Passenger offloaded from Air NZ flight for ignoring safety briefing [Archive]

View Full Version : Passenger offloaded from Air NZ flight for ignoring safety briefing

bateleur

8th May 2019, 09:36

This ...

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/08/passenger-thrown-off-air-new-zealand-plane-for-refusing-to-read-safety-instructions-card (https://www.pprune.org/www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/08/passenger-thrown-off-air-new-zealand-plane-for-refusing-to-read-safety-instructions-card)

A woman who refused to watch the regulation air safety video or read the safety instructions card handed to her by flight attendants has reportedly been removed from an Air New Zealand (https://www.theguardian.com/world/newzealand) flight in Wellington.

The woman, described by other passengers as “wealthy-looking”, was sitting in the exit row but ignored attendants’ attempts to get her to listen to the safety instructions for flight NZ424 to Auckland on Tuesday.

clareprop

8th May 2019, 09:44

Apart from obviously being obnoxiously rude, they were sitting in an exit row so its bye-bye for them.

Loose rivets

8th May 2019, 11:56

Yes lady, the law applies to you. Did the man have to get off as well?

Perhaps she can pawn her bag and charter a private flight.

(One of the regular items taken into that TV program's pawn shop are bags that cost a bazillion quid. Utterly vacuous people in my not so humble opinion.)

FlexibleResponse

8th May 2019, 13:47

Airlines should actually position a cabin crew member in the exit row next to the emergency escape window/hatch.

But, aviation regulators let airlines get away with it by placing someone with half a brain to listen to what needs to be done in an emergency.

And stupidly, airlines then charge a premium to sell such seats to pax which tends to attract many of those "I am entitled" crowd that even don't have half a brain.

Final 3 Greens

8th May 2019, 14:15

PastTense

8th May 2019, 14:24

Pera

8th May 2019, 14:32

Airlines should actually position a cabin crew member in the exit row next to the emergency escape window/hatch.

Why. would you care to explain why? Why shouldn't this passenger simply do what is required when she accepts an exit row.

blind pew

8th May 2019, 14:33

Whatever happened to the 21 year olds wearing suspenders and mini skirts who made flying fun?
We have to listen to this blah blah blah in case the drivers get it badly wrong and then we are supposed to fight our way out over mountains of baggage which should be in the hold.

Hotel Tango

8th May 2019, 14:34

The passenger has probably heard airline safety instructions dozens of time before. Is there that much difference between them? Frankly it surprised me that the crew made a big deal about this situation.

I fly on average 50-80 times per year. Many of my flights are on the same type. However, I always give the cabin crew my full attention. Furthermore, if I am in the emergency exit row I always familiarize myself with the opening procedure so that I am mentally prepared. Same when not in an emergency exit row. I check my surroundings and count the rows to the nearest emergency exits in the event I have to navigate there in total darkness. How many people staying in hotels familiarize themselves with the quickest route and location to the emergency exits?

Sorry PastTense, there is NO excuse whatsover for the attitude of these passengers. I hope Air NZ will ban them for life!

Mad (Flt) Scientist

8th May 2019, 14:40

The passenger has probably heard airline safety instructions dozens of time before. Is there that much difference between them?

The point of rebriefing something is to ensure that you actually do remember it. The fact that you heard it once, years ago, does NOT mean that you will actually recall it now.

Or are you suggesting that doing a takeoff brief once a year should be sufficient for pilots, because "it doesn't change that much"? /sarcasm

(I don't fly anything like as much as HT, but I still do what they describe)

Glassos

8th May 2019, 14:52

krismiler

8th May 2019, 15:13

Half the passengers don't listen to safety briefings in the first place, of those that do half don't understand them. Of those that understand them, half won't remember them. That generally leaves a small number of people who would probably be able to work it out on their own anyway.

AndoniP

8th May 2019, 15:27

As a frequent pax, I wish that more airlines would behave in a way that supports safety.

Instead we get overlong videos (I'm looking at you, BA) that seem to be designed to entertain and chug and crew who stand by placidly as people overtalk the briefings.

The best airline that I fly, in this respect, is Ryanair. Very short and to the point briefing and crew often prepared to ask pax to be quiet.

They're not overly long if they're entertaining. I found BA's recent star-studded safety video (the one hosted by Chabuddy G) quite good actually.

The videos are made like that in order to get passengers to watch them - you want the instructions to be followed or not?

sixchannel

8th May 2019, 15:31

- - - crew often prepared to ask pax to be quiet.
Jet2 CC also. Full marks.

Final 3 Greens

8th May 2019, 15:40

They're not overly long if they're entertaining. I found BA's recent star-studded safety video (the one hosted by Chabuddy G) quite good actually.

The videos are made like that in order to get passengers to watch them - you want the instructions to be followed or not?

But you're assuming that people watch them for the message; basic observation and listening skills will inform that people are watching the celebs, not the briefing. High attention, but potentially low recall when it is most needed.

You might like the Chabuddy G video, it's your perrogative, but having watched the original and the newer version well into three figures, it grates and feels like 60 minutes, not 6. Ryanair get the message across in about 90 seconds with an audio only track.

Final 3 Greens

8th May 2019, 15:41

Jet2 CC also. Full marks.

Good to hear.

EladElap

8th May 2019, 15:59

They're not overly long if they're entertaining. I found BA's recent star-studded safety video (the one hosted by Chabuddy G) quite good actually.

The videos are made like that in order to get passengers to watch them - you want the instructions to be followed or not?
I agree it was amusing the first few times. But if you are a frequent flier, it is far too long due to all the humour added. A safety briefing should be as short and as brief, covering only the essentials. Otherwise the important stuff is diluted.

As for the NZ couple. They ignored a flight crew instruction, which is illegal. Bye bye...

nike

8th May 2019, 16:08

In the US, exit row passengers are asked if they can help during an evacuation. If the passenger is unable or unwilling to help, they are simply moved to another seat. Just wondering why that wasn't done here?

Because the woman put her fingers in her ears!

That's the level of maturity the poor cabin crew have to deal with.

Haraka

8th May 2019, 16:22

In the early 80's, I was flying frequently as a then ex-RAF bod in U.K. defence industry , married to a retired B.A (707/Concorde) stewardess, We often discussed cabin evacuation and "other" cabin situations.. I wrote to B.A. suggesting a scheme whereas fit and able guys in similar positions to me could be put through the relevant cabin crew training ,paid for by industry . This initiative was triggered by a situation on a BA TriStar coming back from India where the cabin crew had asked for my assistance. I had been seated by an emergency exit incidentally and not by coincidence, since this apparently was a de facto common practice at the time..My company supported the initiative. Our status would be annotated on booking, emergency exit seats allocated on check in and cabin crew alerted on crew brief. i.e. " a friend in the cabin",
At the suggestion of friends in BALPA such individuals would not partake of alcohol during the flight.
I eventually got a patronizing letter back, apparently signed by Colin Marshall, thanking me for my interest, but assuring me that all of BA's established cabin procedures were perfectly adequate.
Yes , sure.

DDDriver

8th May 2019, 16:31

I think one advantage of the LoCo quick turnaround model is a push for a more efficient safety briefing, which probably is easier to understand. I’ve seen EZ/FR crew tell pax to listen several times before. Well done!

Momoe

8th May 2019, 16:49

Well done that cabin crew, maybe they hadn't forgotten already that 41 people died in Moscow this week having failed to evacuate a burning aircraft. Lots of speculation still but maybe if everyone on that aircraft had listed to the safety briefing and FOLLOWED the instructions, some of them would still be alive.

b1lanc

8th May 2019, 17:46

nivsy

8th May 2019, 17:50

Listening is one thing, actually being able to operate the window latch under emergency circumstances is quite another. Mental health? Capability? Indeed, airlines themselves should take a good hard look at themselves. We have seen those seats sold for higher revenue. Perhaps anyone at these seats then should not drink alcohol,? Breathalyse after spending X hours in lounge prior to departure as well as during the flight? The seats themselves with legroom are doubtless narrower with less room than before. So why are airlines not taking safety seriously? I agree they should be more safety conscious. If that means a config change on certain aircraft to have crew at emergency exit seat so be it. So Mr Pax, you have paid for your seat, paid for your ticket but you are responsible for evacuation procedures of potentially over100 pax. In the cold light of day you actually could not make this up frankly!! Happy flying.

Haraka

8th May 2019, 18:33

nivsy See my post 19 above for a BA management reaction to what I thought was a constructive suggestion some years ago .......
The "no alcohol " caveat came across strongly at all crew levels.

Herod

8th May 2019, 21:52

Full marks to the cabin crew, captain and airline. More like that please. When I was regularly flying as a captain, if I was a passenger I always listened to the safety brief, even if it was the type I was operating. A quick reminder puts the facts foremost in the mind. Apart from that, it's common courtesy.

flyinkiwi

8th May 2019, 23:50

As for the NZ couple. They ignored a flight crew instruction, which is illegal. Bye bye...

Interestingly NZ Police said (https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/112539177/woman-removed-from-air-new-zealand-flight-after-failing-to-comply-with-crew-instructions?rm=m) the woman was only charged with using a mobile phone onboard an aircraft, no charge was laid for failing to obey the reasonable instructions of the crew. Both are breaches of the NZ Civil Aviation Act 1990 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0098/latest/whole.html).

YorkshireTyke

9th May 2019, 00:10

......some of them would still be alive.
.......some of them MIGHT still be alive. Nothing certain in this World ( except death and taxes )

I've flown Air NZ and was frankly put off the intended message by their so called "friendly" "interactive" safety videos, often featuring well known characters acting suggested safety actions around such places as The Bay of Islands, Antarctica, etc. Totally unneccesary, too long and boring and glad when they finish.

Just give us the facts, plain and simple, and spare us the theatricals.

Apparently this women was attending to her phone, how surprising is that. Personally I would legislate for all phones to be stowed in hold baggage - Oh ! wait a minute, Lithium batteries ?

Water pilot

9th May 2019, 00:44

Perhaps the flight attendants are trained in unobtrusive testing; if you argue with them about reading the safety card, you are probably not the best person to be seated where the safety of hundreds of people depends upon your ability and willingness to follow instructions. If the FA says not to open the door because the flames are on that side, you don't want somebody who is going to open it anyway.

givemewings

9th May 2019, 02:21

Water pilot, bingo!

if she's being an uncooperative so and so now, I don't want to find out if she's finally going to listen when the ac is on fire with 41 people stampeding behind her to get out while she tries to get her bag out.

chuck her off. I've done it. Exit row pax became abusive and used threatening language, took it straight to the skipper who threw him off to catch the next flight. Pax flew a few weeks later on one of my flights and quietly sat and observed the briefing, every word.

ive also politely shushed pax talking over the demo when it meant other pax couldn't hear

KRUSTY 34

9th May 2019, 03:49

FlightlessParrot

9th May 2019, 04:25

The crucial point here, as has already been pointed out, is "Exit Row." Although people might have different views on the Air New Zealand safety briefing videos, they do take the exit row seriously, asking, and really wanting an honest answer, if people are OK with the possibility of having to do something in the unlikely event. They also have form for ejecting self-important rich orifices who think they're above taking part in safety measures: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11455637 Note that when this particular waste of oxygen was offloaded, the other passengers clapped. Just quietly, the FAs might have enjoyed it, too. Not that it would affect their professionalism, though.

Bull at a Gate

9th May 2019, 04:43

maxter

9th May 2019, 05:29

I too find the "cute" safety briefings appalling. Yet they are very common nowadays. Why show someone putting on an oxygen mask on a beach, for example? The best demonstration of something is one in which the circumstances in which I need to use something are the circumstances in which it is demonstrated. I won't need to use an oxygen mask unless I am in an aircraft so that is what should be shown.

What I want is a serious, business like presentation which reinforces the idea that my life my well depend on me paying attention.

Different generations and people learn information in many different ways. The younger, digital generation is now very prevalent travelling. I am sure the market research they would have done would show the method they use impacts the biggest majority of passengers. For frequent flyers like myself, first time can be engaging 50th extremely annoying but I suspect majority on flight closer to 1st timers and they are the vital target audience. Have patience, thankfully we are not a homogenace world and really it didn't take that long.

wiggy

9th May 2019, 06:12

nivsy See my post 19 above for a BA management reaction to what I thought was a constructive suggestion some years ago .......

I saw your suggestion but IMHO if you are going to be looking for suitable individuals amongst the passengers to man the overwing exits your best bet isn't a frequent traveller who has done a generic course, perhaps once, an indeterminate time ago. A better bet would be current off duty flight or cabin crew and on many routes in some parts of the world there's often one on a flight, quite possibly more. However the companies would rather sell the exit row seats for extra money ..and that is not something that is confined to BA.

Final 3 Greens

9th May 2019, 06:29

maxter

With respect and as a designer of learning interventions, you are wrong in your assertions. Market research may be able to identify reaction to the briefing (did people like it), it does not measure the retention of the message and whether the recipient of the message will be able to act upon it.

e.g. why is it necessary to demonstrate a simple lap belt operation? There is behavioural research behind that particular demonstration, not market research.

When designing for the younger generation, it is a general rule that they like shorter, sharper, etc - not rambling 6 minute attempts at winning a Palme D'Or.

DaveReidUK

9th May 2019, 06:32

Interestingly NZ Police said (https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/112539177/woman-removed-from-air-new-zealand-flight-after-failing-to-comply-with-crew-instructions?rm=m) the woman was only charged with using a mobile phone onboard an aircraft, no charge was laid for failing to obey the reasonable instructions of the crew. Both are breaches of the NZ Civil Aviation Act 1990 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0098/latest/whole.html).

I can't see any reference to "reasonable instructions" (other than a requirement to be seated and belted up), or to failing to pay attention to the safety briefing, in your link. Which section of the Act are you referring to ?

NumptyAussie

9th May 2019, 06:48

I can't see any reference to "reasonable instructions" (other than a requirement to be seated and belted up), or to failing to pay attention to the safety briefing, in your link. Which section of the Act are you referring to ?

What about para 65g?
"65GDisruptive conduct towards crew member (1) Every person commits an offence who, while in an aircraft,— (a) uses any threatening, offensive, or insulting words towards a crew member; or (b) behaves in a threatening, offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner towards a crew member; or (c) behaves in a manner that interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties; or (d) intentionally interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties. (2) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000."

double_barrel

9th May 2019, 07:13

nivsy See my post 19 above for a BA management reaction to what I thought was a constructive suggestion some years ago .......
The "no alcohol " caveat came across strongly at all crew levels.

Haraka (interesting username) I can understand their caution over what seems like a sensible idea, the liability implications would be significant.

But I do wish companies were stricter over the criteria for occupying an exit row. I have seen people clearly not able to open the door being allowed to remain, as well as obese people who probably would not fit through the overwing exit and those who clearly had insufficient English to follow the briefing.

To give you an idea of how hopeless most passengers are at hearing/following instructions - try looking around when the PA requests that people leave their seatbelts unfastened as the aircraft is being refueled. In my experience, some fasten their seatbelts, most ignore it. I have never seen anyone with a fastened seatbelt unfasten it as a result of that announcement.

(and should not this thread be moved to JB?)

NumptyAussie

9th May 2019, 09:03

I can't see any reference to "reasonable instructions" (other than a requirement to be seated and belted up), or to failing to pay attention to the safety briefing, in your link. Which section of the Act are you referring to ?

Possibly para 65G?

"65GDisruptive conduct towards crew member (1) Every person commits an offence who, while in an aircraft,— (a) uses any threatening, offensive, or insulting words towards a crew member; or (b) behaves in a threatening, offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner towards a crew member; or (c) behaves in a manner that interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties; or (d) intentionally interferes with the performance by a crew member of his or her duties. (2) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (c) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000. (4) It is a defence in a prosecution under subsection (1)(a) for using offensive or insulting words if the defendant proves that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that his or her words would not be overheard by a crew member."

clareprop

9th May 2019, 10:45

Possibly para 65G?

I don't think so. In the UK anyway, not listening to or not watching the safety briefing is not an offense. If charged under '65G' on the basis they didn't respond to a reasonable request to do so by the crew, any decent lawyer would say it wasn't a reasonable request as there is no requirement to listen. Bang to rights on the mobile phone though so QED.

Planemike

9th May 2019, 10:50

I wasn't there..........!!! However it seems totally over the top...... You cannot "make" people do things. You can quest them to do things, often works better.

Just a Grunt

9th May 2019, 11:11

Um...no. Not even close to an offence against that provision. I’d be happy to take that to trial. Rude, stupid, unco-operative, selfish, narcissistic? Yes. Criminal? No.

paulo

9th May 2019, 11:18

In the US, exit row passengers are asked if they can help during an evacuation. If the passenger is unable or unwilling to help, they are simply moved to another seat. Just wondering why that wasn't done here?

“The flight attendant was super kind and kept asking her, but the woman put her fingers in her ears.”

The AvgasDinosaur

9th May 2019, 12:23

I wasn't there..........!!! However it seems totally over the top...... You cannot "make" people do things. You can quest them to do things, often works better.
Some ‘people’ just don’t deserve the privilege of air travel. Life time on every carriers no fly list, should prevent any reoccurrence. Modern reservation systems should be able to mark her card satisfactorily.
Be lucky
David

Tailspinace

9th May 2019, 12:52

A classic example of people dying because they did not read/listen to the safety briefing was the ditching of the hijacked Ethiopian B767 when passengers inflated their life jackets BEFORE they exited the aircraft and then got trapped inside the inverted fuselage and could not escape and drowned!

Planemike

9th May 2019, 12:52

Some ‘people’ just don’t deserve the privilege of air travel. Life time on every carriers no fly list, should prevent any reoccurrence. Modern reservation systems should be able to mark her card satisfactorily.
Be luck David
No, it is NOT a privilege, it is a right if you have paid for your ticket. And exactly who decides if you are worthy of receiving the privilege? How incredibly condescending of you to let someone on an aeroplane!!
Just great to be able to ban any one because it happens to be convenient. You cannot be made to look at anything. Seek peoples cooperation: more likely to have a successful outcome...

aterpster

9th May 2019, 13:07

No, it is NOT a privilege, it is a right if you have paid for your ticket. And exactly who decides if you are worthy of receiving the privilege? How incredibly condescending of you to let someone on a aeroplane.
Just great to be able to ban any one because it happens to be convenient. You cannot be made to look at anything. Seek peoples cooperation: more likely to have a successful outcome...
It's neither a privilege nor a right. It is a contract between the passenger and the airline. Read the provisions of carriage from any airline. Most of them have them posted on their website. One of the many provisions is to cooperate with the flight crew and follow safety instructions.

Planemike

9th May 2019, 13:25

It's neither a privilege nor a right. It is a contract between the passenger and the airline. Read the provisions of carriage from any airline. Most of them have them posted on their website. One of the many provisions is to cooperate with the flight crew and follow safety instructions.
You write like a lawyer..... I was just responding to AD's msg . Just seemed an over reaction i.e. off loading a legitimate passenger. There is no requirement to pay any attention to the safety briefing. Some people choose to, up to them of course.... How can the cabin crew decide if you are "paying attention"?? Just seems a very arbitrary decision. If the pax was using a cellphone that would be a little easier to define.

clareprop

9th May 2019, 13:32

One of the many provisions is to cooperate with the flight crew and follow safety instructions.

Not sure I've seen that rather broad clause on say, the BA CoC.

wiggy

9th May 2019, 13:53

Well BA certainly do have the sort of clause aterpster has mentioned.

Take a look at ba.com, General Conditions of Carriage, it comes up in section 7 ( "Our right to refuse to carry you or ban you from travel")

7a8) If you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security.

and again in section 11 about behaviour onboard a BA flight:

11a) Unacceptable behaviour

If, while you are on board the aircraft, we reasonably believe that youhave:

put the aircraft, or any person in it, in danger
deliberately interfered with the crew in carrying out their duties
failed to obey the instructions of the crew relating to safety or security
.............

There then follows several other "no no's," such as being drunk on board, then the list of sanctions, up to and including handing over to local authorities on arrival...

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/legal/british-airways/general-conditions-of-carriage

I'll put money on many/most/all (?) other airlines having similar clauses ticked away in their Conditions of Carriage, I suspect some people who "know their rights" might be in for a rude awakening if they insist pushing the boundaries, especially if they decide to turn doing so into some form of performance....TBH I really really don't see the difficulty in quietly appearing to pay attention to a yet another safety briefing....
..

Herod

9th May 2019, 13:59

clareprop

9th May 2019, 14:08

Wiggy - refusing to read the safety card or look/listen to the briefing is not a breach of contract or a criminal offence. Refusing to follow the instructions contained in the briefing or on the card when being required to do so by a member of the crew, is a breach.

If the former were true, there would be lines of people being led of aircraft around the world everyday.

Our numpty couple were dealt with because they broke the law regarding use of mobile phones while being instructed not to.

Planemike

9th May 2019, 14:10

It may not be a requirement to listen to the safety briefing, BUT..if you are sitting in an EMERGENCY EXIT, then my take is that you have a DUTY to understand what you may be required to do. Alternatively, if you wish, get off the aeroplane.

If it is not a requirement to listen the safety briefing why make an issue out of it when a passenger chooses not to. All seems very heavy handed. It would appear the passenger was causing no problems to anyone. Just allow the flight to proceed normally. I am surprised at Air New Zealand.

Airlines seem to think it is acceptable to treat passengers in any way they deem fit. Brings back memories of an even more extreme situation in the US where police were brought in to drag a passenger off an aircraft. If the passenger is sat there minding their own business leave them alone. If the passenger is causing the problem, drunk etc then it is different matter.

KingAir1978

9th May 2019, 14:26

clareprop, Planemike, ever heard of the Tokyo convention? You may want to read up on that. It governs the authority of the Captain. Although you can chose to NOT listen to the safety briefing, you have to follow the orders by the Captain of the aircraft when it is in flight.

The Captain may delegate this to other members of the crew (i.e. cabin crew). So if the Cabin crew give you an order to familiarise yourself with the safety requirements of an emergency exit and you chose to stick your fingers in your ears, the Captain has the power (among other things) to remove you from the flight.

I'd happily take that case to court if I were the Captain of said flight.

Planemike

9th May 2019, 14:43

Water pilot

9th May 2019, 14:44

I would just caution that having been a witness in a court case, it is not much fun. You have to give a deposition (under the penalty of perjury of course), go to pre-trial conferences with the prosecutor, submit what seems like endless documentation which gets lost and has to be resubmitted, and finally go to trial on a date convenient for the judges and lawyers (which gets rescheduled on a whim it seems like, but if you don't show up you are the one going to jail!) Then you get to joust in front of a jury with a guy whose whole expertise is in making people look like a fool.

Kick them off, ban them, forget about it. Don't go the lawyer route.

Edit: it is amazing how frightening the experience is for someone like me who is not used to giving testimony. There is always that fear that you will make a mistake describing events that occurred years ago and will get indicted for perjury. Even if you tell yourself that it is not a rational fear, it is there. My wife pretty much had a breakdown after her testimony. She was convinced irrationally that some articles presented as evidence were not in fact the articles that we said they were and that the police had for some reason substituted them. Even showing her original pictures of the articles (which had not been substituted) did not help. We got over it but it took awhile.

wiggy

9th May 2019, 14:46

If it is not a requirement to listen the safety briefing why make an issue out of it when a passenger chooses not to. All seems very handed. It would appear the passenger was causing no problems to anyone. Just allow the flight to proceed normally

Firstly if reports were correct and the pax was sat an an exit row then her not listening to the brief potentially could have caused major problems for quiet a few people...the offloaded passenger was not the only person on that aircraft that had rights.....

Secondly if individuals really feel they need to exercise " their right" to ignore safety briefings brief, in total, then just perhaps they should consider booking a window seat away from an exit row.

That way everybodies rights are respected.

Planemike

9th May 2019, 14:54

Firstly if reports were correct and the pax was sat an an exit row then her not listening to the brief potentially could have caused major problems for quiet a few people...the offloaded passenger was not the only person on that aircraft that had rights.....

Secondly if individuals really feel they need to exercise " their right" to ignore safety briefings brief, in total, then just perhaps they should consider booking a window seat away from an exit row.

That way everybodies rights are respected.
wiggy........... I do understand the situation re. exit rows. Have sat in them in my time. My point is the crew/airline need to engage with the passenger not apply heavy handed remedies. Diplomacy wins (nearly!!) every time. .Off loading just seems over the top. Ask her to move ??!! As I said I was not there.

aterpster

9th May 2019, 15:23

You write like a lawyer..... I was just responding to AD's msg . Just seemed an over reaction i.e. off loading a legitimate passenger. There is no requirement to pay any attention to the safety briefing. Some people choose to, up to them of course.... How can the cabin crew decide if you are "paying attention"?? Just seems a very arbitrary decision. If the pax was using a cellphone that would be a little easier to define.
We weren't there.

DaveReidUK

9th May 2019, 15:24

Ask her to move ??!!

That would of course have required that she take her fingers out of her ears first.

givemewings

9th May 2019, 15:30

. I do understand the situation re. exit rows. Have sat in them in my time. .......Off loading just seems over the top. ..... As I said I was not there.

Respectfully, sitting in the exit row and being responsible for the correct oversight of the exit row are two very different things. If the crewmember is later found lacking or negligent in failing to have removed a pax from the row ho should not have been there, that can be their job done with.

Yes, you were not there as you correctly state. Therefore its safe to presume that the crew action was proportionate to the pax behaviour. I don't doubt that 'sticking her fingers in her ears' was only the start. Once they start behaving like that, 'diplomacy' rarely works. It becomes a battle of wills and if you lose authority of that cabin then in an emergency you are toast.

You'll find for many airlines, it IS a requirement to pay attention to briefing if seated at the exit.

it's been some time, but I believe the Qantas exit row cards start with the phrase: "It is a requirement that..." Anyone unwilling/unable to comply was to be moved if possible, and if not, offloaded. It's possible there were no empty seats available and/or willing swap-ees to trade places.

Or, she was being such a prat that offload was the sensible choice to prevent further issues or delay down the track.

aterpster

9th May 2019, 15:32

givemewings

9th May 2019, 15:33

How can the cabin crew decide if you are "paying attention

I dunno, eye contact is a pretty good start... *shrug*

Noxegon

9th May 2019, 15:45

I think that part of the problem that we have these days is that air travel for a SLF has become a fairly miserable experience where passengers are generally treated like infants. The PA system is massively overused for things irrelevant to the flight (credit card offers, lottery tickets, et al) and as a result people tune out.

It's not helped by the fact that some of the safety demo content is particularly patronizing. Do we really, in this day and age, need to explain to passengers how to buckle and unbuckle a seat belt? Furthermore, is there really a value in trying to force a frequent flyer to listen to the same demo for the thirtieth time in two months?

On a flight not too long ago, while seated in an exit row, I was asked if I was over fourteen years old by a crew member. I look about fifty. The very fact that the question was asked is (IMHO) a symptom of what air travel has become.

Were it up to me, I'd have passengers watch the safety demo online at home before ever getting to the airport. They would then need to complete a multiple choice test on what they'd seen, and anything less than a 100% result would mean no boarding pass without watching the video again and retesting. Frequent flyers with a given airline could be exempted from watching the video and directed directly to the test, with the same 100% pass mark.

I'd also have an extra test for exit row seating with no retest ability – that is, you fail, you're not in an exit row and that's it.

BluSdUp

9th May 2019, 16:25

Lovely thread.
Is there such a thing as a No Fly list and a Life Ban.
Except for terrorists?

aterpster

9th May 2019, 16:34

Lovely thread.
Is there such a thing as a No Fly list and a Life Ban.
Except for terrorists?
Yes. Create a sufficient issue on the airplane and you could be added to the list. Usually something serious enough to get arrested and convicted.

Mark Van Herd

9th May 2019, 16:58

I see some airlines have tried alternate approaches to getting the SLF's attention for announcements.
A little humor turns a boring announcement into a performance.
Just add the www.
JMHO.

msn.com/en-ca/video/watch/jamaican-flight-attendants-safety-announcement-goes-viral/vi-BBVx24J

Regards
Fog

b1lanc

9th May 2019, 17:02

Yes. Create a sufficient issue on the airplane and you could be added to the list. Usually something serious enough to get arrested and convicted.

I've seen some recent airlines announce they are banning folks for less than arrest-worthy stuff. Whether they will enforce, don't know.

DaveReidUK

9th May 2019, 17:06

Yes. Create a sufficient issue on the airplane and you could be added to the list. Usually something serious enough to get arrested and convicted.

I'd be very surprised if there is a universal No Fly list that is shared across all airlines. Who administers it ?

aterpster

9th May 2019, 18:10

I'd be very surprised if there is a universal No Fly list that is shared across all airlines. Who administers it ?
Beats me. TSA in the U.S., perhaps.

BluSdUp

9th May 2019, 18:19

There is of-course no such thing.
It is just a thing some will threaten with.

And with regards to lifetime ban, that is just ridicules primitive reaction.
You can do some serious crime , and once term served , You are free.

Considering how we treat Pax these days , I am surprised we do not have more problems.

Herod

9th May 2019, 22:08

Furthermore, is there really a value in trying to force a frequent flyer to listen to the same demo for the thirtieth time in two months?

My post #25. Last two sentences.

Planemike

9th May 2019, 22:21

Yes, you were not there as you correctly state. Therefore its safe to presume that the crew action was proportionate to the pax behaviour. I don't doubt that 'sticking her fingers in her ears' was only the start. Once they start behaving like that, 'diplomacy' rarely works. It becomes a battle of wills and if you lose authority of that cabin then in an emergency you are toast.

You'll find for many airlines, it IS a requirement to pay attention to briefing if seated at the exit.

it's been some time, but I believe the Qantas exit row cards start with the phrase: "It is a requirement that..." Anyone unwilling/unable to comply was to be moved if possible, and if not, offloaded. It's possible there were no empty seats available and/or willing swap-ees to trade places.

Or, she was being such a prat that offload was the sensible choice to prevent further issues or delay down the track.

You seem to start off from the premise, the passenger is in the wrong and has to be dealt with a severe manner. To mind referring to the passenger as "a prat" is indicative of a certain mind set. You seem to feel it is the right of the crew to shout "jump" and the passenger should respond "how high, sir !!". At the end of the day the people you have on board are "customers" i.e. they have paid for a service. Would you accept that sort of treatment if you were in a shop?? No you would not. Why should passengers on an aircraft be treated differently? It is not unknown for those who don a uniform and are given some authority to embark on an ego trip.

""It becomes a battle of wills and if you lose authority of that cabin then in an emergency you are toast."" This again, to my shows a poor attitude towards passengers. You have to have authority over them.....really? These people are handing over their money to fly on your airline. They are not being paid to be there as would be service personnel who obviously can be given orders.

Noxegon.......Agree with much of what you say.. One has the feeling there are some on here who would be very happy for many airline staff to be issued with cattle prods to help manage the SLF. Give them a quick prod if they are not paying close enough attention to the safety briefing or the sales pitch for the duty free..!!

WingNut60

9th May 2019, 22:48

Jet2 CC also. Full marks.

Had the experience on an Ansett flight PER - MEL many years ago where passenger in front of me was asked more than once to a) get off the phone and b) pay attention.
Her reply - "I have a human heart in this Igloo. I need to communicate with the crew in Melbourne".

CC reply - "We will assist in very way with your communication once the safety briefing is over. But right now, unless you are prepared to shut off your phone and pay attention, you and your human heart will be getting off the plane."

Phone down and off. Grudging attention paid.
After departure the woman was taken to flight deck, presumably to enable required communication (this was early 90's).

YorkshireTyke

9th May 2019, 23:23

Who administers it ?

IATA ? .....

givemewings

10th May 2019, 00:54

Mike, I never said assume pax are all.in the wrong.

but sh3s gotten to the point where she is being childish enough to 1) refuse to receive thebovereing exit briefing (which in Aus/NZ is a separate individual briefing
and 2) *sticking her fingers in her ears* then yes in this context pax is in the wrong and should be removed from said seat, if not the aircraft if behaviour warrants

as for my comment re "wills" I am referring to after 'diplomacy' has failed- some pax are determined to win/get their way just to "show who's boss" and once you get that it undermines the crew's authority of the cabin.

yes thry have paid to fly, they have not paid to abuse the crew or inconvenience or endanger their fellow pax.

megan

10th May 2019, 01:03

You seem to feel it is the right of the crew to shout "jump" and the passenger should respond "how high, sir !!". At the end of the day the people you have on board are "customers" i.e. they have paid for a service. Would you accept that sort of treatment if you were in a shop?? No you would not. Why should passengers on an aircraft be treated differently? It is not unknown for those who don a uniform and are given some authority to embark on an ego tripYou may wish to educate yourself on the powers of crew members, cabin crew are responsible to the pilot in command for observance.

CAR 309 Powers of pilot in command
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft, with such assistance as is necessary and reasonable, may:
(a) take such action, including the removal of a person from the aircraft or the placing of a person under restraint or in custody, by force, as the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft; and
(b) detain the passengers, crew and cargo for such period as the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft.
(2) A person who, on an aircraft in flight, whether within or outside Australian territory, is found committing, or is reasonably suspected of having committed, or having attempted to commit, or of being about to commit, an offence against the Act or these Regulations may be arrested without warrant by a member of the crew of the aircraft in the same manner as a person who is found committing a felony may, at common law, be arrested by a constable and shall be dealt with in the same manner as a person so arrested by a constable
309A Instructions about activities on board aircraft
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), the operator, or pilot in command, of an Australian aircraft may give an instruction, either orally or in writing, prohibiting or limiting the doing of an act on board the aircraft during flight time in the aircraft.You have to have authority over them .....really?They really do, and I might be so bold as to suggest you seem to be an exemplar of why.

evansb

10th May 2019, 02:27

Yes indeed. Muster drills are mandatory on cruise ships. During an emergency at sea, passengers must muster to their assigned muster station, unless you have a good excuse, such as you are dead. The Captain is the authority on the ship, not the passengers, regardless of the class of their ticket.

FlightlessParrot

10th May 2019, 05:00

If it is not a requirement to listen the safety briefing why make an issue out of it when a passenger chooses not to. All seems very heavy handed. It would appear the passenger was causing no problems to anyone. Just allow the flight to proceed normally. I am surprised at Air New Zealand.

@Planemike, as has been pointed out before, it was NOT just a question of attending to the safety briefing. Passenger was seated in an exit row, where there is a very specific request to find out if they are willing to cooperate actively with an evacuation. Passenger, like the unspeakable Jones before her, thought that the exit row just meant extra leg room and refused to cooperate with entirely reasonable requests.

maxter

10th May 2019, 06:59

KingAir Again you write as lawyer but in fact you are an Air Captain. If the passenger is sitting there minding their own business and causing no trouble to either crew or fellow passenger let them be. Some here seem to feel you can brow beat passengers into paying attention to safety briefings or read safety cards. Best option is to try and engage their attention but in the end if you can't the passenger will go on reading the paper or looking out of the window.You seem to want to treat crew and passengers in the same way. Yes, you can give an order to a member of your crew and expect them to follow it. If you give an order to a passenger they can CHOOSE if they wish to comply with your order. You may not like the fact they have a choice but they have that choice and have the right to exercise it.

Plane I think you are missing the point they were in exit row. sitting elsewhere not worth taking grief. Sitting in exit row very different. If you do not want to be co-operative for the sake of peoples lives you should leave exit row. Move co-operatively doubt there is an issue, escalate your pigheadedness/aggression, as it appears here, you are off the plane.

Uplinker

10th May 2019, 10:58

You seem to start off from the premise, the passenger is in the wrong and has to be dealt with a severe manner. To mind referring to the passenger as "a prat" is indicative of a certain mind set. You seem to feel it is the right of the crew to shout "jump" and the passenger should respond "how high, sir !!". At the end of the day the people you have on board are "customers" i.e. they have paid for a service. Would you accept that sort of treatment if you were in a shop?? No you would not. Why should passengers on an aircraft be treated differently? It is not unknown for those who don a uniform and are given some authority to embark on an ego trip.

""It becomes a battle of wills and if you lose authority of that cabin then in an emergency you are toast."" This again, to my shows a poor attitude towards passengers. You have to have authority over them.....really? These people are handing over their money to fly on your airline. They are not being paid to be there as would be service personnel who obviously can be given orders.

Noxegon.......Agree with much of what you say.. One has the feeling there are some on here who would be very happy for many airline staff to be issued with cattle prods to help manage the SLF. Give them a quick prod if they are not paying close enough attention to the safety briefing or the sales pitch for the duty free..!!

(my bold)

Try thinking this through. Yes, the crew do need to have authority over the passengers in an airplane - for very good safety reasons. The uniform is primarily there to pick out cabin crew and pilots so the passengers know who to listen to and who are authorised - by the CAA - to issue safety instructions and, yes, orders if need be.

One only has to observe passenger’s behaviour to see that they do not realise the importance of airline safety procedures, and you are obviously of a similar mindset. An airplane is not a bus - you can’t break the window and step out onto the hard shoulder. Situations can quickly get seriously dangerous unless correct action is taken. Just think for a moment how quickly fires take hold of an aircraft - this is why there is a requirement for aircraft to be evacuated within 90 seconds. We (pilots and crew) review our safety procedures before every flight. Cabin crew are asked medical and procedural questions during their daily pre-flight briefing such as what are the actions in the event of a passenger not breathing, choking, heart attack, use of the defibrillator. They are trained in - and practise - crowd control techniques. If they cannot answer their questions, they do not fly and are sent home.

Passengers are told that in the event of an emergency evacuation they must leave all personal belongings behind, yet again and again we see evacuations compromised because passengers are pausing to bring their bags, putting others’ lives in danger - in some cases condemning them to death.. Time after time, day after day, one sees passengers ignoring the safety briefing, reading their newspaper, talking, listening to music, playing with their phones. Crews practise procedures in cabin trainers that fill with smoke, and I can tell you that when you cannot see further than 6 inches in front of your face, it is extremely difficult to find the exits because you cannot see them from a distance so the situation becomes extremely serious.

Next time you are seated in an aircraft cabin, ask yourself how you and your family would fare if the cabin filled with smoke and flames now. Would you and your family be able to get out? Where is the nearest exit? Is it in front or behind you? How many seat rows are there between you and the exit?. When you can only see 6 inches ahead you can just about see the seats and you have to count them off to find the exit. Where is the next nearest exit if that one is blocked? Did you read the safety card?

Have you considered that you might have to climb over the seats while choking on smoke to get out because your fellow passengers are dawdling and collecting their cases?

Have a word with yourself. Please.

.Scott

10th May 2019, 13:55

The passenger has probably heard airline safety instructions dozens of time before. Is there that much difference between them? Frankly it surprised me that the crew made a big deal about this situation.
It's not enough that she has heard the instructions before. It is also necessary that the flight crew know that she is willing and able to operate the exit door. The easiest way to accomplish that is by having the passenger listen to the instructions and then indicate that they are able to carry out those instructions.
This is one of the airplane systems that must be checked before the flight begins. In the same way you would not depart without knowing that there is sufficient fuel on the plane, you also don't depart without knowing that the exit row is operational.
And I would say that in this case, that procedure certainly worked - in that they discovered that the passenger was not willing and able to even listen to instructions.
Certainly at that point, the passenger needed to be relocated. I'm not sure what some of the people who defend this passenger think the FA should have done, but clearly just telling the passenger to move wasn't going to work. Perhaps the FA could escalate things a bit by tapping the pax on the shoulder to attempt to get her attention - but the pax had already indicated that she was deliberately ignoring the FA. Given the situation, what would you have the FA do? Wait it out? He or she has to call in the police.

The police are there because it has been decided that some sort of physical confrontation cannot be avoided. The police are primarily interested in performing the operation in a way that minimizes risk to themselves and others. Their mission is not to resolve the dispute, it is to remove a passenger in the most controlled way possible.

Now, as to those safety messages - I suppose one can never see how to fasten a seat belt too many times. But I've been swapped to the seat next to the exit door a couple of times (because the original pax was unable to work the door) and have found the instructions to be a bit on the light side. When told that I would be opening the door in cases when the FA was not able to, I asked when should I open the door. Response: "You'll know". OK. I later heard that you keep the doors shut when there is "water or fire" on the other side. So, yeah, I get the idea. If evacuation is needed (or announced), and the door leads to a potential escape route without creating a bigger problem, then open it.

.Scott

10th May 2019, 14:18

From https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/112539177/woman-removed-from-air-new-zealand-flight-after-failing-to-comply-with-crew-instructions

They didn't seem to care that they'd delayed the plane for other passengers by 25 minutes, she said.

"You'd think they'd be embarrassed or mortified, but they seemed quite chuffed about the whole thing."

When they were told that police were waiting for them, the woman pulled out her phone and loudly tried to make a booking with Jetstar, she said.

Air New Zealand did really well in how they handled the situation, she said.

Gauges and Dials

10th May 2019, 14:21

You write like a lawyer...

Well of course, writing like a lawyer is entirely appropriate when discussing a legal matter. Would you rather have him or her writing like a surgeon, a chef, or a painter?

Gauges and Dials

10th May 2019, 14:30

Do we really, in this day and age, need to explain to passengers how to buckle and unbuckle a seat belt?.

I suspect that particular bit of the briefing is there based on having observed real world behavior in real emergencies and training simulations. Most passengers use an automobile seat belt every single day, and an aircraft seatbelt a couple of times a year at most. Automobile seatbelts are standardized one way: to release, feel for the inboard end and push the button. Airplane seatbelts are standardized a different way: to release, feel for the center buckle and lift up on the flap. I suspect that in the dark, in the smoke, in a panic, large numbers of people on an aircraft are going to waste precious seconds with their hands down by their hips feeling around for an automobile-style belt release button that isn't there. The fact that we all remember "lift up on the flap" even though we don't happen to be seated in an aircraft at the moment is testament to repeated (ad nauseam) briefings leading to good recall.

Euclideanplane

10th May 2019, 14:41

I am genuinely scared by people like that. Sitting in my XXA seat, it is quickly
clear that it will be a struggle to get out in case of an emergency. It usually is
fine in domestic and intercontinental East Asia flights, which I do the most, and
also in Asia-Europe flight. Intercontinental Europe flights however can be very
straining. Fold tables are out with laptops on them soon after the FA have sat
down before TO, as seats are reclined and huge pieces of luggage get taken
out from below seats and positioned in the aisle. If you can sympathize with
the "snow flake" who missed to have a life west under her seat on a Ryanair
flight, then you might agree in that case that the state of the cabin is enough
to scare you witless at the thought of a serious incident. The point being that
maybe an ordinary SLF might appreciate it when something gets done about
the very much less safety minded individuals.

IcePack

10th May 2019, 14:50

Had a decompression some years ago. Cabin Crew reported quite a few pax put the masks over their ears. Obviously they had paid great attention to the safety briefing. Not

.Scott

10th May 2019, 16:11

When I last posted (this morning), I didn't realize that my comments had bearing on a new thread - passengers "evacuating" when they should have "quickly disembarked". As I said, the instructions for the exit row people should be a bit more thorough.

Planemike

10th May 2019, 16:13

Yes, I have read the replies. I do fully understand the situation re. emergency rows, been sat in one on more than one flight.
No problems as far as I was concerned, fortunately did not have to become part of the the evacuation team!! Just another couple of thoughts to leave with you. One, in most cases (dependent on a/c) there will be more than one seat in the aforesaid row so another person can help if/when required.
Two, the uncooperative person featured in this scenario could easily have reacted in a much more positive or even heroic way should the worst have happened. I know you don't want to give her the benefit of the doubt !! I would have said it was more important to ensure the row was occupied by able bodied folk rather than very young children, the very aged, sick or infirm.

There still seem to be those on here who have a confusion in their minds between paying passengers sat on airliner and troops sat in a C130 (other military aircraft available !!). Yes, of course you can kid yourself you "have authority over the passengers". Yes, you can have cabin crew or even air crew bark orders at them: some will be compliant and shout "how high??), others will be much less willing to accept this treatment. Again I suspect there will be different reactions when we a "playing" with drills and a real genuine emergency.

I come back to the point that I uncomfortable with those feel it is acceptable to treat their paying customers as cattle to be unloaded if they are "non compliant". I am not talking about those who actively wish us harm or those who over imbibe. I am talking about folk who sit there minding there own business.

I fully understand why crew wear uniforms and for the most part it works fine. However there is a small minority who embark on an ego trip when in uniform.

givemewings

10th May 2019, 16:35

"Minding their own business" isn't a problem, refusing to participate in a Non-Optional briefing IS.

like it or not, it's Air NZs plane and their procedure is the ooax must listen to, agree with and show understanding of the exit row requirements. I'm not sure where you're from but it's not just a "are you ok to help us" by rote- it's an actual.interactive briefing with responses required on most carriers D&G...

The other thing you're not seeing is it doesn't matter if there's other pax in that row- every pax must be briefed as though they will be the only one left standing in the worst case. Best case they'll all help each other but that's not as likely given statistics. Half of them may be dead in a serious accident.

again, sitting in the exit isn't the same as being responsible for it. Take it from those of us who do this for a living 😉

and fyi, I am never anything but polite when delivering a briefing and requesting their undivided attention while I do so. I'll smile, but I'll wait as long as it takes for them to put down the phone rather than half ass an important safety briefing

Planemike

10th May 2019, 17:35

Gauges and Dials

10th May 2019, 20:21

This comments thread is a perfect microcosm for a larger set of issues in the airline industry. From the way CEOs talk to the investment community, to the way front-line staff interact with customers, there are, on the one hand, those who think they are in the transportation business and that their primary job is to move airplanes around the globe, and, on the other hand, there are those who realize they are in the hospitality business and that their primary job is to provide a set of services and experiences that attract and delight customers. The traveling public and Wall Street are paying attention. LUV and JBLU both trade at 12.5 times earnings, UAL trades at 8.5 times earning and AAL trades at under 8. If you refer to passengers as "SLF", you may be part of the problem.

Council Van

10th May 2019, 21:07

Planemike

Just imagine what you would think of this lady passenger if her failure to pay attention to the safety briefing had been overlooked and she was not able to open the emergency exit leading to the unnecessary death of a close relative of yours such as your Wife, Son, Daughter, Sister, Husband, Mother, Father etc

It is less than a week since those people in Moscow burned to death, think how terrible it must be to be stuck in an aircraft that is on fire and not be able to get off, how tragic would it be if you were stuck because some one would not spare a couple of minutes of their time to pay attention to a safety briefing?

FrequentSLF

10th May 2019, 21:16

Stop making passengers responsible for the emergency exit, get rid of those rows and have a jump seat in their place, costs will increase.
However crew is trained for emergency evacuation, pax cannot be trained with a short briefing that lasts not longer than 2 minutes.

Water pilot

10th May 2019, 21:45

The aircraft is operated by an airline to provide a public service for all who can afford to buy a ticket. This is in contrast to a privately owned aircraft where the owner can say who comes on board.
That might be the nub of the issue. In fact, in most cases aircraft are privately owned and the owner can indeed say who comes on board (as long as they are not violating the discrimination laws in their country.) I live on an island served by a ferry and one of the harshest punishments you can get is to be banned by the ferry system; if you board, the police will remove you for trespassing. Works like a treat sometimes...

Bend alot

10th May 2019, 22:02

Planemike, I encourage you to make your opinion clear to the cabin crew on your next flight.

FrequentSLF, there was a suggestion at the start of the thread to allow some members of the public do the training course and then be allocated emergency exit seats.

Here is another suggestion give the seats to aviation people, aircraft engineers and pilots. In the last couple of years I would have opened 30-40 emergency exits (and refitted them).

I must say I give some attention to the safety briefs but do not bother much with the seat belt or oxygen demo's. During this I generally give the safety card a quick look over, mostly again I regularly inspect and test seat belts and oxygen masks. When in an emergency exit, it is the full drill including giving the correct responses.

FlightlessParrot

10th May 2019, 23:01

I knew it was a bad sign when airlines started addressing passengers as "Customers." When I book a flight, I might well be regarded as a customer, but when I'm in the aeroplane, about to embark on an expedition into a hostile environment, I want to be a passenger, engaged in a net of reciprocal obligations centred on safety of flight. If it's just a financial transaction, another part of the hospitality industry, then the managers will start trading off safety vs profits, and calculating how many accidents a decade they can tolerate before it impacts the bottom line (to some extent, of course, this happens already, but it's kept to acceptable proportions by the professionalism of the operators).

In practical terms, this means a crew will go around rather than attempt a landing they can probably get away with, even though that will increase costs. It means the manufacturer will get the aeroplane right, rather than kludging it up with something that will get it through certification and be OK because it'll never be used.

For my part, it means that I accept that I have a responsibility to cabin crew to listen to their announcements, follow their directions, and not ask for something when they're busy with essential tasks. This sort of sense of shared responsibility is not compatible with conceiving the relationship as one of supplier and customer.

treadigraph

11th May 2019, 00:02

Planemike, as a passenger I have sat in an overwing exit row: the cabin crew spoke to me about responsibilities should exit via that route be necessary and it was a pleasant conversation. I may be a customer but as a long time construction industry employee, I understand safety and defer to those responsible for my safe conveyance be it by aeroplane, train or bus - and in the case of an emergency will assist them as best I can. Those who feel that to do so in someway undermines their standing in life are sad individuals.

Gauges and Dials

11th May 2019, 02:50

I knew it was a bad sign when airlines started addressing passengers as "Customers."
Wow.

then the managers will start trading off safety vs profits, and calculating how many accidents a decade they can tolerate before it impacts the bottom line

It's always the case that one could spend incremental money and achieve incremental safety. Third crewmember in the cockpit? Go from triple redundant hydraulics to quadruple redundant? Go from one minute spacing on arrivals to 2 minute spacing? pull out two more rows of seats and add an additional exit? There's always more that can be done. How else, other than hard-nosed quantitative analysis, would you propose that airline operators calculate whether or not to undertake any given safety improvement?

For my part, it means that I accept that I have a responsibility to cabin crew to listen to their announcements, follow their directions, and not ask for something when they're busy with essential tasks. This sort of sense of shared responsibility is not compatible with conceiving the relationship as one of supplier and customer.
I don't see why. There's nothing particularly unique about air transport in this regard.

sixchannel

11th May 2019, 06:38

Onesixty2four

11th May 2019, 06:56

"They're not overly long if they're entertaining. I found BA's recent star-studded safety video (the one hosted by Chabuddy G) quite good actually."

Star-studded? Who TF is Chubby G?

Uplinker

11th May 2019, 10:08

givemewings..... Interesting to hear it from the point of view one who is "at the sharp end" and I don't mean in the cockpit...You seem to come at this from the point of view of a military officer rather than someone who is dealing with passengers who happen to be customers. You see the briefing as "non-optional": to you it is part of your job. You cannot force the pax to participate; they can only be encouraged to participate. As I have said I am just not comfortable with passengers being thrown off a/c when they pose no threat or are not actively hostile. I am even less happy trying to ban them from further flying. The aircraft is operated by an airline to provide a public service for all who can afford to buy a ticket. This is in contrast to a privately owned aircraft where the owner can say who comes on board.

I know you find this uncomfortable, but passengers - whether they have paid for a ticket or not is irrelevant to safety - MUST obey safety instructions on an aircraft. This is the law, it is not optional. Would you argue with or ignore the instructions/orders from a fireman in a department store, telling you to leave the building? Or instructions from a ship’s Captain telling you to don your life jacket and proceed to lifeboat stations?

99.0075% of passengers are quite happy to follow instructions. However if a passenger refuses to then they must be offloaded because they could become a safety risk to themselves, other passengers or the aircraft itself.

I don’t know the full details in the case of this thread - I wasn’t there - but if a passenger in an emergency exit row refuses to listen and agree to follow safety instructions, then they must be moved from that exit row seat. If there were no alternative seats available and no other passenger was prepared to swap with them, then the original uncooperative passenger would have to be offloaded; we cannot have passengers who pose a safety risk. If they refuse to follow safety instructions, will they also smoke in the toilets for example? A discarded lit cigarette in the waste bin can cause a fire, and fire in an airplane is extremely dangerous and serious.

Every other year on average I have to call police to meet the aircraft on landing to deal with an unruly passenger who refused to follow safety instructions or is acting in a dangerous manner. One charming fellow who refused to fit his seatbelt before landing and was abusive to the cabin crew was last seen on the airbridge shouting at the Spanish police to “speak fxxxxxg English” as he was led away.

Just last week while over the Atlantic the toilet smoke warning suddenly went off. I am sure you can appreciate the seriousness of a fire in the cabin at 37,000’ over the ocean, an hour and a half flying time away from any airport. This despite the safety briefing stating that smoking was not allowed.

So unfortunately, passengers do have to be instructed. We cannot rely on them behaving safely voluntarily - most do, but we can not assume it. You find the manner occasionally too bossy, but perhaps your attitude or behaviour is borderline non compliant or difficult? There simply isn’t time to negotiate safety procedures with every passenger. They are simply trying to maximise your safety.

Just relax.

treadigraph

11th May 2019, 10:30

Uplinker, shame there is no like button on this site.

The bossy lady member of platform staff at Clapham Junction station who recently shouted at me to get behind the yellow line was thinking of my safety and got a smile and a thank you in return.

Planemike

11th May 2019, 12:07

I know you find this uncomfortable, but passengers - whether they have paid for a ticket or not is irrelevant to safety - MUST obey safety instructions on an aircraft. This is the law, it is not optional. Would you argue with or ignore the instructions/orders from a fireman in a department store, telling you to leave the building? Or instructions from a ship’s Captain telling you to don your life jacket and proceed to lifeboat stations?

99.0075% of passengers are quite happy to follow instructions. However if a passenger refuses to then they must be offloaded because they could become a safety risk to themselves, other passengers or the aircraft itself.

I don’t know the full details in the case of this thread - I wasn’t there - but if a passenger in an emergency exit row refuses to listen and agree to follow safety instructions, then they must be moved from that exit row seat. If there were no alternative seats available and no other passenger was prepared to swap with them, then the original uncooperative passenger would have to be offloaded; we cannot have passengers who pose a safety risk. If they refuse to follow safety instructions, will they also smoke in the toilets for example? A discarded lit cigarette in the waste bin can cause a fire, and fire in an airplane is extremely dangerous and serious.

Every other year on average I have to call police to meet the aircraft on landing to deal with an unruly passenger who refused to follow safety instructions or is acting in a dangerous manner. One charming fellow who refused to fit his seatbelt before landing and was abusive to the cabin crew was last seen on the airbridge shouting at the Spanish police to “speak fxxxxxg English” as he was led away.

Just last week while over the Atlantic the toilet smoke warning suddenly went off. I am sure you can appreciate the seriousness of a fire in the cabin at 37,000’ over the ocean, an hour and a half flying time away from any airport. This despite the safety briefing stating that smoking was not allowed.

So unfortunately, passengers do have to be instructed. We cannot rely on them behaving safely voluntarily - most do, but we can not assume it. You find the manner occasionally too bossy, but perhaps your attitude or behaviour is borderline non compliant or difficult? There simply isn’t time to negotiate safety procedures with every passenger. They are simply trying to maximise your safety.

Just relax.

Uplinker........ Another interesting read...!!! I do not need to be told to relax....thank you !! My aim is to live in a relaxed state and most of the time I achieve that.
My thoughts are set out in several messages on this thread, not necessary to repeat. I am in no way defending those passengers who are "actively unruly" mostly fuelled by alcohol, I am sure you will confirm. As an aside here, have to wonder why alcohol is made so readily available airside in terminals, but of course they would need to forego some revenue if the obvious decision were to be taken. Your "modus operandi" works fine with troops on a C130. In my view you close your eyes to the fact passengers are there voluntarily. Very many will play along with you and shout "how high". You have problems with the ones who choose to ignore you or shout back " don't feel like jumping ". You will not agree, I am sure but SOME safety procedures have become rituals and the observance of them as a ritual has become more important that any safety advantage they may confer. As always an interesting debate.....

Herod

11th May 2019, 15:40

Uplinker

11th May 2019, 16:53

Last from me to Planemike while I wait for my lawnmower battery to recharge......

Uplifter........

Close enough.

Your "modus operandi" ....... Not mine, sir, it is the CAA’s....

..............works fine with troops on a C130. In my view you close your eyes to the fact passengers are there voluntarily.

Whether voluntary or not, paid or not, it makes no difference to the safety standards we are required by law to enforce. When you are in a cinema or in a department store, you still have to obey fire regulations, to take one example.

Very many will play along with you and shout "how high".

Safety is not a game. We are not “playing” at it.

You have problems with the ones who choose to ignore you or shout back " don't feel like jumping ". What? they would rather stay on a burning aircraft??? All crews and pilots ‘have problems’ with passengers who refuse to follow lawful safety instructions. The law has problems with passengers who ignore safety instructions. We are required to uphold the law.

You will not agree, I am sure but SOME safety procedures have become rituals and the observance of them as a ritual has become more important that any safety advantage they may confer. As always an interesting debate..... Pilots and crews perform a safety brief or review before every flight - and we might fly six flights in a day.. Even business passengers are unlikely to fly every day, so is it really too much to ask that they pay attention to the safety briefing and follow instructions given by the cabin crew?

Wearing seat belts when we say, stowing baggage correctly, putting tray tables away, putting seats backs upright, opening window blinds, not getting drunk, not smoking, dimming cabin lights before night landings, getting you to sit down when we say; all these and more are done purely for reasons of safety.

Passengers are allowed to visit the cockpit on the ground while the aircraft engines are not running, (as long as we are not too busy). Why not ask if you can next time you are on an aircraft?

Happy flying :ok:

Planemike

11th May 2019, 17:39

Herod & uplinker............ Hi guys, take a look at your pms !!! PM

Noxegon

11th May 2019, 19:14

Wearing seat belts when we say, stowing baggage correctly, putting tray tables away, putting seats backs upright, opening window blinds, not getting drunk, not smoking, dimming cabin lights before night landings, getting you to sit down when we say; all these and more are done purely for reasons of safety.

I wish there was consistency on the above.

On a UA flight last week I was quite surprised when the window blinds were left down for landing. I was in an aisle seat and had no advance warning of the touchdown.

I’ve also been told to stow my laptop for landing while overhead Amsterdam on an EK flight to Dublin.

etrang

11th May 2019, 19:36

tomuchwork

11th May 2019, 19:45

The URL:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/08/passenger-thrown-off-air-new-zealand-plane-for-refusing-to-read-safety-instructions-card

The passenger probably heard airline safety instructions dozens of time before. Is there that much difference between them? Frankly it surprised me that the crew made a big deal about this situation.

Exactly. Like nowadays you would need to explain how a seatbelt works.Or passenger oxygen with a design of mid last century. Anyway, it's aged aviation laws that make that kind of crap possible(or do you need to watch a safety video or watch a flight(train) attendant ever time you ride a train which is a mass transport system as well, NO, you do not).

BUT - nobody touches bloody duty time regulations for pilots(and our collegues in the cabin) in a proper way(except making them "better" and better for airlines, of course). Tired pilots, fine. No problem. Or pilots that get called to Dublin for being sick to often, "encouraging" them to fly as well when they do not feel really that well(otherwise your free plane ride, DO NOT MISS the saftety then , free hotel and "nice" chat including warning letter is waiting up there on the green island). BUT not watching always that same safety demo is a saftey concern - right :E

Fantastic new world of aviation. And by that I mean it made very WELL sense to have that safety demo in place a long while ago when aviation still was something nice and enjoyable. Not so many people(which was a good thing) fly, making it necessary to explain that uncommon mean of transport. "Thanks" to RYR and co this is not an issue anymore. Time to change some laws. And I am not talking about safety demos only here.

Now I know "ANZAC" aviation quiet a bit, have been a skipper down under before Sept 11 with Ansett. I know HOW they sometimes behaved towards passengers and I very often did not agree with cabin crew behaviour towards paying customers. Filed as well sometimes a report if deemed necessary(hell, sometimes they even behaved VERY blunt towards us pilots being on a deadhead and I was a very quiet fella - even nowadays if morons in the head office do not step on my toes to much). Well, Ansett went under, Air NZ did not(as partner of Ansett). It seems crew attitude did not changed so much over the last 18 years down there....

etrang

11th May 2019, 20:01

Planemike. Perhaps you should refrain from posting on this thread. As I recall, the British Air Navigation Order (and I would think most of the world is similar), gave me COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY for the safety of the flight. By logical extension it also gave me COMPLETE AUTHORITY. That was delegated to the cabin crew. If the crew feel a passenger should be offloaded, then they are offloaded. I've done it several times, and each time I was exercising my RESPONSIBILITY.

I think planemike is plain wrong in this case and the pax in question were quite rightly off loaded. But what ever authority you may have on a plane I don't think it carries over to the internet in general or this thread in particular. I disagree with planemike but I do think he has every right to express his opinion here.

Planemike

11th May 2019, 20:53

I think planemike is plain wrong in this case and the pax in question were quite rightly off loaded. But what ever authority you may have on a plane I don't think it carries over to the internet in general or this thread in particular. I disagree with planemike but I do think he has every right to express his opinion here.

etrang...... I was a little surprised to see the msg from Herod. Wondered why he did not want me to post on here. I do not see myself as either "right" or "wrong", I take a neutral position. As I stated right at the beginning "I was not there" but based on the information in the original post I questioned whether the passenger had been treated in a fair and reasonable manner. Just seemed heavy handed. Several on here seem to see it was acceptable. I think some thought I was supporting disruptive passengers. For the sake of clarity I DO NOT SUPPORT THEM. Not much more I can say without repetition....

Gauges and Dials

11th May 2019, 21:23

"managers will start trading off safety vs profits, and calculating how many accidents a decade they can tolerate before it impacts the bottom line "
Think Boeing 737 MAX.

The 737 Max fiasco was due to managers failing to correctly trade off safety vs profits and failing to correctly calculate how many accidents per decade they can tolerate.

As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it will always be possible to spend more money on safety and get a safer aircraft or safer operational procedures. The opportunity is open-ended, literally infinite. People use the phrase "putting a price on human life" as though that were an evil thing, but until you do that, you can't sanely answer questions like, "Is it worth it to spend an extra 50 million dollars per aircraft to cut the accident rate by ten percent?" or "Would you pay an extra $50 per flight to reduce your chance of being in a fatal crash by a quarter?"

Herod

11th May 2019, 21:42

Planemike.

You sent me a pm asking why I made my last post. I'll make my reply publicly. You say you do not support disruptive passengers. However, your posts carry that line. You seem to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the safety brief is something that is of no importance, even the briefing at the emergency exit. Remember that the general public and the press venture onto Pprune, and you are giving the wrong idea. Perhaps you wouldn't be troubled with being in a burning aircraft, waiting for someone to open the exit; someone who has no idea how to do so. Personally I, and I suspect most members of the public, would be. Continue to play Devil's Advocate, and I will continue to read your posts with interest. As for me, I will not be posting further on this thread.

Oakape

12th May 2019, 08:30

Planemike

12th May 2019, 08:36

Planemike

12th May 2019, 08:52

Didn't anyone else see the pictures a little while ago of passengers (lots of them) with the oxygen mask over their mouths only, rather than the nose & mouth. Two different incidents if I remember correctly. So much for 'we've seen this dozens of times & know what to do.' And if you think they can read the card or the signs & work out what to do, I've lost count of the number of passengers I have observed who couldn't figure out where the toilet is & have even seen a few who couldn't undo their seatbelt.

Broadening this out a bit. It comes down to a matter of communication and given the fact millions of people fly all over the world it really is not a simple matter although reading some here you would think it is. Just having loads of authority is not the whole answer. To start off with there is the matter of a language barrier. Before any one raises it: yes, I know there are pictograms which help to convey a message. Then comes the small matter of those who cannot read even their own language let alone a foreign one. One way or another you have to engage peoples attention. Getting the message across is a complex problem, on the whole achieved fairly successfully by the worlds transport industry.

kangaroota

12th May 2019, 09:27

One of the problems with Air New Zealand PA's is that they have appointed themselves as cultural headmistresses.
Consequently the first thirty seconds is in the indigenous language, at which point you've lost the attention of the less politically correct.
Air New Zealand have never grasped the concept that less can be actually be more.
Thirty seconds of my time is all they need to keep me safe.

esa-aardvark

12th May 2019, 13:13

NZ citizen with a number of Air NZ flights taken.
The Air NZ safety announcements can be tedious.
If they cut them back to only what is really necessary, ie
safety rather than entertainment it would be fine by me.
I do, of course, pay attention as on any other airline.

cee cee

12th May 2019, 13:56

I DO NOT SUPPORT DISRUPTIVE PASSENGERS.

I think we all understand you, you do not support disruptive passengers, but do not see tho two passengers in this example as disruptive since they were just sitting in their seats minding their own business whilst pointedly ignoring instructions given by the crew.

You questioned the actions of the crew in offloading said passengers. So I would like to ask how would you handle the situation. You have asked them politely multiple times, and the only reaction you received was the other person putting her fingers in her ears (my ten-year-old child was shocked when he heard this). This action could be reasonable for anyone older than eight years old if the flight attendant was yelling or screaming (no report of that) or if the aircraft was making a harsh, annoying sound (also no report of that). Would you just leave the couple there and do nothing?

If so, how would you handle a "non-disruptive" passenger who refused to put on their seat belt? If they do not put up a fight, but simply ignore requests to do so, what would you do? They are not disruptive passengers by your definition if they are not loud or aggressive or drunk, right? How about someone who leaves the tray down and use their laptop while the plane is preparing to take off? I am fairly sure there are not laws saying that a passenger MUST wear their seat belts or put away their tray tables during take-off . Those are proabbly covered under the same "obeying lawful instructions of the flight crew" regulations.

Also, with regards to your earlier question " Would you accept that sort of treatment if you were in a shop?? ", the answer is "yes, if you do not want to break the law and be reported to Police". Here in Australia, disobeying emergency officers (such as a building warden) performing their duties can get you in trouble with the law. This is true even if there is not an real emergency happening (such as a fire drill). If the warden asks you to throw away that cup of hot coffee you are carrying during an evacuation drill and you refuse to comply, guess what happens.

[And there are good reasons for not carrying food and drinks during evacution. At my workplace, someone was badly scalded during a fire drill when the person behind her spilt freshly made hot coffee down her back, not to mention how spllages make the stairs more slippery.]

foxcharliep2

12th May 2019, 19:02

If so, how would you handle a "non-disruptive" passenger who refused to put on their seat belt? If they do not put up a fight, but simply ignore requests to do so, what would you do? They are not disruptive passengers by your definition if they are not loud or aggressive or drunk, right?

I had that situation in MCT and the "non-disruptive" high status pax in Business who refused to put on his seat belt for T/O was warned twice - then we retuned to the gate where he was told to get out and find another airline.

It was New Years Eve - his wife stayed on behind ignoring her obviously embarrasing d###head partner who had to find alternative travel plans to Europe.

Had him again on board a few years later to PEK - he was extremely cooperative ....

Good Business Sense

12th May 2019, 20:59

I don't think that is going to happen. Live in the real world, these people are your customers. If you work in the airline business they pay your wages.
This has certainly been quite revealing with regards to attitudes towards its customers/passengers.

Hi PlaneMike - everyone is being polite and you are not listening - you are part of the problem - we understand exactly where you are coming from but you have no idea what you are talking about (ex airlines 40 years). You only take a problem like that into the air once in your career and you swear it will ever happen again. If I was sitting across from those passengers as a fellow passenger and they did not do as requested - if not offloaded I WOULD HAVE DISEMBARKED.

I evacuated a jumbo once as a young Capt - half the pax took their bags off putting all the other passenger's lives in grave danger - in the event of deaths people like this should be done for manslaughter

BEagle

12th May 2019, 21:51

I was fortunate enough to have been allocated a seat by an overwing exit on a recent flight with Lufthansa. One of their normally horribly cramped A320neo aircraft, but on this occasion I had plenty of room - which was just as well as the chap in the middle seat next to me looked like he could have tried out for the Harlem Globetrotters!

After everyone was seated, the flight attendant came over and gave me a brief on the procedures to be adopted in the event of an evacuation and directed my attention to the instructions affixed to the seat in front and to the exit itself. She did this in a clear, courteous and professional manner.

Quite why anyone would refuse to listen to the instructions for passenger evacuation is frankly beyond me.

Gauges and Dials

13th May 2019, 02:09

It certainly appears, on the face, with regard to the incident that started this thread, that offloading an exit row passenger who refuses to answer the crew's questions about preparedness to assist, is a good call.

But that's no longer really what this thread is about.

There are people who, for one reason or another, are dispositionally unsuited to be placed in a position of authority.

The best police departments, understanding the degree to which their officers have the ability to ruin your day (for example, by fatally shooting you), and understanding the importance of good relations with the community they serve, put a lot of effort into psychological screening and supervision, to weed out those who, given any measure of authority, tend to abuse it.

Other organizations, perhaps less well funded or with less astute management, don't do as careful a job of screening or supervision. And so it turns out that jobs that confer low level authority over others, unfortunately, tend to attract people who gain an unhealthy pleasure from exercising that authority. Think "Shopping mall security guard," or "Middle school assistant principal." Which is not in any way to say that shopping mall security guards or middle school assistant principals are universally psychologically damaged or bad people, but, rather, that bullies are drawn to those jobs.

Every single one of us has seen air crew who fit this profile. I'm not suggesting in the slightest that this was the case here, but I think the matter deserves a little more thought than it's being given here.

kaikohe76

13th May 2019, 02:16

I would have to say that, Air New Zealand Safety Videos appear to be more interested & designed to promote how good Air New Zealand is, this rather & at the expense of just setting out all the need to know safety aspects of the aircraft. The airline should use a simple, basic video, showing only the need to know aspects of all the safety requirements.

Also, make it absolutely clear to all passengers, if an emergency evacuation is called, any person reaching up for their cabin baggage, will moved out of the way rather boldly!

Bull at a Gate

13th May 2019, 07:55

Yes - that Air New Zealand safety video is a triumph of style over substance.

Lord Farringdon

13th May 2019, 11:09

Interesting discussion. I think Planemike you are being the devil's advocate somewhat and you are using the passive disobedience of the passenger in this reported case as an example of airline heavy handedness. I disagree with you using this exit row passive disobedience as an example but I don't disagree with the heavy handedness that seems to be the air travelers experience now. Remember that guy they dragged off the UA flight knocking him unconscious in the process?

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1020x574/united_airlines_dragging_video_2c6dd7230b9435bf2ad7f6918c9c7 7e19f939b7a.jpg
United Express Flight 3411 incident happened at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago on April 9, 2017

What about the woman who carried her breast milk for her child and when she refused to hand it over for X-ray they impounded her in a glass holding cage in full view of all passengers passing through security, until she eventually missed her flight and they let her go!

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/549x345/armato_cb44284f19d5dd64ec10c2398c10c4351a5b30b7.jpg
Armato was traveling from Phoenix to Los Angeles in 2010 with bottles of pumped breast milk for her 7-month-old son when she was stopped at a security checkpoint at Sky Harbor International Airport.

In both these cases the airlines have settled with the claimants but these events happen daily. This approach pervades both the airline and the airport industry and any of us on this forum could find many other cases that amount to no more than abuse of authority by airlines, airport authorities and/or individual crew members. Post 911, we SLF (a derogatory term that should not be used- that's for another discussion) have become the threat. Within every airport and aircraft cabin is a potential threat to be identified, searched, denigrated, caged and heaved off, arbitarily in some cases with little or no recourse.

As one poster above mentioned, the rules around safety briefings are archaic and have changed little in context over the years. But since 911 the air travel industry seems to have 'relearned' the rules that allow them to do more than they had ever imagined in the name of 'flight safety' or even just operational expedience to put deadhead crew on board.

In most cases we don't have any choice but to travel by air and so must prostrate ourselves to the hassles that go with it including parking, queuing, security inspections, hours of waiting, the exposure to 'duty free' shopping as a captive audience to passively help the airport companies with their profits, the interminable walk to departure gates surrounded by faux plants for 'ambiance' that, when coupled with long haul international transits, brings new meaning to the phrase 'dead man walking on the green mile'. The constant controlling from the parking security guy at the drop off point to the ticket counters, the customs lines, the aviation security indignities, the constant PA calls to action, all pushing you through the system inexorably until finally, without ever seeing daylight or what your aircraft even looks like, you are crushed into it, pressing against other passengers as you maneuver your personal belongings into the overheads, turning your nose away as a passengers bum waves eerily close as they forge their way past you to the window seat. But it's not over is it. You are cramped before you start and another four hours flight time to go. The flight safety announcement ritual is about to start and the bile in your stomach begins to rise. You are captured. In a aluminium battery hen chicken cage. You have no rights at this point. More control, more instructions, more must dos and don'ts or else you may charged under Civil of Federal Aviation Regulations. Sitting in the centre seat, the screens drop down like a spot light being shined on you. You cant leave, you cant excuse yourself, you cant even change your mind about the flight. The only passive response you have left is to turn away, or look down. some decide talking to their neighbor will be their passive disobedience but it is a much more dangerous ploy and risks bringing the unwanted attention of the guards....er crew.....

OK, I'll stop there. That's all a little bit OTT I know, but it is to emphasise the lot of the air traveler today and in particular to bring me to the point of my discussion which is that all of this brings sometimes supercilious crew in contact with tired, disgruntled and overly controlled, disrespected, humiliated and regimented passengers. A small spark like putting your fingers in your ears during a safety brief and not even a fully loaded DC-10 firefighter can put out the subsequent conflagration. Passenger behaviour is undoubtedly becoming worse but it doesn't take much to see that modern air travel is not well designed to keep passengers calm except in the sense that they are so controlled that it is mostly fear that keeps them quiet. Fear of being embarrassed, fear of being found carrying something you had completely overlooked, fear of being complained about by another passenger, fear of missing some instruction and wandering into a restricted area, a 'no go' zone or the wrong bloody seat. Fear of being the subject of crew sternness...fear of being offloaded for no fathomable reason....

Rather than working with the paying passenger,it seems airports, airlines and crews are often working against them. Even if the personal involved exude a formulaic politeness there remains a sense they can easily become the smiling assassin the moment you do something really silly and unthinking like get up to get that book out of the overhead locker while the aircraft is taxing!! Passengers are human. They make mistakes. Often. But they're not terrorists and they generally don't mean anyone any harm. Response to passenger transgressions can be disproportionate.

Lest there be any doubt about where i stand. I am ex military aircrew and was involved in safety briefings and cabin crew management for over 20 years. I fully support Air NZ's stance in this case and the following NZ CAA PDF link https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/Advisory_Circulars/AC121-6.pdf should leave no one in doubt about why, even you Planemike.

But even so, I think a lot more needs to be done to get what seems like a simple message, targeted properly. If all the issues in this thread are anything to go by passengers take in very little of what they are told in a safety briefing. In fact we know that and you only need to look at this image from a Southwest Airlines emergency to accept there is something wrong with the method of delivery, that leads to execution failure.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/921x453/southwest_cfdcff9d83376e2f12fb0ac7a860a71b1ee2c73f.jpg

A Southwest Airlines (http://uk.businessinsider.com/category/southwest-airlines?r=US&IR=T) airplane suffered a major engine failure. Engine shrapnel pierced the airplane's fuselage, blew out a window, and caused the cabin to depressurize. One passenger died. Some passengers wore their oxygen masks incorrectly during the emergency landing, according to a former flight attendant.

And, no matter how able bodied someone may be , I have instructed new cabin crew on the opening of main exit doors and it can take them several attempts before they literally get the swing of it. How do you think Mrs Jones would do even if she listened intently to everything she was told, with smoke, flames, darkness, screaming, unusual orientation, and the resistance of an armed slide. It would be a pious hope that a 2 min brief would help but in the absence of anything else...it is the best that can be done. I would really like to hear other ideas about safety briefings and how we can be engage passengers in this necessary process. With all the advertorial nonsense and puffery being used by airlines in their safety briefing (Air NZ, I'm looking at you) it has all become form over substance and Miss 'fingers in her ears' is symptomatic of the problem,

By the way Planemike. You several times mentioned passengers as if they were being disrespected in the manner that military personnel might be as C130 passengers. I can tell you right now, nothing could be further from the truth. Our crews showed a great deal of respect to the men and women of our Defence and Police forces. There were rules and there was discipline but as officers and senior NCO's our smiles were genuine and the care and respect for our enlisted charges undaunting. If airport authorities, and airlines and their crews could achieve half the level of respect for their passengers, we might get somewhere.

Apologies for the long post. Gulp!

The AvgasDinosaur

13th May 2019, 11:40

Yes - that Air New Zealand safety video is a triumph of style over substance.
Not totally relevant to the OP but this thread has digressed a bit.
some years ago I made one of my less frequent short haul flights. Manchester to Malaga and return on Monarch. On our outbound leg safety briefing live by cabin staff I would estimate just over 70% of pax around me we’re apparently paying attention. The return leg a fortnight later it was the pre recorded version which had about 20% apparent attention. Not scientific but apposite I think.
Be lucky
David

Lord Farringdon

13th May 2019, 11:57

Not totally relevant to the OP but this thread has digressed a bit.
some years ago I made one of my less frequent short haul flights. Manchester to Malaga and return on Monarch. On our outbound leg safety briefing live by cabin staff I would estimate just over 70% of pax around me we’re apparently paying attention. The return leg a fortnight later it was the pre recorded version which had about 20% apparent attention. Not scientific but apposite I think.
Be lucky
David

Good point David. On Air NZ (and others) the cabin crew go to their assigned positions and then do nothing but point to the floor exit lighting and your nearest exit. The rest of the time they stand their on display like cardboard cutouts as the advertorial that passes off as a safety briefing runs for a good 10 minutes covering everything from your cell phone and airplane mode to the fact that no smoking anywhere on this aircraft includes no vaping!! If we as passengers find difficulty engaging, imagine the crew after standing there listening to mostly dribble and overly expanded explanations of simple things, for the umpteenth time that day, that week, that month....The crew should be doing these briefs.

kaikohe76

13th May 2019, 19:28

Hi David, re your post 13th May. Monarch were rightly, very highly regarded as an Airline & their safety training & procedures were most professional in all respects. It was Company policy, that full manual pre flight safety briefings were completed on a regular basis. As you noted, these received far more interest form the pax & assisted to keep the Cabin Crew fully current with all procedures. Such a great pity indeed that Monarch are no longer operating.

Uplinker

14th May 2019, 09:09

Armato was traveling from Phoenix to Los Angeles in 2010 with bottles of pumped breast milk for her 7-month-old son when she was stopped at a security checkpoint at Sky Harbor International Airport.

In both these cases the airlines have settled with the claimants but these events happen daily. This approach pervades both the airline and the airport industry and any of us on this forum could find many other cases that amount to no more than abuse of authority by airlines, airport authorities and/or individual crew members. Post 911, we SLF (a derogatory term that should not be used- that's for another discussion) have become the threat. Within every airport and aircraft cabin is a potential threat to be identified, searched, denigrated, caged and heaved off, arbitarily in some cases with little or no recourse.

Security is not staffed by the Airlines.

Pilots and crew also have to go through security, and I have seen their fair share of yoghurts and liquids confiscated. Those including me who sometimes ‘beeped’ the gate have to go back through and remove shoes, belts hankies etc; been there, done that many times - and we have to do it every day or night that we go to work ! Occasionally, frustrated crews have thrown said yoghurt at the security staff or onto the floor and been suspended and had their airside pass confiscated as a result. At some airports, crew are not allowed to have duty free goods, and are subjected to a very detailed search of all their bags and cases to check - much more thorough than the passengers.

But in my nearly 20 years’ as a pilot flying with three (UK) airlines, two of them long-haul, I can honestly say that our airline crews have been polite, diplomatic and respectful to passengers. On my most recent flight we had a chap who was a right pain in the arse for 7 hours but our Purser and No 1 were unfailingly polite and respectful with him, and did everything they could for him - and we contacted Medilink three times - even though it was quite obvious that he was faking it and just wanted freebies.

I don’t know exactly what happened in this OP, but as a passenger myself, positioning on other airlines, I have never experienced any cabin crew being rude to me nor anyone else. Cabin crew do have to TELL passengers to do certain things and ensure they do them, but this is for very good safety reasons. You cannot spend time having a chat and negotiating with each of 320 passengers whether to put their seatbelt on. Passengers are excited to be going on holiday and they are not thinking about safety. The pilots and crew are there primarily to ensure their safety and remind the passengers what they need to do. Safety might be optional on a train or in a bus but it is not optional on an aircraft.

PS; Putting the tray tables away, seat backs upright, window blinds open, seat belts on, earphones off, and many more instructions the crew will give, are all purely done for safety reasons.

RVF750

14th May 2019, 09:51

Planemike

14th May 2019, 10:22

PRAM announcements are universally ignored IMHO. They are a curse. One thing we all may forget on this topic is the old adage that always comes back to me, it's never been proven wrong. No matter how smart a passenger is, once they get a ticket, they lose 10-20IQ points, a boarding card takes another 20IQ points off them!

I bet even Albert Einstein would have made a fool of himself flying.....

It really brings the worst out in most folks...
I am sure I will be "howled down" by some on here, but will say it anyway. RVF750 I find your statements to be cynical generalizations. Hey, who knows I could be wrong....!!! Just out of curiosity, what is a "PRAM" announcement??
Overall I think the thread has been very interesting......

By the way Planemike. You several times mentioned passengers as if they were being disrespected in the manner that military personnel might be as C130 passengers. I can tell you right now, nothing could be further from the truth. Our crews showed a great deal of respect to the men and women of our Defence and Police forces. There were rules and there was discipline but as officers and senior NCO's our smiles were genuine and the care and respect for our enlisted charges undaunting. If airport authorities, and airlines and their crews could achieve half the level of respect for their passengers, we might get somewhere.

NOBODY what ever their status should be disrespected. I simply drew the comparison between those there as paying passengers and those who were there in an employed capacity, in the particular case I cited, members of the armed service.
No more no less . Yes you are correct it is the heavy handedness that I am pointing out. Also the attitude "I am right, even when I am wrong".

Fortissimo

14th May 2019, 11:03

For the avoidance of doubt, here is how the UK ANO sees disruptive pax:

Acting in a disruptive manner
245. A person must not while in an aircraft—
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words towards a member of the crew of the aircraft;
(b) behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner towards a member of the crew of the aircraft; or
(c) intentionally interfere with the performance by a member of the crew of the aircraft of the crew member’s duties.

The pax who refuse to comply with crew instructions (issued lawfully under the authority of the aircraft commander, iaw the Chicago and Tokyo Conventions) are usually dealt with under (c) because the crew member can't carry on with the rest of their duties while being delayed by someone who won't do as required. It is also a distraction, which we know is not a good thing when it comes to safety. Matters are made worse if the cabin crew need to contact the commander, whose attention should be on the conduct of the flight, not diverting time and thought to potential delays or diversions.

Other countries have similar laws, for example the USA:
Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 state that "no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated."

Planemike

14th May 2019, 11:11

Thank you, Fortissimo, for helping us out with that clarification.

DaveReidUK

14th May 2019, 11:24

Just out of curiosity, what is a "PRAM" announcement??

PRAM: Pre-Recorded Announcements & Music

esa-aardvark

14th May 2019, 15:54

Fortissimo,
I have often found that institutions that use the words you quote, actually
intend to behave abusively themselves.

AnotherRedWineThanks

15th May 2019, 04:10

As a passenger who is generally not in the exit row, I want to be confident that the people in that row have paid attention. Sure, they might not remember what to do in an emergency, but I reckon a person who paid attention is just that little bit safer than one who didn't. So - no attention paid=get moved out of that row. As the old joke has it "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you"

As a side issue, I'd love it if there was some extra fine-print on *why* some things are as they are. It never occurred to me *why* we inflate the life jacket after exiting rather than before, but those drownings made it clear. And how firm IS "pulling down firmly" on the oxygen mask. I'm scared I'll rip it out of its socket/attachment point. and while I'm at it, if those oxygen masks were moulded with an obvious extra nose-shaped bump rather than being round my guess is that everyone would cover both nose and mouth instinctively. But what would I know, that airlines are interested in? Not much I suspect.