‘Powerful’ and ‘moving’ are two words that perfectly describe Sophie Morgan’s excellent documentary, ‘Fight to Fly’, which aired recently on Channel 4.

I appeared a few weeks ago alongside Morgan on Sky News, where she described the problems still facing passengers with reduced mobility.

 I have met many colleagues who are passionate about accessibility, who recognise and understand the issues, and who want to do more. The UK Government also appears committed to action, with the Secretary of State for Transport, Louise Haigh MP, recently promising to help “deliver positive change”.

So I believe there is a will, but perhaps the key challenge is to find a way.

Some of the issues are structural and systemic. Aircraft cabin design is an obvious example. But there is some cause for optimism; for example, Air4All Systems offers a solution that would allow power wheelchair users to travel safely and with dignity seated in their own chair in an aircraft cabin. Backed by regulatory approval, it would be great to see airlines embrace and trial this brilliant innovation.

Supporting the safe and secure stowage of wheelchairs in the holds of aircraft and changes to airport design would also help.

Other opportunities to deliver improvements include adjusting aircraft turnaround times to take accessibility requirements into account. Even with the right training, and availability of airbridges and ramps, the pressures created by short turnaround times can impact service levels and increase the risk of damage to mobility equipment, and elevate wider risks around safety.

These pressures are exacerbated by the punitive penalties ground service providers face if they fail to meet targets set by airlines and airport-led metrics that may favour tight turnaround times. 

However, addressing many of the structural and systemic issues that could make the biggest difference, including those related to aircraft and airport design, will unavoidably take time. 

There are also numerous complexities and potential conflicts that can cause inertia (and, for many, huge frustration). For example, changing aircraft turnaround times has the potential to impact critical aspects of some airlines’ operating and business models, as well as the aspirations of some airports to maximise the number of flights they handle, especially those where infrastructure is constrained.  

Accelerating progress on accessibility therefore depends on instilling a new urgency to drive change and intensifying collaboration across the aviation ecosystem. In the UK, the Aviation Council, which brings together government and industry, is uniquely well-placed to facilitate this by embracing accessibility as a strategic priority. 

The Council must involve all stakeholders and be prepared to proactively identify and support steps to deliver improvements over the short-term as well as the long-term. This is one reason why Aviation Services UK has been arguing for the creation of a new ‘Flier Friendly’ industry standard, which would be based on the Civil Aviation Authority’s recently published airline accessibility guidance. 

The CAA guidance is designed to encourage best practices and airlines will receive ratings for their performance in areas ranging from requesting assistance to onboard facilities. 

However, why not use this as the basis for awarding airlines an industry standard accreditation for adopting the highest levels of best practice that is widely recognised by consumers.

Acting like a kitemark, the standard would deliver an immediate and tangible benefit by making it easier for consumers to make better-informed choices about which airline is right for them.

Further, given its visibility, it would strengthen the incentive for more airlines to invest and adopt best practices. This would be far more effective than placing the burden on consumers to discover a relatively obscure CAA report or picking up on the occasional piece of negative media coverage. 

I am not suggesting that an industry standard would be a silver bullet; far from it. But it is deliverable in the short-term and it would be a quick and visible demonstration of the industry’s commitment and ability to act. Further, it would create a foundation upon which to build momentum, and its evolution would spur more improvements over time. Indeed, by adopting the approach of an industry standard, there is a real opportunity for the UK to demonstrate leadership and drive change internationally. 

Some will argue that the CAA requires more resources, whispers about opaque legislative or regulatory problems, or mutters about other concerns like costs. There is always a case for inaction, but that is not an option. 

Of course, I understand the argument that an industry standard does not go far enough. However, it is at least one positive step in the right direction, and we do not need to wait years to take it.