bsi $ & Fgd (FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[vs-FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[ 1NT_j?XtvқIQҝŞ àJM2UVWXtuѾطسطآƛh~h[5 h[5 h^hk hkh[ hdh[hIh[56h8 h[56h[h[5h^h[B*ph h7h[h[ h:`h h hQFh !hQFh[B*OJQJ^Jph2vҝŞsE= & Fgd[. & F$d!%d$&d!'d$N!O$P!Q$^gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[ŞàWXukc & FgdkFEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[ & Fgd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[u¤s-FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[*{¤ؤ٤ڤ?UVWXY[\^_abdeӦԦļxth^8h~mHnHuh~jh~U h[0J;jh[0J;Uh~0J;mHnHu h~0J;jh~0J;UhJ\-jhJ\-U hRChDRhk&h[h[5hdh[B*phh&<h[B*phh[B*phh[ h&<h[-WXZ[]^`acdsnllllllllgd FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[FEƀ׻Ŧ .gd[ dJKLMNOgd h]h &`#$gd% HIJKLMNO hRChDRh~ch[hJ\-h^8h~mHnHujh~Uh~ E0&P 1hP/R :p (BP. A!"#$%! CD@D [NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH d@d % Heading 1$ & F1$@&"5CJ\^J_HaJ mH sH tH `@` % Heading 2$ & F1$@&CJ\]_HaJmH sH tH D@2D % Heading 3  & F@& \^JaJ@@B@ % Heading 4  & F@&\aJB@RB % Heading 5  & F@& \]aJ@@b@ % Heading 6  & F@&\aJ8@r8 % Heading 7  & F@&<@< % Heading 8  & F@&]N @N % Heading 9 $ & F1$@&5CJ^JaJDA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 2O2 Indent1 ^^@^ TOC 1- $ n<xx]n^`< 5OJQJV@V TOC 2) $ n<]n^`<OJQJ.. TOC 3 ^:O2: TFP_AddressCJ<OB< g TFP_Number1  & F@&<OR< g TFP_Number2  & F@&<Ob< g TFP_Number3  & F@&<Or< g TFP_Number4  & F@&<O< g TFP_Number5  & F@&<O< g TFP_Number6  & F@&<O< g TFP_Number7  & F@&DOD 6 TFP_Number8 & F @&V @V Footer F$1$B*CJOJQJaJhph<@< Header  F$aJh6U@6 Hyperlink >*B*ph2O2 Indent2 ^2O2 Indent3 L ^L 2O2 Indent4 !^2O"2 Indent5 "^2O22 Indent6 #^P0@BP List Bullet $ & F h<^`<T6@RT List Bullet 2 % & F <^`<T7@bT List Bullet 3 & & F L <^L `<T8@rT List Bullet 4 ' & F <^`<T9@T List Bullet 5 ( & F <^`<BOB Recitals) & F ^ROR )o Schedule_1 *$ & F $d @&N CJBOB )o Schedule_2+$ & F @&CJ:O: )o Schedule_3 , & F @&:O: )o Schedule_4 - & F @&:O: )o Schedule_5 . & F @&:O: )o Schedule_6 / & F @&:O: )o Schedule_7 0 & F @&:O: )o Schedule_8 1 & F @&DJ@"D Subtitle2$5CJOJQJ^J@O2@ "Subtitle_Admin3$5D>@BD Title4$5CJOJQJ\^JaJ HORH Title_Admin5$5CJ\^JaJ BObB TOCHeader6$5CJOJQJ<+@r< Endnote Text7CJaJ>*@> Endnote ReferenceH*>@> Footnote Text9CJaJ@&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*.)@. Page Number^O^ eAttachment Heading <$ & F 5CJOJQJaJTOT eExhibit Heading =$ & F 5CJOJQJROR )oSchedule Heading>$@&5CJOJQJ: : JIndex 1?$^`$6O6 4 TableText @1$POP  LetterheadA$d8a$CJOJQJaJH@"H l Balloon TextBCJOJQJ^JaJOOe~5"6m 8  p} N#$$K%%&K&}'+9+,--Q/q///22n4a567V777_98; ==?BEvGHHcJrKQLmLNNOO=Q`RS#WXOYYZ[[^j`c|dJfhhdixi;jjjj/moopGqqq+u:u w*z|:~F~̀DžمBvҕŖØWXuœWXZ]`cJKLMP0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0""( 0668 0mm( 0668 0 8 0 8 0 ( 0668 0  8 0  8 0  ( 0668 0( 0668 08 08 0( 0668 0 0 0 0 0( 0}}8 08 0( 0}}8 08 0 0 0  0 ( 0N#N#( 0N#N#( 0N#N#( 0N#N#(0N# 0  0 0  0 0  0  0 0 0  000 0/2 0/2 0/2( 0a5a5( 0a5a5( 0a5a5( 0a5a5 0/2 0/2 0/202 0/2 0/2 0/2 0 /2 0 /20vG 0 /2 0 /2 0 /2 0(0QL(0QL(0QL0 0QLO 0QLO 0QLO 0QLO 0QLO( 0#W#W( 0#W#W0 0QLY0Y 0QLY 0QLY 0QLY 0 QLY 0 QLY 0 QLY0Y 0 QLY0Y 0 QLY( 0xixi( 0xixi( 0xixi 0QLY 0QLY 0(0o(0o(0o0 0oq0q 0oq 0oq 0oq 0oq0q 0oq 0(00 00 0 0 0 (0Dž(0Dž(0Dž0 0Dž 0Dž0 0Dž 0Dž 0Dž 0Dž 0 (00 00 000 0  0uu 0uu 0  00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 000Le~5"6m 8  p} N#$$K%%&K&}'+9+,--Q/q///22n4a567V777_98; ==?BEvGHHcJrKQLmLNNOO=Q`RS#WXOYYZ[[^j`c|dJfhhdixi;jjjj/moopGqqq+u:u w*z|:~F~̀DžمBvҕŖØXuœWX[^adP0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0( 0228 0ii( 0228 0 8 0 8 0 ( 0228 08 08 0( 0228 0( 0228 08 08 0( 0228 0 0 0 0 0( 0yy8 08 0( 0yy8 08 0 0 0  0 ( 0J#J#( 0J#J#( 0J#J#( 0J#J#(0J# 0  0 0  0 0  0  0 0 0  000 0/2 0/2 0/2( 0]5]5( 0]5]5( 0]5]5( 0]5]5 0/2 0/2 0/202 0/2 0/2 0/2 0 /2 0 /20rG 0 /2 0 /2 0 /2 0(0ML(0ML(0ML0 0MLO 0MLO 0MLO 0MLO 0MLO( 0WW( 0WW0 0MLY0Y 0MLY 0MLY 0MLY 0 MLY 0 MLY 0 MLY0Y 0 MLY0Y 0 MLY( 0ii( 0ii( 0ii 0MLY 0MLY 0(0o(0o(0o0 0oq0q 0oq 0oq 0oq 0oq0q 0oq 0(00 0ˀ0ˀ 0ˀ 0ˀ 0 (0҅(0҅(0҅0 0҅ 0҅0 0҅ 0҅ 0҅ 0҅ 0 (0U0 0UP0P 0UP0M 0  0 0 0  077 00000000000 _ 4;HqRiwqOT`iorx{ 6 p"$'(,K.47n<>V?? EJPQT=Y#_Oackp;rrw:}vŞudOUWXYZ[\]^_abcdefghjklmnpqstuvwyz|}~NV (ST[_{! 8@0(  B S  ?OXXZZ[[]^`acdKLPXXZZ[[]^`acdKLP"6m 8&K&+9+Q/q///22 ==HHQLmLOO[[Md|dhhdixiooqq+u:u:~F~̀DžمЍҕŖØXuœXXZZ[[]^`acdIKLPXXZZ[[]^`acdKLP "Hy(#+'"&G *%8q$Ci ȷ*+,-./01DrY t=R3cP\/)JNoʚwy{*<jb  ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo()<^`<56;>*䴳ϴ(hH.&<^`<56>*䴳ϴ(hH.<^`<56>*CJaJo(hH()L <L ^L `<>*(hH()<^`<56>*(hH()<^`<56>*(hH()==56>*ϴ(hH[<[^[`<56>*OJQJo(hH ^`o(hH #^`56CJOJQJaJo(hH Exhibit  P^`Po(hH ^`o(hH x^`xo(hH  ^`o(hH  X@ ^ `Xo(hH  ^ `o(hH 8x^`8o(hH `H^``o(hHh <^`*䴳ϴ(hH."<^`<56>*CJOJQJo(hH()"L <L ^L `<56>*䴳ϴ(hH()"<^`<56>*䴳ϴ(hH.<^`<56>*䴳(hH."<^`<56>*CJOJQJo(hH"[^[`56>*CJOJQJo(hH^`56CJOJQJo(hH #^`56CJOJQJaJo(hH Attachment  ^`o(hH 88^8`o(hH ^`o(hH ^`o(hH pp^p`o(hH   ^ `o(hH @ @ ^@ `o(hH   ^ `o(hH)<^`<56;>*䴳ϴ(hH.&<^`<56>*䴳ϴ(hH.<^`<56>*o(hH()L <L ^L `<>*(hH()<^`<56>*(hH()<^`<56>*(hH()==56>*ϴ(hH[<[^[`<56>*OJQJo(hH ^`o(hH JNojR3cCi wyDrY <`|,        @ @t+MHHI$ = 8 OQg olk&6*K+-L9-J\-2EO2D4:-;o>c]BRCJFHsHTIrI"OPDRaR'TaZTUEUWKSY;]'_~cdcEfg-jlHlblUcm rr=owSz.GQZ9jLLZLd n)q)j Y64L3=J)5}Zu'4E[F[/Vfmv34 (w#U09G%3Z8[e6_"='3s~)o^8Sbl 1`I k@uOp@UnknownDerek TraffordDerek Trafford Derek Trafford20080523T055826579zŦDerek Trafford G: Times New Roman5Symbol3& : ArialcTimesNewRomanTimes New RomanA& Gill Sans MT5& zaTahomaQTimes New Roman Bold;Wingdings?5 z Courier New"1h֙&ػŦ4F&PP!s4d_> 2qXZ?12 Trindade Farr & PillDerek Trafford8         Oh+'0 ( H T ` lx Trindade Farr & Pill Normal.dotDerek Trafford8Microsoft Office Word@dN@@@\5-@4՜.+,0 hp|  P'  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F@ȳ6Data 1TablefaWordDocumentGSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F`C$Data 1TablefaWordDocumentGSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8`CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,, hp|  P'  Title4 $,