Cunard's mobility scooter and wheelchair policy

[SoosieSoo]

this might be of interest, the policy reads Cunard defines a powered mobility device as a powered wheelchair or a mobility scooter. Mobility scooters are three or four wheeled electrical or battery powered scooters designed for a person with reduced mobility. Motorised wheelchairs are bespoke machines for full-time disabled persons.

 sent on the 10th September:

 

I want to make a formal complaint about your new policy. 

It is discriminatory against wheelchair and mobility scooter users.

The passage below breaks the law (in the UK) and in addition to being wildly inaccurate, it will also cause your staff members to make assumptions about the needs and abilities of disabled wheelchair users that are inappropriate at best, harmful at worst.

 

There is no distinction in law between a mobility scooter and a wheelchair. None.

 

Having a tiller at the front does not magically change  the function of a wheelchair. There are no rules about how disabled you have to be to use a ‘chair’ or a ‘scooter’ and to suggest that mobility scooter users are ‘less disabled ‘ than wheelchair users is ridiculous.

 

You cannot decide that a scooter user has ‘limited mobility’ and a wheelchair user is ‘full time disabled’ and I am shocked that you think you can.

For what it’s worth I am ‘full time disabled’ (your words, whatever they mean) and use both a scooter and a powered chair depending on where I am going. The tiller at the front of my scooter offers protection in crowds.

Please re-write your policy immediately. It is offensive and illegal.

 

response received today:

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact Cunard.

 

I am sorry to hear of your feelings regarding the wording of our wheelchair and mobility scooter policy.

 

I have spoken with other departments regarding this, and our Manager in the Accessbility Services, Sam, has, upon review, agreed that the policy should not differentiate between the two devices.

 

We have therefore asked our digital team to update the website to remove the definition of a scooter and powered wheelchair as with the new powered device policy this differentiation is not required.

 

Sam has passed on her thanks to yourself for bringing this to our attention.

 

On behalf of Cunard, I apologise for the upset this may have caused.

 

I am beyond gobsmacked

[D&N]

We have no need of any of these devices.

However I don't understand what a change to the text of the policy will make to the application of the policy regarding powered devices.

[SoosieSoo]

It will stop people who read it thinking that people who use mobility scooters are ‘less disabled’ than people who use wheelchairs.

it will stop members of Cunard staff assuming that people who use mobility scooters aren’t ’full time disabled’ and stop them from assuming a certain level of walking ability rather than asking.

 

etc

 

 

[Victoria2]

3 minutes ago, SoosieSoo said:

It will stop people who read it thinking that people who use mobility scooters are ‘less disabled’ than people who use wheelchairs.

it will stop members of Cunard staff assuming that people who use mobility scooters aren’t ’full time disabled’ and stop them from assuming a certain level of walking ability rather than asking.

 

etc

 

 

As the partner of an 'interested party', I don't really see a problem.

In this particular instance, Cunard have designated powered devices, be they scooter or wheelchair, under one category and will required the same assistance.

[Winifred 22]

1 hour ago, SoosieSoo said:

this might be of interest, the policy reads Cunard defines a powered mobility device as a powered wheelchair or a mobility scooter. Mobility scooters are three or four wheeled electrical or battery powered scooters designed for a person with reduced mobility. Motorised wheelchairs are bespoke machines for full-time disabled persons.

 sent on the 10th September:

 

I want to make a formal complaint about your new policy. 

It is discriminatory against wheelchair and mobility scooter users.

The passage below breaks the law (in the UK) and in addition to being wildly inaccurate, it will also cause your staff members to make assumptions about the needs and abilities of disabled wheelchair users that are inappropriate at best, harmful at worst.

 

There is no distinction in law between a mobility scooter and a wheelchair. None.

 

Having a tiller at the front does not magically change  the function of a wheelchair. There are no rules about how disabled you have to be to use a ‘chair’ or a ‘scooter’ and to suggest that mobility scooter users are ‘less disabled ‘ than wheelchair users is ridiculous.

 

You cannot decide that a scooter user has ‘limited mobility’ and a wheelchair user is ‘full time disabled’ and I am shocked that you think you can.

For what it’s worth I am ‘full time disabled’ (your words, whatever they mean) and use both a scooter and a powered chair depending on where I am going. The tiller at the front of my scooter offers protection in crowds.

Please re-write your policy immediately. It is offensive and illegal.

 

response received today:

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact Cunard.

 

I am sorry to hear of your feelings regarding the wording of our wheelchair and mobility scooter policy.

 

I have spoken with other departments regarding this, and our Manager in the Accessbility Services, Sam, has, upon review, agreed that the policy should not differentiate between the two devices.

 

We have therefore asked our digital team to update the website to remove the definition of a scooter and powered wheelchair as with the new powered device policy this differentiation is not required.

 

Sam has passed on her thanks to yourself for bringing this to our attention.

 

On behalf of Cunard, I apologise for the upset this may have caused.

 

I am beyond gobsmacked

Presumably that will apply to P&O too ? 

[SoosieSoo]

32 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

As the partner of an 'interested party', I don't really see a problem.

In this particular instance, Cunard have designated powered devices, be they scooter or wheelchair, under one category and will required the same assistance.

it isn't about the policy, it is about them trying to define two different types of disabled people based on the equipment they use. 

 

Only full time disabled people use electric wheelchairs? People who use mobility scooters only have 'limited mobility' so they can be assumed to be able to walk a bit? not acceptable and not true. You are not able to make assumptions about my 'level of disability'

 

There is no separation, there are 3 classes of mobility equipment, class 1  - manual chairs, class 2 - 4mph battery operated chairs and scooters, and class 3 - 8mph road legal scooters.

 

anyhoo, it doesn't matter because they have realised it is inappropriate and it will be removed.

 

I will have a look and see what wording P&O use.

 

 

 

[S1971]

34 minutes ago, SoosieSoo said:

it doesn't matter because they have realised it is inappropriate and it will be removed.

 

Agreed, you've clearly identified the differences and Cunard (Carnival UK) have accepted that and with hindsight will change the wording in the policy.

 

Unfortunately it doesn't help those who've been bumped off booked cruises before the rule change.

Edited September 30 by S1971

[Victoria2]

34 minutes ago, SoosieSoo said:

it isn't about the policy, it is about them trying to define two different types of disabled people based on the equipment they use. 

 

Only full time disabled people use electric wheelchairs? People who use mobility scooters only have 'limited mobility' so they can be assumed to be able to walk a bit? not acceptable and not true. You are not able to make assumptions about my 'level of disability'

 

There is no separation, there are 3 classes of mobility equipment, class 1  - manual chairs, class 2 - 4mph battery operated chairs and scooters, and class 3 - 8mph road legal scooters.

 

anyhoo, it doesn't matter because they have realised it is inappropriate and it will be removed.

 

I will have a look and see what wording P&O use.

 

 

 

Whilst I acknowledge the wording is/was careless, and will now be defined, no one knows better than I the differences in mobility and the challenges disabled folk face. My comment was purely on the fact it will make no difference to assistance given as powered devices are lumped all together in Cunard's t&cs..

 

 

[Victoria2]

3 minutes ago, S1971 said:

 

Agreed, you've clearly identified the differences and Cunard (Carnival UK) have accepted that and with hindsight will change the wording in the policy.

 

Unfortunately it doesn't help those who've been bumped off booked cruises before the rule change.

Why will re wording affect bumped folk?

 

[stan01]

Sounds like they did the right thing by correcting the wording. Thank you for bringing it to their attention and getting it corrected.  When QM2 goes into her extended maintenance period in 2027 I hope they are able to make modifications to add more accessible rooms to help deal with the impacts of the policy change to customers.  It is impossible for them to prioritize who has the greater need.  They have to go by what people tell them.

[S1971]

1 minute ago, Victoria2 said:

Why will re wording affect bumped folk?

 

 

It won't, it was a general observation about the whole shambolic policy change.

[SoosieSoo]

Yes the policy change is awful and this won’t help people who have had their cruises cancelled or find themselves no longer able to book a holiday. I have made them think about the language they use and the assumptions they were incorrectly making though, and that can only be a good thing.

 

Plus they have always given the impression that they think of themselves as always right and the acknowledgment that they are wrong here has given me hope that they are capable of listening to concerns.

 

[Victoria2]

Just now, S1971 said:

 

It won't, it was a general observation about the whole shambolic policy change.

Ah, I read your post as the rewording will affect bumped folk, not the new policy as a whole.

 

I have NO idea why this has changed and it won't affect us at all but, that doesn't stop me from feeling desperately sorry for those for whom it has effectively ruined holiday plans and also for those who will be in a dilemma to book or not to book well in advance in order to nab an appropriate cabin etc etc.

 

Evac chair availability seems to be a major 'sticking' point too. Then there's insurance if denied boarding because you've twisted your ankle the day before the cruise. GP says fit to go on holiday but the assistance needed  to board etc means a wheelchair but the lack of an evac chair means sorry, no can do!

It's not shambolic...more an absolute nightmare in the making at the moment.

 

 

 

[Victoria2]

16 minutes ago, stan01 said:

Sounds like they did the right thing by correcting the wording. Thank you for bringing it to their attention and getting it corrected.  When QM2 goes into her extended maintenance period in 2027 I hope they are able to make modifications to add more accessible rooms to help deal with the impacts of the policy change to customers.  It is impossible for them to prioritize who has the greater need.  They have to go by what people tell them.

I don't know anything about QM2 cabins, but QA adapted cabins sound as if they needed more thought.

As to more accessible/adapted cabins, it's down to staff availability for evac chairs as much as number of available cabins.

[SoosieSoo]

Yes, on the P&O board I posted about being unaware of the new rules until I tried to book a cruise and learned about evacuation chairs. The one I wanted to book apparently had 19 evac chairs available, the woman in the phone sounded quite excited. No accessible cabins though…

 

Reading around and looking at the SOLAS regs has led me to believe that Carnival are defining ‘mobility equipment’ to include the humble walking stick and therefore assigning evacuation chairs to lots of walking-stick-wielding passengers leaving none for wheelchair users.

 

[Megabear2]

Just now, SoosieSoo said:

Yes, on the P&O board I posted about being unaware of the new rules until I tried to book a cruise and learned about evacuation chairs. The one I wanted to book apparently had 19 evac chairs available, the woman in the phone sounded quite excited. No accessible cabins though…

 

Reading around and looking at the SOLAS regs has led me to believe that Carnival are defining ‘mobility equipment’ to include the humble walking stick and therefore assigning evacuation chairs to lots of walking-stick-wielding passengers leaving none for wheelchair users.

 

Walking stick passengers are "recommended" to ask for one to one assistance, there is no compulsory requirement to do so.  However I was informed there are a finite number of one to one assistants and the decision can be arbitrary by Cunsrd/P&O on whether you are allowed to board if you do not declare your walking stick.

 

[S1971]

18 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

Ah, I read your post as the rewording will affect bumped folk, not the new policy as a whole.

 

I have NO idea why this has changed and it won't affect us at all but, that doesn't stop me from feeling desperately sorry for those for whom it has effectively ruined holiday plans and also for those who will be in a dilemma to book or not to book well in advance in order to nab an appropriate cabin etc etc.

 

Evac chair availability seems to be a major 'sticking' point too. Then there's insurance if denied boarding because you've twisted your ankle the day before the cruise. GP says fit to go on holiday but the assistance needed  to board etc means a wheelchair but the lack of an evac chair means sorry, no can do!

It's not shambolic...more an absolute nightmare in the making at the moment.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it must be an absolute nightmare for those who've been effected.

 

Surely it would've been more sensible if they'd of implemented it to new bookings only, it would've taken a year or so for full implementation but would've saved a lot of disappointment for customers and administration hassle for them.

Edited September 30 by S1971
Spelling!!

[Megabear2]

3 minutes ago, S1971 said:

 

Yes, it must be an absolute nightmare for those who've been effected.

 

Surely it would've been more sensible if they'd of implemented it to new bookings only, it would've taken a year or so for full implementation but would've saved a lot of dissapointed for customers and administration hassle for them.

That said I haven't read any threads where Cunard passengers have been bumped? Lots of P&O travellers have been displaced or cancelled though.

[stan01]

8 minutes ago, SoosieSoo said:

 

Reading around and looking at the SOLAS regs has led me to believe that Carnival are defining ‘mobility equipment’ to include the humble walking stick and therefore assigning evacuation chairs to lots of walking-stick-wielding passengers leaving none for wheelchair users.

 

 

As you have said, there's a spectrum of needs and abilities.  My mom used a Rollator (walker with wheels if that's not a common UK term) for her last 10 years.  Never a powered wheelchair or a scooter, but she could not have gone up or down more than one step by herself.  She would have needed an evacuation chair.  If those walking stick passengers can't go up and down the stairs they would need the evacuation chair, too.  And people are not always honest about this.  Until the end my mom would tell people she could walk across the room without her Rollator.  That was not true but she believed it to be (and fell several times).  I think this will eventually impact how ships are designed and we'll eventually get ships that are more accessible, but that's many years away.

[S1971]

3 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

That said I haven't read any threads where Cunard passengers have been bumped? Lots of P&O travellers have been displaced or cancelled though.

 

Yes, that is a little strange.

 

 

 

 

[Victoria2]

24 minutes ago, stan01 said:

 

As you have said, there's a spectrum of needs and abilities.  My mom used a Rollator (walker with wheels if that's not a common UK term) for her last 10 years.  Never a powered wheelchair or a scooter, but she could not have gone up or down more than one step by herself.  She would have needed an evacuation chair.  If those walking stick passengers can't go up and down the stairs they would need the evacuation chair, too.  And people are not always honest about this.  Until the end my mom would tell people she could walk across the room without her Rollator.  That was not true but she believed it to be (and fell several times).  I think this will eventually impact how ships are designed and we'll eventually get ships that are more accessible, but that's many years away.

Your mother might *have been able to avail herself of the one-to-one assistance rather than register for an evac chair.

 

Guests who are bringing other mobility aids like rollators, crutches etc. must inform us through the completion of the on board needs questionnaire. This is so that we can offer appropriate support, however, please be aware that due to the nature of the cruise experience, we may not be able to meet all requests. We strongly recommend that you are registered for a minimum of one-to-one assistance in the unlikely event of an emergency if you are bringing a mobility aid on board. You can do this when booking.

Edited September 30 by Victoria2
* have been

[Victoria2]

26 minutes ago, S1971 said:

 

Yes, it must be an absolute nightmare for those who've been effected.

 

Surely it would've been more sensible if they'd of implemented it to new bookings only, it would've taken a year or so for full implementation but would've saved a lot of disappointment for customers and administration hassle for them.

It would depend on how urgent the company felt the implementation was required.

 

As we have no knowledge on the whys, the wherefores are irrelevant.

[S1971]

6 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

It would depend on how urgent the company felt the implementation was required.

 

As we have no knowledge on the whys, the wherefores are irrelevant.

 

Given that no other major cruiseline has implemented such changes including Carnival US, I'd has it a guess that this is not an enforced change by the laws that be.

 

My guess, it is to reduce the number of assigned staff to those with mobility issues, which intern means they can reduce the overall crew numbers, perhaps a money saving exercise?

 

But as you say without knowing why it is entirely guess work.

 

Perhaps if they showed some transparency it would stop a lot bad feeling, but given that had the chance on TV recently and refused to answer, it just gives the impression they don’t really care. 

[Victoria2]

11 minutes ago, S1971 said:

 

Given that no other major cruiseline has implemented such changes including Carnival US, I'd has it a guess that this is not an enforced change by the laws that be.

 

My guess, it is to reduce the number of assigned staff to those with mobility issues, which intern means they can reduce the overall crew numbers, perhaps a money saving exercise?

 

But as you say without knowing why it is entirely guess work.

 

Perhaps if they showed some transparency it would stop a lot bad feeling, but given that had the chance on TV recently and refused to answer, it just gives the impression they don’t really care. 

We have had nothing but kindness shown to us on QV and QA from all staff and it has to be said, passengers.

 

I have no idea of the reasoning behind the new policy and refuse to speculate even though it could possibly affect our travel plans going forward.

[S1971]

20 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

We have had nothing but kindness shown to us on QV and QA from all staff and it has to be said, passengers.

 

I have no idea of the reasoning behind the new policy and refuse to speculate even though it could possibly affect our travel plans going forward.

 

As @Megabear2 mentioned earlier, Cunard don't appear to be getting the same complaints as P&O, perhaps for some reason they are implementing the changes more sympathetically?

 

Regarding "speculation", unfortunately because of the refusal to confirm any reasoning it only leaves speculation.

 

Fortunately, I'm not directly impacted with these changes, however at the very least those who are should have been given a full and transparent explanation as to why they've had their cruises cancelled, simply hiding behind a internal policy change is totally unacceptable.

 

We all may be affected going forward, but that's totally different to what's happened in this instance.