BMI captain has passenger arrested for peeing

[GordyOZ]

I found a thread on FlyerTalk about a passenger having to pee really bad and after refusing the FA's directive to remain seated the captain returned to the gate and had the passenger arrested. The full details aren't known but it does seem to me to be way overreacting if the story is a simple as was reported. Wonder what the professionals of this forum think about such situations.

Thread reference:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=803875

[BMEDFO]

From what you hav typed it seems like a over reaction to me. Most Pilots would just stop the a/c and let the guy go quickly as assuming he did and returned to his seat with belt fastened ASAP. 1) its quicker than going back to stand and delaying all the other pax and 2) saves a wet seat (they do happen).



:ok:

[JEM60]

Some years ago, coming out of CDG, Air France Airbus, taxiing out, had had too much coffee in the lounge. Absolutely desperate, got out of my seat, smiled at the FA, pointed at the loo, she nodded her head, I went, returned eventually to my seat, not a word said. Recently,not going to mention the airline, Mombasa to Nairobi, my wife feeling distinctly ill, was in the loo when the aircraft touched down, although I did explain the situation to the very obliging FA.

[malc4d]

Is it just me........or is everyone involved in aviation or airports trying their hardest to pi*s off the paying customer...........:*

[Contacttower]

While I think the FA could have let the guy go to the loo I can understand the captain's reaction to one of passengers apparently disobeying an order to sit down.

[isi3000]

Sounds like they would have preffered the wet seat :ugh:

[Capot]

is everyone involved in aviation or airports trying their hardest to pi*s off the paying customer.........It's a fair question; but the answer is a bit more complex.

The problem is increasingly poor training, in several respects, and a growing alientation between airport and airline staff and the paying passengers, all stemming for a growing contempt for the customer that starts at the top in airports and airlines.

Most junior passenger contact staff, ground services and aircrew, are not only not empowered to make the often very small adjustment needed to give a passenger what's needed to resolve a problem, they are not even aware of what could be done. Moreover they have been imbued with a culture of "mustn't let them get away with it".

Then there are managers who lay down absurd and silly rules that customers must obey, often totally unnecessary, and threaten staff with dismissal if they "let them get away with" ignoring them. As often as not these rules are all to do with the airline's convenience and not the customer's, and the customer can spot this a mile off.

Most passenger have been using airlines for a lot longer than many junior staff have been working for them. And yet staff seem to be trained to think that they have some unique knowledge, and must treat passengers as though they are mentally sub-normal.

Now you have a new phenonenum of flight deck crew becoming unnecessarily macho, at the drop of a hat, and throwing people off their aircraft; occasionally one suspects that they do this in the mistaken belief that they must "back up the cabin staff" regardless of whether the cabin staff have behaved sensibly. The case this thread is about illustrates that.

I have heard the cabin safety announcement about twice every 2 weeks, on average, since 1968, and I don't actually need to hear it again. It's not my job to look interested "as an example to others". So I don't need some teenager telling me it's "for my own good", in the tones of a primary school teaching assistant. I've been in one or two evacuations, not just the crew training one.

I think that the Airline series on TV has a lot to answer for; week after week it sent a message that passengers were people to be treated like idiots, especially by handling staff, and herded from A to B to suit the convenience of staff.

Another culprit is the "you get what you pay for" culture, which a lot of passengers actually believe means they should have no expectations, and which many staff interpret as "I don't have to treat you as a customer; I'll treat you like the cheapskate you are". You only have to read some of the threads in the CC forums to get a taste of that attitude.

It all boils down to pervasive contempt for the customer that is relatively new to the air transport industry. I would date its onset as about 1995.

The blame sits, as always, at the top. Junior staff are what their companies have made them. When BAA behaves with magnificent contempt by subjecting passengers to the hell they have to endure, because BAA thinks that they are stupid enough to be encouraged to buy over-priced tat and blocks all its terminals with shops selling that, how can anyone blame its staff for spicking up on the message "These People are Mugs", and behaving accordingly.

For God's sake, the door into the terminal from Customs in T1 at LHR is covered by a huge sign; "ARRIVALS SHOPPING", it says! And sure enough, when you get through it you have to negotiate shops selling stuff that you can buy at half the price in the High Street.

Sorry, got diverted there. No, people are not trying to p**s off the paying customer, they don't even know they're doing it. Rant over.

[Avitor]

Compromise! Has that word disappeared and the word intransigence taken its place.
A pax can hardly tote a receptacle and in cases of dire need use that, he is in too close proximity to other pax and liable to an indecency charge.
cc are not, I suppose, in a position to waive standing orders, the alternative? Wet pants and a wet seat. The reality arrest. This cannot be right. This is a rule catch 22 situation.
In my opinion it needs discussing at training and management level.

[malc4d]

CAPOT you have said it all.................:D:D:D
I've also been flying much longer than l would like to admit to. It used to be fun. Now its all ' rush rush ....wait wait......rush wait.. get pissed off at some stupid rule.......wait wait.'
And dont get me going on that airline show........How in hell Easyjet allow the show to air with proof of how badly their spotty faced babies handle and talk to fare paying passengers. ......... Most of the problems they cause the passengers could be resolved in 2 seconds flat with a little bit of a change in their 'tude'.......
Maybe its a generation thing........:rolleyes:
God l could go on....

Happy snowy Easter to you all....:ok:

[GunkyTom]

Sorry for the thread drift but I must comment on the statement below

Capot
I have heard the cabin safety announcement about twice every 2 weeks, on average, since 1968, and I don't actually need to hear it again. It's not my job to look interested "as an example to others". So I don't need some teenager telling me it's "for my own good", in the tones of a primary school teaching assistant. I've been in one or two evacuations, not just the crew training one.


You are not the only person on board. It is a legal requirement to make the announcement and can be reassuring to nervous pax and less seasoned travellers.If you have been told it's 'for my own good' then there must have been a reason. The CC wouldn't normally comment on someone politely sitting there whilst they go through the no doubt repetetive but necessary narrative. Maybe if you briefed them on your vast experience, they would allow you to decide what is necessary when briefing an aircraft full of different nationalities,ages and experience:rolleyes: I too, am well travelled and have been in aviation for 30+ years. I wouldn't dream of being so rude or disrespectful as to assume I know better. Pilots, CC et al sit there and listen politely when travelling. What makes you bigger than that. I don't normally read tis forum but it has opened my eyes a little to what CC have to deal with on a daily basis.http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/icons//icon8.gif Rant Off

[Contacttower]

Airline staff could do a lot more in the 'customer service' department but Capot your post does look rather 'one sided'; what strikes me from watching programmes like Airline and travelling for real is not how poorly trained the staff are (far from it most seem quite good actually) but for whatever reason how rude and difficult passengers have become.

A lot of the people that appeared on Airline (obviously the cameras tend to focus on them) seem to behave as if losing a piece of luggage is the end of the world....or take out anger on staff who's only crime is delivering bad news (like there has been an ATC strike in Spain or something) and have no appreciation that actually in the bigger scheme of things their problems don't warrant their outbursts of swearing that they direct towards staff.

[jimworcs]

Capot did not say that the announcement should not be made, just that he does not have to pretend to paying attention when he knows the routine by heart. I fly a to CDG every two weeks on the same type of aircraft and carrier for the last 3+ years. I could do the presentation myself, without error. Cabin Staff vary in their response to customers. I have seen some get irritated with SLF who don't pay attention but were not in any way disruptive. One passenger ahead of me was looking out of the window and the CC came over and asked him to pay attention. I think that is OTT, she had no idea if he did the flight daily. On the other hand, passengers who talk through the safety demo should be corrected, as they could be interfering with another passengers ability to hear the presentation. There is no law saying a passenger must listen, just one that says that the briefing takes place. Furthermore, any CC who says that their attention has not drifted during a training session is just a liar, so why get so high and mighty with a passenger who has seen and heard the presentation dozens or even hundreds of times?

I once commented to a pilot friend of mine at EZ that I couldn't understand why EZ allowed the programme to show, because it often showed their staff in a poor light. I remember one episode with a scouser of oriental origin who was literally goading a passenger who was upset and seemed to be trying to provoke her. It was astounding the stroppy attitude she had towards a passenger who was in the wrong, (late as usual), but obviously distressed and very anxious. His reply was that EZ regarded the programme as a valuable tool for lowering passenger expectations and educating them about the rules and expectations of low cost travel. In that respect the show was useful for them.

Only snag with this, is that if you watch the show often enough you will find the staff apply the rules erratically, are often wrong themselves and don't know how to handle it when they are. They often become belligerant or disappear when they get it wrong. The other day the same scouse "customer service agent" was denying boarding to a group of Somali travellers to Switzerland becuase they didn't have the right documentation. She was rude, hostile and aggressive. She was also wrong. When she was told she was wrong, she was less than apologetic and instead started justifying herself. Pathetic.

[13 please]

Good evening everyone.. first time poster here, please be gentle.. after 16 years as cabin crew, this is my take on it.. aircraft starts taxi, obviously the seatbelt sign is on. Pax gets up to go to loo.we cannot physically stop a pax from getting up, just remind them that the seatbelt sign is on, for a pretty good reason. we don't know the conversation between cc and pax. but the cc would have to inform senior cc that the cabin is not secure. the senior would pass that on to flight deck.ultimately the captain would make the decision then. whether it's "let me know when it is secure", or whatever.It's the captain 's call.never would I imagine the plane to stop during taxi and wait for pax to sit down...!! That would close LHR..!! pax is disregarding a direct order by getting up while seatbelt sign is on. captain's decision.. end of story... should have gone before you got on..

[G-BPED]

Good Evening 13 Please

Welcome to PPRuNe.

I think you will find that " being gentle" is not something that happens too often on here :)

Your words " end of story.. should have gone before you got on"

If you read the thread of FlyerTalk you would have read that the aircraft had doors closed and pushed back then remained on the ground for about 1 hour.

Seems that the pax could not wait to go and with having a 1 hour wait on the ground then soon the call of nature is going to affect some people.

We are not all equipped with the bladder of a bull:}

[easy1]

He was a grown man for :mad: sake, could he not hold it?!:hmm:

[13 please]

I did read it, but I did just go back and read it again properly. I had realised there was a delay on the ground, but missed the 2nd one, after starting to taxi. From a pax perspective, the problem would have been the aircraft stopping again after starting to taxi.I appreciate the feeling of needing a wee, have been very heavily pregnant, twice..However once that pax undoes the seatbelt and walks, while the seatbelt sign is lit, the cabin crew member has no choice but to inform senior cc, that the aircraft is not secure for take-off. It's not a punishment, or a power trip, just our job. I wonder sometimes reading these posts, that pax want us 2 be over zealous in some parts of our job, but not bother with other aspects. And I have been cc in this situation many times, and I will be the first to say, it's not what you say but how you say it, and i'm talking about crew here, but the cc did the right thing, but maybe never thought it would come to going back to stand and off loading the pax.

Very unlucky for the pax.

by the way my two young kids spent 5hrs in the car without a wee....

[boardingpass]

not knowing the whole story, but there's so much time to go during boarding, why wait till we're taxiing? Every passenger survey comes back saying on time performance is the most important criterion, so we do our best to meet OTP. If a pregnant woman asked me to go, fine, but couldn't he have held it for another 10 mins? So please give cabin crew a break, we see about 500 pax a day, and even if only .01% are nutters, that's still quite a few we see each month. A colleague of mine got peed on when she told a pax he couldn't go to the toilet. Yes, he was met by police on the stand.

[Avman]

Capot, a very good post :D :D :D

easy1, a very very stupid statement - made without due consideration to a possible medical condition.

My wife had a medical problem which prevented her from "holding it" for more than a few minutes. She did her best to avoid creating any problems but sometimes circumstances, such as unexpected undetermined ground delays gave her no choice but to have the need to go to the loo just prior to taxy. Fortunately, she was always lucky to have sympathetic CC.

[JEM60]

My own problem is that I am not as young as I used to be, and it's all very well for people to say hang on to it, but I can assure you that the desire comes on VERY quickly at times, AND CANNOT BE HELD. My wife assures me that women are much more capable at hanging on. I have found that the ONLY way I can deal with this, if boarding an aircraft, is to TOTALLY abstain from ANY liquid intake for at least two hours before boarding. I have the greatest respect for FAs, especially the Air France one mentioned in my earlier thread, you have so many different personalities to put up with. My wife and I have always appreciated your efforts. Thankyou.

[UniFoxOs]

but couldn't he have held it for another 10 mins

Maybe - but how would anyone in that situation know it was only going to be ten minutes - they had been "taking off" for an hour already.

UFO
BTW I have to take water tablets, make me want to go at some very inconvenient times, managed to hold it until seatbelt signs off every time so far, but could never guarantee I always will be able to.

[G-BPED]

Good job he was not on this US Airwyas flight

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319466

The pilot on that flight was armed and the pax in question may have been "dispatched" rather than going back to the gate :}:}

[radeng]

People on medications that include diuretics may not have much option, as others have said. The 'don't drink for two hours beforehand' then gives other problems, such as dehydration - as I've found out the hard way. It wasn't two hours, either, and seems worse for diabetics. That could really end up spoiling the FA's (and the captain's!) day.

[easy1]

Avman,
Please tell me how my comment is 'very stupid'?!!!!
If it is a medical problem then the crew should have been made aware of this, so many times pax will wait until the last minute to go and they are suprised when the crew say no!!
Also there is no such thing as a 'stupid' opinion, this is a forum for people to express how they feel about whats been writen.:rolleyes: Get off your high horse. :ugh:

[Avman]

this is a forum for people to express how they feel about whats been writen.

Err, OK, that's what I did with regard to what you wrote. However, I withdraw my previous statement and replace it with:

easy1, IMHO you made a rash uninformed comment.

Chill ;)

[boardingpass]

I have to agree with easy1. If you've got a medical problem, tell the crew and we will do our best to accommodate you. But if we say "sorry, the seatbelt sign is on, you'll have to sit down" and you say ":mad: off I'm going", we pretty much are obliged to consider you a threat to safety, or drunk, or on drugs. If you say "I'm really sorry but I just can't hold it any longer" and give me those eyes :sad: which say "no really, I gotta go now!", I'll even open the toilet door for you because none of us wants to deal with that! If pax treated crew with respect and as people rather than blame us for a delay (most probably an ATC restriction), you'll find we can be really very nice, and if you're charming, you may find yourself upgraded, or even better on someone's staff-travel list!

[Avman]

This is from the original source:

The passenger didn't appear obviously drunk though I suppose in retrospect he had been quite friendly and talkative to the passenger sitting next to him who he hadn't met before and that may be a sign he'd been drinking! He seemed to remain calm and polite throughout - though obviously I didn't hear the exchanges that occurred after he left his seat and went to the toilet.

I would in principle agree with you boardingpass, but .....and you say ":mad: off I'm going", we pretty much are obliged to consider you a threat to safety, or drunk, or on drugs. doesn't appear to have been the case, certainly with regard to any initial (if any at all) abusive language or aggresive stance here.

Who knows, perhaps it came down to the CC not wanting to lose face and wanting to assert his/her position of authority over common sense? That wouldn't be a first either!

[amanda78]

"I have heard the cabin safety announcement about twice every 2 weeks, on average, since 1968, and I don't actually need to hear it again. It's not my job to look interested "as an example to others". So I don't need some teenager telling me it's "for my own good", in the tones of a primary school teaching assistant. I've been in one or two evacuations, not just the crew training one."

I presume you havent flown on the exact same aircraft since 1968. Every airline has different types and sizes of aircraft. Therefore a different amount of emergency exits and different locations of the exits. The airline I work for currently has Boeing and Airbus and the demos are different, there are different lifejackets which are put on a different way from each other. Both types operate the same route so you may think your listening to the same demo over again, but possibly are not. Even if you always fly on Airbus for the same company things can change. We will soon have bigger Airbus which again will have the emergency exits located in a different place. In a few days time our saftey demos are going to change slightly as well so if i were you id think again before proclaiming you know it all and think you could say it word for word. How would you feel if the person sat beside you thought they knew it and didnt pay attention and ended up blocking your way out.

It is a legal requirement that every passenger understands the safety demo for the type of aircraft they are on.

Other passengers have a right to want to listen to the safety demo and want to save their lives. Maybe you dont value your life as much.

And as for the teenager remark. Crew are there to help save your life in an emergency, they are professional, mature and highly trained. So give them some respect.

quote jimworcs:
"I fly a to CDG every two weeks on the same type of aircraft and carrier for the last 3+ years. I could do the presentation myself, without error"

Just have some consideration that sometimes things do change and airlines change their aircraft. Ok so maybe you look at the safety card when you get on to check its the same aircraft type. As i mentioned before my companys safety demonstration is also slightly changing in a few days. So maybe it might just be in your best interests to be polite and and give the crew a few seconds of your time. There is time on the flight to read your papers/do your work etc. Whats a few minutes. Remember cabin crew's main concern is safety, they arent there to serve tea and coffee. Give them a few minutes of their time and im sure they will definetly give you their time should you need it.

[Firestorm]

I think alot of the comments here about staff not being given the responsibilty to make minor executive decisions are spot on, and I think that it is because their managers are more concerned with covering their own backsides in the event of a decision being made. As a result the whole system looks inflexible and hostile (which I think it is increasingly becoming). No one these days is allowed to use intelligent discretion, even those in positions of responsibility (ie the captain mentioned at the beginning of the thread) because of the fear of being hung out to dry by his mangers at the subsequent enquiry because the passenger fell over during the taxi whilst going to the lav whilst the seat belt light was on, as I'm sure he would have been had there been an accident. I would have thought that he could have said fine let him pee, but he can only move around the cabin whilst we're stopped, and let me know when he's sat down so that I can move again. I've spent 1/2 an hour taxiing from gate to runway in the past, and plenty of that time stopped and waiting: the whole aeroplane could have had a pee (and washed their hands) in that time without accident (either liquid type or injury type). The world has gone mad!

[malc4d]

:D:D:ok::D

Ps Anyone who was on board prepared to comment ??????

[Avman]

Wholeheartedy agree with all you say Firestorm. The days of personal initiative and sensible discretion have been smothered by the threat of totally absurd lawsuits and/or disciplinary action. And yes, this undoubtedly builds up hostility and aggression in people who I'm sure would not ordinarily be so inclined. The world has indeed gone completely mad.

[lexxity]

Firestorm you and I work for the same people I believe so I completely agree with you on what you say about staff being unable to use discrection. Although our training for ground staff and cabin crew is extremely well good and thorough it doesn't allow room for manouvere. It used to, but sadly no longer.

[Final 3 Greens]

Malc4d asked "Is it just me........or is everyone involved in aviation or airports trying their hardest to pi*s off the paying customer"

As a frequent traveller, who took his first business flights in 1978, I have seen a number of changes in the subsequent 30 years and would like to give my opinion.

The nature of air travel and in particular short haul, has changed significantly and the loco model has been in the ascendancy for the past 10 years or so.

During much of that period, the world has been in growth that means that year on year expansion for airlines has been achievable by the combination of being there to provide a service and being able to do so at a price that is perceived as giving value for money by the punters.

As well as creating a whole new bunch of travellers, who can now afford to take flights or take flights instead of trains (which are becoming very expensive), in effect creating a new market segment, the loco model has also cannibalised the traditional airlines and (lest we forget) the charter operators too.

The traditional airlines reacted to to the loco attack by slashing prices (and service levels) in short haul economy class and it is against this backdrop that many people have entered the aviation business.

They have learned their trade in an environment where (perceived) price was king and the customers were 'units' who are processed with minimum flexibility and occasionally contempt.

Not only the economy pax have suffered, since those of us who take short haul business class have found that the service is now not much better than economy 20 years ago (lounge access being one differentiator that still exists.)

Long haul premium still tends to be a nice experience.

However, the cold winds of recession are starting to blow and I believe that life is about to get much tougher for many airlines.

What financial analysts call a "correction" is highly likely and this innocuous term will be anything but innocuous for those affected.

In short, the leisure traveller is likely to need their money to pay for other things (assuming that they still have a job) and the volume of pax is likely to drop sharply.

Then we will see how robust the loco model is and which airlines survive in the ensuing dog fight to attract the passenger.

In short, many new hires in the airline world (<5-6 years) are about to have a profound learning experience, which may well cause them to view pax in a different light.

To answer the original question, I don't think that many people deliberately try to enrage pax, but they are going to learn the hard way that the customer is king/queen and is worthy of careful treatment.

[Capot]

Final 3 Greens

Well said! :D

Amanda78

I applaud your enthusiasm and pride in what you do. :D

But please trust me on this; the emergency exits are pretty much in the same places on modern aircraft as they were in the 707; upper deck ones do not fall into that category but they are pretty obvious too. What has changed is how they and the slides work, but then the briefing doesn't cover that, does it. I think we can find them if we need to without watching the ritual hand wave again.

What we old farts know as we sit there not paying much attention is that if there is a "survivable" accident that involves severe structural damage we'll be lucky if the seats don't break out of the mountings and smash us to pieces, and very lucky indeed if our bodies are sufficiently unbroken to make it out of the aircraft before it burns.

We also know that if there's a fire with no structural damage, we've got about 2 minutes to fight our way to the nearest exit on our hands and knees in thick, black, toxic, choking smoke, and that there will NOT be a nice orderly British queue to get out. There will be a heaving mass of humanity reverting to the caveman era to get out first. Those who are on their hands and knees will be walked over by others.

Anyone who saw the L1011 in Riyadh with the piles of charred corpses blocking each unopened exit has an unpleasant inkling of what really happens when the situation that the briefing is really about actually happens.

Precautionary evacuations, with no fire burning in the cabin and no real structural damage, are an easy everyday occurrence, pretty much; it's doubtful that they would go any worse without a briefing. If anyone tries to take a bag the other passengers would soon stop that.

So don't take offence, please, about our "lack of respect", as you call it. It's just that we do know quite a lot about the realities, and really do know the brieifng script by heart. All you have to do is give your attention to those who are paying attention.

[55yrsSLC_10yearsPPL]

Amanda78, Capot

Even older here. I enjoyed my first flight as a 6-year old passenger in 1949 on a DH-84 Dragon (The toilet on that particular aircraft was a very public affair) and still travel quite frequently mostly on routes to and in Africa and in the CIS.
Air travel was once a very personal and mostly enjoyable experience and so was the job of stewardess/hostess/flight attendant/cabin crew.
Today however we participate both as service providers and as consumers in a mass-transit system that leaves very little room for individuality.
The ideal passenger, weighing between 60kgs and 80kgs, with a small bag and a switched off cellphone in the overhead luggage compartment, sits, with empty bladder attentively in his seat, backrest upright and window shade open or closed, as the case may be. He /she mentally prepares for a remotely possible aircraft evacuation, deployment of oxygene masks and ascertains the presence of a swim-west or other flotation device and then quietly muses about the time, soon to come, when passengers will be strapped, six at a time onto pallets at check-in. Aircraft turn-around time will be minimised and the suitcases, unlike today will arrive for certain with the passenger because they travel underfloor on the same pallet. That will not only take care of baggage handlers and handling facilities but give the flight crews very accurate take-off weights as each pallet glides across the weighing device and aboard.

Mind you, I distinctly remember the captain who announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, sorry for the delay in getting clearance but we will now roll in about 8 minutes. Those who wish to use the toilet should do now because you should all be safely in your seats before we taxi"

Must have been an old-timer too ;)

[Bus429]

UK ANO requires pax to obey lawful commands from the commander.

In a similar vein, I notice many pax ignore FSB signs even during turbulence. On a recent AF flight from Tel Aviv, the crew had to make several PAs to pax assuming the FSB did not apply if they want to use the lavatory

[10secondsurvey]

Capot

I agree with every word of your original post on this. You succinctly summed up the real 'attitude' problem currently found throughout aviation.

Indeed if you look at cabin crew forums, you inevitably find much frothing and verbal nonsense decrying every aspect of every paying customer. I cannot think of many other service industries where the employess have such a venomous hatred for any of their paying customers.

[Bealzebub]

Capot,

With one already highlighted exception, I have to say that I agree with everything you say. I am not familiar with the circumstances of the topic incident and am only replying in response to your posting.

To get the one exception out of the way first, and in response to the other comments concerning the safety briefing, I would point out the following.

In a serious emergency and consequential "high stress," one of the common "fight or flight" induced responses of the human brain, is to shut off all the deep reasoning and long term memory functions, leaving the person reliant on their basic instinct and their very short term memory. This is evolutionary and essential to our basic survival. In effect the mind trips all the non vital circuit breakers, then brings back online the essential ones in a priority order over a period of time. If that period of time is short then the most likely ones you will have will be ingrained instinctive behaviour and short term memory. Our ancestors had an ingrained and learned blueprint that the Sabre tooth Tiger was a life threatening danger, and they remembered the esacape route as being the recent way they had arrived at that position.

There is a very high incidence of passengers who delay evacuating an aircraft in a high stress emergency, because they cannot undo their seatbelt. For those who watched and noted that part of the safety briefing it should have rooted in the short term memory. For those who rely on the instinctive response, the likely response is to try and undo the seat belt they undo instinctivly every day of their lives. The one in their car and surprise the mechanism is in a different place.

Given time ( and it varies in person to person) the higher reasoning centres will make sense of the confusion although panic may result if the stress level is maintained or as is often the case, increased.

For this reason it is in your best interests to listen and watch the safety briefing no matter how many times you have heard it before. For much the same reasons it is why the pilots also brief and mentally recap the departure and arrival procedures and recall emergency drills for every takeoff and landing.

If you don't want to listen, then nobody can make you, but it is idiotic behaviour, and certainly you should not give the impression that you might impede anybody elses better chances of possible survival.


That said, you are right about the whole mentality and attitude of behaviour in the air transport industry. From a customer service point of view it is often (not always) dire. Unfortunetaly, commercial aviation is a high profile, undoubtably the highest profiled transport industry in the world. It is very labour intensive, has a high turnover of personell and often attracts relatively young and consequentially inexperienced people into front line customer contact positions. When you add to this the levels of customer stress brought about by the poor environmental and information conditions that are prevalant, then there is inevitably going to be conflict. On top of all of this the reactionary legislation and security responses to the high profile terrorism and violence incidents of recent years has simply put the rancid icing on top of a very stale and rotten cake.

Obviously nobody condones violence or threats of violence against any individual, and it is entirely proper that legislation is enforced to deal swiftly with offenders. Likewise security has to be enforced and at this stage probably in dissproportionate measures, to prevent the global threat that has been demonstrated to exist.

The one thing that often seems to be a victim of all this "Brave new world" is simple old fashioned common sense. Flying as a passenger can often be a very unpleasant experience and it is not beyond the realms of reasonable expectation that sometimes people are going to be angry and frustrated. Sometimes people will have forgotten something, turned up late or made some other mistake. There will be times when there is nothing that can be done, and times when a bit of common sense will resolve and diffuse a situation. Don't misunderstand me, in that I know there are people who regularly apply all these attributes, however they are becoming few and far between, and certainly in so far as the general publics perception is concerned.

Yes there are regulations, conditions of carriage, statutes, the air navigation order and its various amendments. These are all there to fall back on if needed, but they are not a universal substitute for good manners and common sense when the application of the latter would negate the implementation and use of the former. If you are in a customer service position you should not for one minute tolerate abuse or threats, however take a reality check on what that actually means. It is not necessarily someone getting annoyed or agitated. It is not necessarily someone who might swear in frustration. It is not someone who might invade your arbitarily defined "space". Likewise someone who ignores the seatbelt sign in desperation of embarrasing themselves may be compromising their own safety, but there are occassions when that may be accomodated. On some airlines the signs are left on for almost the entire the flight. The arguement then is that the passenger has been warned and a legal defence is established. If you are going to do that, then do a P.A to establish the fact. In fact communication with the customers is the one thing that could be easily enhanced and rarely is. Most people are no less annoyed, but much less frustrated and certainly feel more involved, when they are being told and regularly updated on the reason for a delay, or the need for a course of action. With information, people can plan better and to some extent avoid the need for some of these unnecessary conflicts.

Certainly this needs far better management and organisation than currently exists in specific areas of the industry, as well as much better selection and training of candidates for customer orientated positions. Unfortunetaly I think it will be a long time coming !

[6chimes]

The nature of air travel and in particular short haul, has changed significantly and the loco model has been in the ascendancy for the past 10 years or so.

During much of that period, the world has been in growth that means that year on year expansion for airlines has been achievable by the combination of being there to provide a service and being able to do so at a price that is perceived as giving value for money by the punters.

:D:D:D:ok:

Well said and you are quite right.

So what have the airlines had to do to stay afloat? The aircraft that most airlines use are all pretty much the same so cost the same to operate. And do the public really think that they can fly about in a machine that costs several million quid for the ticket price of a pound? :ugh::ugh:

Most airlines have developed various procedures that quite honestly bully their crew into more productivity. This has lead to crew becoming increasingly frightened of the repercussions of using their initiative in situations when deviating from standard operating procedures is actually the right thing to do. I have seen many occasions where the CC have made a decision solely based on what punishment they believed they would get from some manager in an office if they complied with a reasonable request from a passenger.

That said my response to the situation in this thread would of been to call the captain and let him know of the situation and ask him if he felt there would be time to let the pax use the toilet. He/she would then know that there was someone moving around the cabin which would affect how he maneuvered the aircraft until I let him know the pax was secure again.

6

[jimworcs]

There is a developing culture of "zero tolerance" which results in ridiculous decisions which staff then feel the need to defend. Staff who defend this nonsense will in the end find that their job is harder, customers are more hostile and the atmosphere less pleasant than it needs to be. Bring back to the time when staff were empowered to make decisions based on sound common sense, courtesy and the specific circumstances.

[13 please]

Thankyou 6 chimes, for some understanding, and some calm common sense..
Assuming the cabin crew had already told the captain that they were secure for take off, common sense,(and common courtesy to the capt, and safety of course) would be to inform the capt that "we are now, not secure for take off".. Then the skipper has all relevant info he/she needs. I would not normally expect a reaction of returning to stand to offload the pax.. but there you go.. we don't know the conversation..

I've missed a takeoff slot before, because of a pax in the loo as we were taxiing towards takeoff runway, just delayed us by about 10 mins. But if you miss a slot at LHR, how long will you wait then..??

Why do pax get so defensive when the subject comes up of cabin crew having the cheek to politely point out, just in case the pax had not realised,what they should and should'nt do.. What do you think we're there for.. If we have to stop suddenly on the tarmac, or there's pretty bad turbulence and Joe Bloggs doesn't care about himself, or thinks we're making a mountain of a molehilll, we'd like to try and make sure that Mr Joe Bloggs doesn't cause any injury to anybody else....

[flyboy8004]

if you are a first time flyer..then you wouldnt be aware of what happens onboard...ie seatbelt sign on at specific times,however this guy clerly had flown before and i agree with 13...should of gone b4 u got on! i believe the CP is totally in the right! during flight if the CP or FO needs the loo...our policy is tht there are minimum of 3 crew at door 1 and the seat belt sign is switched on! am sure that anyway SLF who wants to have a little moan and groan would be the first to complain if someone got into that flight deck - on or off the ground! :D

[malc4d]

Not sure, but didnt the plane suffer a delay after they all got on.........
I have notice that on a few flight (longhaul, landing) the cockpit crew will PA through that the seatbelt sign will be going on in about 20 mins, and they suggest you use the toilets now........ That does stop that ' Oh my God, l gotta pee, and now they put the sign on ' panic attack......

Maybe all flights should have a 5 - 10 mins before seatbelt sign goes on call.....
MUST BEAT having to clean up a wet seat............:O

[BaronChotzinoff]

The answer to the problem is in the airline title.

BMI BABY - the pax should have been wearing a nappy.

[CJ1234]

Some of you seem to be sympathetic with this guy. Some guy on page one said some pilots would stop the aircraft so he could go quickly!!

What utter nonsense!

The guy disobeyed a serious health and safety requirement, and an order from the captain, which I believe is illegal.

The guy got a proper shake-up - good on the pilot.

[flyboy8004]

CP TO ATC - we are holding at rwy 28...pax in 13c needs a pee!
:mad: yeah thats fine all 15 flights behind you will hold too...
who does this guy think he is...bloody annoys me! lol

[6chimes]

I think the point is getting lost here.

If you're No1 for take off then then its a no brainer really, but if your sat in a line of 15 a/c waiting to take of 090 at LHR then there is at least 15 to 20 minutes before you are going anywhere.

The point is that all situations are different and should be treated as such and more importantly those on the a/c and not sat in an office should be given the respect and responsibility to act accordingly. As some one posted earlier the pax concerned could have a health problem and why should they divulge their very private information to crew on boarding? If the need arises to to make crew aware of their health concerns then that is the right time to do so.

We are in danger of becoming rather officious if we insist on the same level of compliance to rules regarding a passenger who is actually interfering with the safe operation of a flight and someone who just needs a pee! After all what would those of you who supported the police being involved have done if the pax concerned was a heavily pregnant lady? As you can see all situations need to be addressed individually. Illegal they may be but that is just the letter of the law not the spirit of it.

I have always found that helping my passengers not only makes them happy but it makes day a hell of a lot easier.........

6

[malc4d]

:D:D:D:D:ok:

[iain8867]

6chimes

I'm crew and I agree that common sense should prevail whenever possible, but, and I've had this happen, you allow one person to go to the toilet while taxying and before you know it you have 10-15 people wanting to go, you then try to tell them no as you are close to take off! Near impossible and then the passengers become hostile 'cause you are playing favouritism!!!

Better to keep them in their seats till you are in the air and then let them all queue if they want to. I know it smacks of nannying, but if you ask the general public the one thing that is nearly always at the the top, or very close to of their list for an airline is being on time. If that is what they want then when the A/C is taxying or the seat belts sign is on then they need to play their part to and be in those seats with their seat belt fastened read to go.

Who know the other 15 A/C in front may end up letting passengers go to the toilet and then not being secure you get to jump the queue?

[Final 3 Greens]

iain8867

I fly between 100-110 pax sectors per annum and have done for many years.

In that time, I have never witnessed what you describe.

This comment is not intended as an attack on you, nor am I suggesting that it has never happened to you, but as someone who spends a lot of time in the air, I would suggest that it is an uncommon event.

I read your comments as another example of trying to have a general rule for a particular situation, when judgement and common sense would be a better guide.

6chimes sums up the best approach in my opinion, which appears to come from a combination of pragmatism, experience and customer consideration.

For the record, I am still not convinced that this incident occured (or at least without there being more to it than meets the eye.)

[13 please]

well, for all we know, judgement, common sense, pragmatism, experience and customer consideration, were all used in this instance. Because really, we don't know everything that went on.

And I have witnessed this happen, not hundreds of times, but quite a few. We don't always know where we are in the queue, will the pax have inside info that the cabin crew do not? Even if we were 15th in the queue, as "Iain8867" pointed out, that can, and has changed. Again, not hundreds of times, but a few. The clue that you should be in your seat with your seatbelt fastened, is the fact that the sign above your head is lit. You do not need the seatbelt on just for takeoff, just taxiing round an airport is enough, possibly taxiing faster than it feels like. There has been instances where the pilots have had to slam on the brakes, and just like in your car, if you're not restrained, it may well hurt. We cannot physically stop people from getting up, but once they are up, we have to inform the flightdeck that we are now, not secure.

[flyboy8004]

some agree and some disagree...i would of personally blown the slide and offloaded em..joking!:O

[Capot]

There has been instances where the pilots have had to slam on the brakes, and just like in your car, if you're not restrained, it may well hurt.Absolutely right!:D

That's the real point at issue.

And at last, the Government has realised how serious it is, and is introducing emergency legislation to enforce the carriage of staff on all buses and trains, especially local buses operating in heavy traffic, whose job is to make sure that no-one gets hurt by standing up, or, God Forbid, moving about until the vehicle has stopped and the driver has switched off the seat belt sign. These signs are being installed in all buses and trains as we speak, as are the seatbelts themselves, which until now no-one realised were so necessary.

The Government understands that the risk of the brakes being slammed on is even higher in these vehicles than it is in a taxying aircraft (where it happens on a daily basis) and that therefore people need protection from their own thoughtlessness, in the form of a uniformed school-leaver telling them it's all for their own good.

[13 please]

Do you know what, Capot??.. You're absolutely right!!. Let's forget all our training. Tomorrow, when I go back to work, I'll let actually make a PA while taxiing, that now would be a great time to nip to the loo. Then maybe,like has happened before, a catering truck nips in front of us, the pilot slams on the brakes, we got 30 or so pax, piled up in the aisles... but I would have been using my common sense,right??..

You must tell me where you hone your standup skills....:8

When I said it may hurt a bit, I was being a litle sarcastic, it may hurt a lot.. I think most pax need protection from certain pax thoughtlessness..

[Capot]

13 please

The point I was trying to make fairly light-heartedly is that there is no more risk of injury to a passenger who happens to be standing up in a taxying aircraft than there is to one who happens to be standing up in a moving Tube train, bus, ordinary train or whatever. Millions do that every day without filling the hospitals. Astonishing, isn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "slamming on the brakes" but whatever it is, it is far more likely to happen in a bus than in an aircraft whose progress is almost as regulated as a train, in which the risk is about equal.

Using expressions like the pilot slams on the brakes, we got 30 or so pax, piled up in the aisles is simple, laughable exaggeration and does nothing for your argument.

What I am promoting here is simple commonsense, and sensible consideration of the facts and risks. The chance of a passenger on the way to the loo after perhaps 2 hours of lockdown being hurt because the pilot "slams on the brakes" while the aircraft is slowly and intermittently making its way up a long queue is so small that it's not worthy of even mentioning.

Even if the brakes are "slammed on", as you put it, the aircraft taxy speed is less than the average bus or Tube train, and a fraction of a typical overland train's speed.

Does that tell you anything?

If you really think that it's not safe for people to move around in an aircraft while it's taxying, you should divert your attention from making people pee in their seats to a campaign to force the Government to instal seat belts in buses and trains, together with a law which says people must sit down wearing the belt while the vehicle is moving.

Oh yes, and cabin crew shouldn't move about if doing so is dangerous; if the brakes are "slammed on" and a CC is therefore injured, perhaps under the pile of 30 bodies, the flight would have to be terminated altogether due to the loss of a required crew member. So no more safety demos while taxying, eh, or any other movement in the cabin. Far too dangerous; standing up, facing backwards, sudden stop, serious injury. I'm amazed at the bravery of crew who do this daily.

[13 please]

We do have the ability to use commom sense.We use it all the time at work. Well, most of us do, and pax do too, well most of them..

Slamming on the brakes means, slamming on the brakes, they can stop pretty quickly if they have to.Before takeoff, it's just the crew that go A over T. They were all a little shaken, had been lifted off the ground, would you believe! Bumps and bruises, no head injuries luckily. It was decided that they would carry on.

elsewhere there was a question re crew out of their seats b4 takeoff, the answer was something to do with balancing the product, with safety.

Of course I was exaggerating re 30 or so, but if you let 1 up, who knows how many will follow...

[Capot]

something to do with balancing the product, with safety.Are you really working as aircrew? If so, that's scary.


but if you let 1 up, who knows how many will follow..And that's the authentic voice of contempt for the customer, overlaid with tones of a nursery nurse.


Oh dear, not much of what's been said in this thread seems to have got through.

[Nubboy]

Maybe once a year or so, I need to stop quickly while taxiing. Everey time I do I find it very uncomfortable for me, an d I'm wearing a full harness with inertia locking shoulder straps. If you're up and walking on MY aeroplane when I've got the seat belt signs on then you're on your own. It just ain't safe. Period.

If however you need to move about, then ask and I'll be pleased to give an honest answer. Remote holding while waiting for a slot delay, engines are shut down and signs are normally off. Long queue at the holding point, then maybe time for a very quick pee. One or two in front, then no way.

[G-TTIC]

Cabin crew are on their feet during taxi for safety related duties, i.e. required duties such as door mode selection, the safety demonstration, and cabin secure checks. Crew are covered by insurance for injuries sustained whilst carrying out these duties.

Passengers do not have any duties to fulfill, nor any valid reasons to be standing while the aircraft is taxiing, and this is taken into account for insurance reasons. If a passenger is injured, or by extension injures other passengers or crew, due to not being appropriately restrained whilst the seatbelt sign is on, they must be held responsible for this and should not be covered by insurance.

I take a common sense approach to this whenever possible. If seatbelt signs are on during turbulence and a customer is in desperate need, I will assess the situation. If I'm standing, I will generally allow the customer to use the lavatory, but only after warning them that it is at their own risk. If I'm seated and harnessed under orders of the Commander, then it is by no means safe to leave your seat.

On the ground, I apply a similar logic. If I'm seated for takeoff, everyone else should be seated too. If I'm in the cabin performing the safety demonstration, everyone needs to be seated. If I'm doing a cabin secure check, same situation.

On most European airlines, the seatbelt signs are on for quite a short time in comparison to US airlines. While not wishing to sound like a "nursery nurse", I should hope the average adult would be able to hold it in for about 20-30 minutes.

13 please has not, from what I can see, shown any contempt for the customer, but has rather commented quite accurately on human nature. If one person gets out of their seat while the seatbelt signs are on, others will follow.

Capot, your arguments concerning aircraft taxi speed are interesting. I would suggest, however, that an airfield is host to a variety of moving machines of varying power and size and it would be sensible to have everyone seated where there is no requirement for them to be standing.

[13 please]

Thankyou to G-TTIC and Nubboy, I really didn't mean to show any contempt for anybody, I was just speaking from experience. But I really couldn't be bothered to reply to Capot's last post as I thought he/she was just nit-picking, and attempting, and almost succeeding, to wind me up. many thanks again. Safe and happy travels to all out there.

[BRUpax]

I will refrain from getting drawn into the debate (if you can call it that) about "to pee or not to pee". What shocks me is the level of aggression and immaturity demonstrated by some posters - professing to be professional aircrew - in presenting their point of view. It would appear that on some airlines passenger and aircrew intellect and maturity seem to compliment each other rather well. :}

[SXB]

Slim Shady
I bet your colleagues absolutely love you. In fact I'd go so far to say they refer to you as the bad apple, the one that ruins all their hard work with your arrogance and bitterness. Clearly, you don't have the first clue about dealing with people, you are arrogant, argumentative, bitter and clueless.

Abusing the Sky - I don't think you are much better. Both of you need to be reminded why you are actually employed by your airline - this being because customers want to go from A to B, to do this they pay money, which in turn makes the airline profitable, if they were to disappear you would be out of a job. Sure, a small percentage of these customers are idiots, learn to deal with them, I hate to be the one to point this out but a large part of your job is customer service.

There are some great posts from CC on this thread, for example the comments posted by 6 chimes, an example of common sense and of how to deal with people.

That said, I'm with F3G and am yet to be convinced this incident did actually take place.

[The Real Slim Shady]

OK,

SLF, know your place(s).

I do not have to provide any "service" other than to get your loud mouthed arrogant "service" desires from A to B.

I do not have to provide an other "service" nor do I wish to.

If you dont like it go fly BA and take your chance with T5.

You pay 1 p ( 1 eurocent) don't expect or demand C class service..

You don't keep me in a job....the Poles do.

And SXB, my CC love me....I don't let them put put up with assh0les like you..I offload!

There is no argument.:D

[Final 3 Greens]

Oh well, I guess we now know that blunt instruments featured in your training too, RSS.

[The Real Slim Shady]

F3G,

Do me or Mrs TRSS care?

The bmi captain was correct; end of.

[G-TTIC]

TRSS, this may be an anonymous internet forum but surely we can keep to a well mannered debate? The maority of cabin crew are wholly professional individuals and you're "letting the side down" ever so slightly.

[The Real Slim Shady]

G-TTIC

As much as one would understand your desire to pour oil on troubled waters.

I'm not cabin crew................go away.:ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

TTIC

The maority of cabin crew are wholly professional individuals

I take about 100 flights a year and would happily attest to your statement, in terms of both safety and good service.

I take it from your handle that you are GB (former) crew - well we miss you on the Malta run and hope that those who have moved to easy will continue to do well.

[Final 3 Greens]

I'm not cabin crew................go away.

Well know I know why we pax need a locked and armoured door to keep the flight deck in.

[Been hacked]

eeeeeeeek
i hope i dont get Slim as my cc i hate flying, but i would hate it more if i had this individual serving me.

Maybe he would be more suited to a job in bailiffs LOL

[The Real Slim Shady]

Just 100 flights a year??

1 return flight a week?

I do 4 a day!!

Go on tell me how to do my job...I just love it :O

[G-TTIC]

F3G,

I believe most GB crew now in easyJet are enjoying it so far, though of course it's not for everyone. It remains to be seen what happens with ex-GB aircraft (should be leaving the fleet over the coming 1-2 years) and crew (Ts&Cs to be negotiated etc).

Of course, at least mainline has begun a MLA service, though the timings are quite odd.

TRSS,

Cabin crew/flight crew/engineer/ground agent/caterer/whatever - a bit of respect for passengers wouldn't go amiss. I may fly 2-4 sectors daily, be SEP trained and have a certain amount of authority, but I know who pays my salary.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Hey, been hacked.....

Worry not.

I'm a 73 Captain, not cabin crew.

She who must be obeyed is a purser tho.

[Abusing_the_sky]

My job is the safety of my pax and crew... I signed a contract where i swear i will Preserve, Protect and Prevent from worsening the HUMAN BEING'S life... It's my job, my life, my everything. So please, go preach somewhere else. It's like a playground, i tell you off and it might sound harsh, but it's for your own good... Trust me, all the CC will tell you the same. I'm there for your safety, don't take things for granted, there's always that chance that something might go wrong. I know how to operate a door and a slide and get you off the airplane. Do you?
This is going too far. Point is, the BMI Captain was right to do what he did. My husband would do the same.

Regards,
ATS

[Final 3 Greens]

though the timings are quite odd.

Yep, 0525 dep - still they might be targetting people leaving the nightclubs in Paceville!

[Final 3 Greens]

ATS

When you swore to Preserve, Protect and Prevent, are you sure that you were not enrolling in the local fuzz?

[Final 3 Greens]

Go on tell me how to do my job

Sorry, can't help, you'll have to ask your FO to do that.

[G-TTIC]

I must say, it's increasingly evident in this thread that a small number of cabin crew let that little bit of authority go straight to the head.

Yes, cabin crew are trained in door operation and evacuation procedures. It's also fairly easy to work out - you generally pull the handle in the direction of the arrow and the slide inflates automatically. Now being SEP trained gives me a quicker reaction time of course, as it's been drilled into me, but it's not like the door will not open unless it's a cabin crew member doing it.

Safety is the highest priority in our job. Everything we do revolves around it but it must be remembered that customer service is the most visible part of the job. Being cabin crew is not some higher calling, it's a job - a job that has immeasurable impact on how customers view your company.

There's an influx of immature crew coming online now in almost every airline, who think it's ok to "tell off" a customer. I reserve this for the most serious of cases. For minor things, a polite reminder of company policy and safety regulations is all that is needed. No need to establish yourself as the "safety police".

[Abusing_the_sky]

Final 3... This is just showing how disconsiderate and disrespectful you are towards all air crew. Be careful when you fly BMI next time, the Cpt might offload you:ok:.
I now refuse to answer any of your posts as i have better things to do, like planning my flight tomorrow. Thinking what is it i can do to make the flight more safe and pleasant for those who care (pax and crew), even for those who don't. Including you, the guy who decided he can't wait to go to the loo and "just feak it, i'm gonna go on take off, injure myself and try to sue the airline". We know your type, we know ALL the types.

Safe flying my dear Sir!

[The Real Slim Shady]

G-TTIC

Your job is purely safety related.

tell me otherwise...name your airline and we can take it up with your Authority.

[Final 3 Greens]

ATS

Maybe you should read post #49, where I support 6chiimes, who is CC and makes a very sensible point about how to handle such an incident.

Me, well I never leave my seat when the signs are on.

Also, Perhaps you might have a laugh at my last post, as it was only intended as a bit of fun - maybe you have never visited New York but your words are pretty close to the NYPD strapline.

[Been hacked]

oh jesus

even worse he is flying the damn plane eeeeeeeeeek

[G-TTIC]

TRSS,

I am required to be onboard for safety reasons, but if my job is just about safety, what's this stuff I keep hearing about providing a service on board? Perhaps at your airline such service is minimal, but at mine it happens to be an important part of the job. Not as high a priority as safety related duties, which I have already said, but still very important.

I would suggest that the flight deck door gives you a very one-dimensional view of the cabin crew job.

[13 please]

ok, well I think everyone should just calm down. If you have a look at how the story has gone on where it was originally spotted, apparently there was more to this tale.But there is some sort of legalcase going on, which someone seems to know something about but is not saying. Or the whole thing could be just a shaggy dog story that someone invented just to get a reaction. And if that was the case, it worked well,didn't it?

There aren't many grey areas when it comes to safety and security, but we can use common sense, as can 99.9% of pax.

But we don't know what really happened, shame though, I would be very interested to know the full facts.

[SXB]

I'm just leaving to pick up an AF flight, I'm hoping I don't come across crew such as the 'Real Slim Shady', fortunately my years of flying illustrate to me that such individuals are the exception.

[TightSlot]

The Real Slim Shady is taking a short rest from posting on this thread. Please could we all try and calm down a bit, or at least seek a way of posting immoderate views in a moderate fashion.

Thank you

[Final 3 Greens]

TS

Apologies for any offence caused, I was just having a bit of banter with TRSS, didn't take it too seriously.

Hope your course is going well.

[6chimes]

I must say that after reading some of the posts here I now understand why on the odd occasion I get SLF that hold me in some sort of contempt........they obviously have been on an a flight crewed by some of the posters here that claim they are crew!

I only say that because strangely this exact situation happened to me yesterday. We were taxiing out of LHR....very slowly as usual cos its a busy airport. A little 5 yr old needed to use the loo, his Dad asked, I asked him to hang on a minute whilst I checked if it was ok. I called the boys up front, the Captain told me we were in a long queu. So now he knew that we were unsecure he would control the a/c accordingly. (by the way I am not sure why a catering truck would be roaming around the holding point to cause a/c to slam on brakes). The little lad used the loo and sat down without any need of armed police to stampede the a/c and drag the perp off to the nearest gulag. An event not worthy of any comment had it not been for this thread.

Anyway, I'll let some of the 'crew' posting here get back to winding up the SLF and treating the seat belt sign as one of Mr Brown and Blairs new anti terrorist laws to keep us all safe in our beds at night and should therefore be upheld vigorously and without prejudice, and even used to spy on folk applying for school places for their children :ok:..... Authority is a gift that some people have no place having.

6

[13 please]

Not wishing to nit-pick, just clearing up any confusion.

It wasn't at the holding point when the catering truck appeared, the aircraft was taxiing while the cc were in the aisles during the playing of the safety video. The sudden stop actually lifted them off the floor and some of them landed on their backs.

6chimes, I think this is a non-event really too. we all know pax should be strapped in while the sign is on.The common sense comes in when the pax knows this also but asks is there any chance etc.we find out from the flight deck, and a decision is made.

And if we find out there really isn't time, sometimes it's not what we say but how we say it. We do not "lose face" just by being polite and friendly. I am embarrassed by some of my colleagues, just sometimes.

I know with my son, when he needs to go, he REALLY needs to go.But it will be the last thing we do before we get on the plane, and I'll get him to go during boarding.So far so good...

[Atishoo]

Mod,

A little break?? where has he gone?? ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

6Chimes

I like your approach :ok: