Disgusting Jetstar

[arkmark]

I am DISGUSTED to see jetstar using the AFP to taser a man in Perth who just wanted to be seated with his infant and wife.
NO EXCUSES, Jetstar should have accommodated this man.
I don't care if they are worried about weight and balance, there is NO EXCUSE for separating a father from a new born.
All the dumb arse crew had to do to make it work was a seat swap with another passenger, or be fair and reasonable and re-calculate the W&B.
BUT NO ...... Jetstar megalomaniac crew in their complete lack of experience and professionalism and humanity, decided to call in the dogs and destroy this family with tasers.
PATHETIC JETSTAR. NO EXCUSES.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/bolic-bet-malou-updates-confronting-vision-emerges-of-passenger-being-tasered-on-jetstar-flight/9f158b50-7edb-473d-a0ed-ae054bcf5767

[doublemamba]

Is anyone surprised?, welcome to Australia in 2023. He probably wasnt wearing the right mask or had the wrong papers so he "deserved" it !

[Capt Fathom]

People do not get tasered for being model citizens. Likely more went on than what was shown on that short video clip.

[TimmyTee]

Other punters on board said he did nothing wrong (other than the seat issue)

[rudestuff]

Er... Criminals get arrested, or isn't that how things happen these days?

[VHOED191006]

Yea, 3 hours apart from your family ain't going to be the end of it all. Get up, listen to the crew, sit where you are directed to. There is always a reason why they're asking you to move (even if you've done nothing wrong).

[runway16]

Perhaps Jet* should have said that it is important that a passenger assigned to a seat for take off and landing is on the passenger/seat manifest. If there is a prang they can know the details of passenger XX in seat YY. After take off then a seat rearrangement can be arranged.

I saw no mention of that by the cabin crew person. Did the cabin crew person know that?

[dr dre]

Other punters on board said he did nothing wrong (other than the seat issue)

The passengers don’t know aviation law so can’t be the judge on whether or not this guy did something wrong, which he did. Firstly he failed to comply with the lawful directions of the cabin crew on what seat he needed to sit in. Secondly he failed to comply with the police’s instructions to come with them off the aircraft.

Passengers don’t run the cabin and don’t arrange their own seat swaps.

Perhaps Jet* should have said that it is important that a passenger assigned to a seat for take off and landing is on the passenger/seat manifest. If there is a prang they can know the details of passenger XX in seat YY. After take off then a seat rearrangement can be arranged.

I saw no mention of that by the cabin crew person. Did the cabin crew person know that?

It could have been weight and balance, or just the fact he swapped all on his own. Whatever it is, the CC’s instructions are lawful.

We also don’t know what preceded that conversation because the video recording only starts from when the CC told the guy he wasn’t going to be allowed to fly. As the video shows he is clearly being belligerent, whatever the cause, and is probably not going to comply with other instructions from the crew inflight.

[chimbu warrior]

Friends don't let friends fly Jetstar.

[Capt Fathom]

What happens now is there is a massive amount of disrespect for those in authority. Everyone wants to argue with you and think they know better. This situation got totally out of hand because of this. People need to suck it up and follow instructions. It’s the law.
I feel for young Cabin Crew who face this everyday.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I am DISGUSTED to see jetstar using the AFP to taser a man in Perth who just wanted to be seated with his infant and wife.
NO EXCUSES, Jetstar should have accommodated this man.
I don't care if they are worried about weight and balance, there is NO EXCUSE for separating a father from a new born.
All the dumb arse crew had to do to make it work was a seat swap with another passenger, or be fair and reasonable and re-calculate the W&B.
BUT NO ...... Jetstar megalomaniac crew in their complete lack of experience and professionalism and humanity, decided to call in the dogs and destroy this family with tasers.
PATHETIC JETSTAR. NO EXCUSES.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/bolic-bet-malou-updates-confronting-vision-emerges-of-passenger-being-tasered-on-jetstar-flight/9f158b50-7edb-473d-a0ed-ae054bcf5767

Good lesson for all passengers. If you want to get to your destination with minimum fuss, do as instructed. You don't have to like the instructions but you must follow them.

Looks like this chap failed to get his family booked in seating together. Not sure how that is Jetstar's fault. He says on the video "Go and get the police, I will move when they come". So, how is this Jetstar's fault again and in which way is this pathetic or disgusting? I feel for the cabin crew who are simply following the instructions of their company and the regulator but also for the AFP having to deal with yet another individual putting themselves ahead of the collective.

[iwanm]

Rules are Rules, If you don't follow cabin crew directions then you are breaking them. Whether you think it's right or wrong the crew acted within their boundary. It's not a bus, tram or Light rail, you are given a seat which is probably for a safety reason ( weight/balance) then you sit in it.

[soseg]

I am DISGUSTED to see jetstar using the AFP to taser a man in Perth who just wanted to be seated with his infant and wife.
NO EXCUSES, Jetstar should have accommodated this man.
I don't care if they are worried about weight and balance, there is NO EXCUSE for separating a father from a new born.
All the dumb arse crew had to do to make it work was a seat swap with another passenger, or be fair and reasonable and re-calculate the W&B.
BUT NO ...... Jetstar megalomaniac crew in their complete lack of experience and professionalism and humanity, decided to call in the dogs and destroy this family with tasers.
PATHETIC JETSTAR. NO EXCUSES.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/bolic-bet-malou-updates-confronting-vision-emerges-of-passenger-being-tasered-on-jetstar-flight/9f158b50-7edb-473d-a0ed-ae054bcf5767


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/974x728/60a2ab84_a7ae_4788_bccb_23909243e564_b6367c576d6e8bc8c610b95 216ceef0ba113cdf6.jpeg

You forgot to mention something about being a sovereign citizen and disregarding authority

[Gearupandorrf]

Judging from your sensationalist, emotive language and your strategic use of Caps, I have little doubt that you’re a journo looking for some sort of response from an “aviation professional” that you can publish.

”Call in the dogs and destroy the family with tasers”. There’s a job waiting for you as a Republican White House press Secretary.

And FYI, Jetstar (nor any other Airline), have to accomodate ANYONE (see what I did there?).
The Crew acted completely within the powers given to them under the Regulations.

Back to Ambulance chasing for you.



I am DISGUSTED to see jetstar using the AFP to taser a man in Perth who just wanted to be seated with his infant and wife.
NO EXCUSES, Jetstar should have accommodated this man.
I don't care if they are worried about weight and balance, there is NO EXCUSE for separating a father from a new born.
All the dumb arse crew had to do to make it work was a seat swap with another passenger, or be fair and reasonable and re-calculate the W&B.
BUT NO ...... Jetstar megalomaniac crew in their complete lack of experience and professionalism and humanity, decided to call in the dogs and destroy this family with tasers.
PATHETIC JETSTAR. NO EXCUSES.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/bolic-bet-malou-updates-confronting-vision-emerges-of-passenger-being-tasered-on-jetstar-flight/9f158b50-7edb-473d-a0ed-ae054bcf5767

[Sunfish]

This is a lose/lose situation for everybody. Yes, of course the CC, Police, Jetstar and Captain were operating within their legal rights.

Jetstar loses because they look like a totally unhelpful, nasty, cheap airline. Marketing fail. Many people swap seats; maybe not before takeoff though.

Cabin crew because the highest form of the CC art is to get people to do your bidding and enjoy it. Qantas CC used to be absolute masters of the game. Jetstar CC are now painted as aggressive little bullies.. They lost the minute they threatened the pax. Professionalism? Fail.

‘’The AFP - they have better things to do than extract idiots from aircraft - they should have been able to get this guy to understand what was going to happen. Professionalism- fail.

The idiot pax. Congratulations! You now potentially have a criminal record and a place reserved on a “no fly” list. You can forget getting a visa for the USA. You now have a traumatised wife and child as well.

‘’There is quite enough mud to splatter everyone.

[SOPS]

What happens now is there is a massive amount of disrespect for those in authority. Everyone wants to argue with you and think they know better. This situation got totally out of hand because of this. People need to suck it up and follow instructions. It’s the law.
I feel for young Cabin Crew who face this everyday.
It’s the me me me generation. If this guy does end up on a no fly list, how often do buses go from Perth to the Eastern States?

[ChrisVJ]

Are you seriously telling me that two passengers swapping seats is critical to weight and balance? If so that is not a plane I'd want to fly on!

Perhaps the argument that identifying people by seat numbers after a crash on take off is valid but in reality there will be far more important questions to answer and identifying people by DNA is available anyway so not really a valid argument.

Good PR for the company though. (I identify that as sarcasm as so many people seem to miss it these days!)

[PoppaJo]

In regards to minor operational matters like seat issues, menu problems, luggage fees, overhead bin issues, if the crew give an instruction whether you like it or not, and whether one is more right vs the other, for the love of god just follow what they say.

I had an issue the other month, passengers kicked out of Row 1, yes, ground crew stuffed up as per usual, no surprises there, passengers upset, however my crew gave options, yet they didn’t listen to a single word we said. They just wanted to negotiate. Yes, we screwed them over, but it was now 15 minutes post departure. I told the crew to give them the stay or go ticket. Again wanted to argue. I asked the AFP to remove them for failing to take instructions from my crew. Amazed it didn’t make the news.

[John Citizen]

I believe cabin crew have the ability to swap allocated seats quickly and easily using their Ipad in their hand. I believe they do it all the time for able bodied passengers and it seems so quick and easy.

I have observed this as a passenger a few times.

If it is even swap, then it makes no difference to weight and balance.

I think some just love a good power trip. Thats all it was. They don't care about the people who pay their wages.

Sure it is a regulation that you must comply with instructions from cabin crew, but seems some just love to exercise this right to provoke and kick people out all the time. (From what appears on the news all the time).

Didn't Jetstar have free unallocated seating when they first launched?

I believe certain zones were blocked to keep within balance limits but otherwise sit wherever you want.

Suddenly now its a criminal offence and safety hazard if you swap one row.

[Rice power]

Sorry John "I believe cabin crew have the ability to swap allocated seats quickly and easily using their Ipad in their hand"
Not correct.
The pax manifest held digitally at the departing station is the master doc and is a legal requirement. The crew ipad uploads from that, not in reverse. It serves for identification purposes in the event of "the sh1t really hitting the fan" and feeds into the weight and balance calcs (minor issue here on a 200 odd ton a/c)
The message is simple, do as you are bloody told or put on those Nike's and start walking.

[John Citizen]

It serves for identification purposes

So how did they get away with "free seating (unallocated)" when they first launched?

As I said, nobody ever cared about seating and identification purposes wasn't ever a consideration (CASA/the airline/the crew)

weight and balance

If it's a mutal swap (as I said), it has no effect at all.

Your argument is invalid.

[Seabreeze]

Of course it is true that the CC have the authority to enforce a seat allocation.

But from a safety perspective there are surely no W&B issues on that aircraft. It won't be loaded with any remote chance of being out of envelope at any stage if one person moves.
If the manifest seat allocation is wrong by one seat and there is a prang then that fact is most unlikely to inhibit the ATSB investigation.
So in reality someone moving seats on a 200 ton aircraft is a non event.

But Australian bureaucrats are progressively getting a greater control over the public with needless and excessive Bureaucratic rules. (Inherited from the Brits I suspect). Aviation is a major victim.

This is just another example, and every participant has lost.
SB.

[Spunky Monkey]

Whatever happened to crew using their initiative?
Weight and balance of one passenger moving seats??? Are any of you actual pilots?

[John Citizen]

Why wasn't identity an issue back then?

Jetstar Free seating (https://www.theage.com.au/business/olearys-cost-cutting-helped-jetstar-off-the-ground-20050710-ge0hlg.html)

[John Citizen]

put on those Nike's and start walking.

Yes, perhaps to an airline more accommodating?

A mutal seat should easily be accommodated. I see this happen all the time as a passenger, including being asked to move myself.

It's not rocket science.

[Lead Balloon]

Situation: A father wants to be seated next to his infant child and wife.

Best solution: Taser the father into submission and arrest him.

Rules are for the guidance of wise people and strict adherence and enforcement of fools. Although I realise that there are always at least three sides to any story, it seems to me that there wasn't the necessary critical mass of wise people in the vicinity of this situation.

[cloudsurfng]

Of course it is true that the CC have the authority to enforce a seat allocation.

But from a safety perspective there are surely no W&B issues on that aircraft. It won't be loaded with any remote chance of being out of envelope at any stage if one person moves.
If the manifest seat allocation is wrong by one seat and there is a prang then that fact is most unlikely to inhibit the ATSB investigation.
So in reality someone moving seats on a 200 ton aircraft is a non event.

But Australian bureaucrats are progressively getting a greater control over the public with needless and excessive Bureaucratic rules. (Inherited from the Brits I suspect). Aviation is a major victim.

This is just another example, and every participant has lost.
SB.

ait that the truth. It’s everywhere. Just yesterday I was walking my dog when some bloke dressed in navy blue with ‘Inspector’ on his very important epaulettes stopped me and demanded to see if I was carrying poo bags. Got the response he deserved, and it wasn’t polite.

[John Citizen]

He did ask for the police, but sill refused to comply. Obviously he is just a $#@&.

Happy to see he got what he asked for.

[No Idea Either]

Let’s not forget it’s the Captains authority as delegated to a flightie. The flighties have zero direct powers. Had a similar situation myself the other day, one bloke assigned a seat away from his missus, flightie comes up “can I swap a to b and b to a” yes I say, let’s go……

it ain’t difficult………

[clark y]

Maybe cabin crew should be to never use weight and balance as an excuse. Just state it's company policy instead.
I do the same as PoppaJo. Always give the passenger the option. The vast majority of the time the passenger does not travel. Sometimes they do. An important aspect of all this is this is will this passenger cause further problems? What is going to happen during the flight? Do you want to wear that risk?

As for weight and balance, the computer can put the aircraft right on the edge where one person moving will throw it out. Obviously there are safety margins which make it safe, but before departure if the computer says no then you don't depart.

[Cloudee]

When you book into Jetstar you are informed you may be separated from your travelling companions unless you pay extra to get allocated seats. It’s this money grab that irks me.

Surely if you have one booking for two or three people the seat allocating algorithm should be able to sit you together most of the time. Instead the airline uses a threat of separation to illicit extra payment for seat allocation.

It would be interesting to know if families are deliberately separated to incentivise the extra payment for future travel.

[MagnumPI]

It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many pilots and flight crew out there who could (and perhaps have!) successfully manage an emergency in-flight, but apparently can't negotiate or de-escalate a difficult situation with a fellow human being. It indicates a concerning lack of empathy. As an aside - CASA seems to be obsessed with preventing autistic people getting a medical certificate, yet I've met many pilots who I'm nearly certain were somewhere on the spectrum judging by their inability to empathise and read social cues.

If you think that someone being tasered is an appropriate way to resolve a dispute over where someone is seated you should seek help. Obviously it's the AFP that have done the tasering, but the fact that the crew were unable to negotiate with a man that was reportedly not being aggressive or violent says a lot about how little emphasis is placed on customer service training and dispute resolution at Jetstar.

I wonder if the Captain or FO went down to have a reasonable discussion with him and to listen to his concerns? Not mentioned in the article.

[Capt Fathom]

He was not tasered over the seat issue. His refusal to follow the directions of police, dispute several warnings, lead to the forceful removal from the aircraft.

[PPRuNeUser01531]

There's always one !!!!!!!!!

[WingNut60]

As for weight and balance, the computer can put the aircraft right on the edge where one person moving will throw it out..........
Better put a lock on the crapper then.
And cancel in-flight service.

[MagnumPI]

He was not tasered over the seat issue. His refusal to follow the directions of police, dispute several warnings, lead to the forceful removal from the aircraft.

Come on Capt Fathom, don't be disingenuous. How did the situation escalate to that point with someone who, according to witnesses, was not being aggressive or violent? That's the point I'm trying to make.

[finestkind]

Numerous flights international and internal over nearly a decade, some years ago, and not once did I see an incident in the cabin. Now whether the ticket paying public have become more anti-social, less law abiding (yes, they have) or whether CC have become more megalomanic (yes, they have) is debatable on who threw the first rock. On that both sides fed of each other. There is nothing like an over-the-top Karen type person to cause an equal response.

[kingRB]

If you think that someone being tasered is an appropriate way to resolve a dispute over where someone is seated you should seek help.

I'm amazed you think the entire aircraft needs to wait while an idiot thinks he can negotiate with crew and police using brinksmanship. He obviously missed this life lesson back when he was four years old.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[AmarokGTI]

So there’s a few things going on here.

Regarding the issue of “should have paid to sit together”. Fine as a general statement but in reality no one on here knows when the ticket was booked, what was available at the time, etc. I also know from personal experience that I sometimes get stuck in a “loop” on the JQ website when trying to pay for seats, where the payment page sends me back to the seat selections page, then that sends me to the payment page, which sends me back to the seat selection page. I have reported it when I’ve had time to phone up to resolve (I think 3 times) and each time the call centre are “very sorry” and will “pass it on”.
So it’s not necessarily as simple as “should have paid to sit together”.

Now of course as widely known by those in the industry, crew directions are to be followed. However, when two pax both wish to swap (one to sit next to family, one being nice and permitting the person to sit next to their family) it is not as complicated as they are making it seem. I don’t work for JQ and never have. I use Sabre and swapping pax like this can be done in about 20 seconds, even if it involved re opening the flight. Maybe 60 seconds maximum for a new user. So, if two pax have swapped like this there are ways to resolve it that don’t need to involve the “I AM THE BOSS DO AS I SAY” attitude from the staff. Compassionate grounds to exist.

PR, Passenger Comfort, and OTP would have all been better by resolving this in a common sense (non red tape) way.

There is no doubt that the instructions from the crew SHOULD have been followed, but also no doubt that it WOULD have been quicker and easier to resolve by permitting and facilitating the swap. His actions were manifestly different to, let’s say, refusing to put out a cigarette.

As stated above - No one wins here unfortunately.

[Ollie Onion]

Sorry but you are all missing the point, the MOMENT a passenger refuses to obey a Cabin Crew instruction they have committed an offence. Now I realise we live in a world where individuals feel they are too ‘special’ to have pesky rules apply to them but it is against the law regardless. He was asked to move, he wouldn’t, he even admits he requested the police presence. Cabin Crew did NOT instruct the cops to use the taser, this idiot obviously wound the police up to the point they felt this was an appropriate use of force. If you side with the passenger then what next, allow people to vape? Sit with no belt on?……. Why should the crew spend time ‘facilitating the move’, there is a reason the terms and conditions say if you want to be seated together then you have to pay the $5 for assigned seating. He ticked that box and then thought he would be cleaver and arrange the reseating himself.

[PoppaJo]

Take the taser thing up with AFP. Not our issue what they do. They can conduct investigations if they need be.

You don’t follow crew instructions repeatedly, and after many minutes. You are off. I really don’t care how the AFP drag you off, if you don’t simply get up and walk off with them, then they will use whatever means, they know our decision up front is final and have no choice.

The issue I have is around following instructions. Don’t get too sidetracked with all the other stuff happening on the side. Jetstar’s ground operations and systems are another matter. An investigation into how the event even came about might be warranted, but at the end of the day, instructions didn’t get followed by the crew. Your off.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Plenty of people making grandiose pronouncements about what should’ve happened, without really knowing exactly what did happen. Occasionally the aggrieved passenger’s account isn’t necessarily the whole story…

[clark y]

Wingnut, you missed this bit of my statement- "Obviously there are safety margins which make it safe". It's a bit like if you're carrying a Samoan Rugby team v's a bunch of average Indonesians. Vastly different weights. If the company policy is no seat changes then that's the rule.
I think it's safe to say that we know "weight and balance" is just a crap excuse cabin crew are taught to say in ground school and it works 99% of the time.

[RENURPP]

It appears very simple to me. If you want to sit together pay the money and buy tickets/seats next to each other.
follow crew instructions
If you choose not to follow instructions expect consequences.


“bye , thanks for coming”

[megan]

Sorry but you are all missing the point, the MOMENT a passenger refuses to obey a Cabin Crew instruction they have committed an offence. Now I realise we live in a world where individuals feel they are too ‘special’ to have pesky rules apply to them but it is against the law regardless. He was asked to move, he wouldn’t, he even admits he requested the police presence. Cabin Crew did NOT instruct the cops to use the taser, this idiot obviously wound the police up to the point they felt this was an appropriate use of force. If you side with the passenger then what next, allow people to vape? Sit with no belt on?……. Why should the crew spend time ‘facilitating the move’, there is a reason the terms and conditions say if you want to be seated together then you have to pay the $5 for assigned seating. He ticked that box and then thought he would be cleaver and arrange the reseating himself.Difficult to know what to make of it all without knowing what directives/rules the CC operate under regarding seat swaps. Boarded a aircraft in Doha and on fishing in the seat pocket for the briefing card found my hand swimming in someones vomit, stench appalling, seating was found elsewhere for the three of we family which had us scattered all over the aircraft. Boarded in LAX for a trans Pacific on United and was asked if I'd mind swapping seats so two folk could sit with each other. Don't know if they still do it but boarding a DC-9 in Hawaii it was a free for all, no assigned seating. Boarded a QF at Tulla for a trans Pacific and name didn't appear on the manifest, told to "just sit over there". Stuff happens.

Disgusting Jetstar? No, disgusting opening post though.

[KRviator]

Yea, 3 hours apart from your family ain't going to be the end of it all. Get up, listen to the crew, sit where you are directed to. There is always a reason why they're asking you to move (even if you've done nothing wrong).Riiighhhhtt....

Like that FA who asked a bloke to move because....he was a bloke. Yesirreeee, you can be asked to move seats simply because you are a male.

[doublemamba]

It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many pilots and flight crew out there who could (and perhaps have!) successfully manage an emergency in-flight, but apparently can't negotiate or de-escalate a difficult situation with a fellow human being. It indicates a concerning lack of empathy. As an aside - CASA seems to be obsessed with preventing autistic people getting a medical certificate, yet I've met many pilots who I'm nearly certain were somewhere on the spectrum judging by their inability to empathise and read social cues.

If you think that someone being tasered is an appropriate way to resolve a dispute over where someone is seated you should seek help. Obviously it's the AFP that have done the tasering, but the fact that the crew were unable to negotiate with a man that was reportedly not being aggressive or violent says a lot about how little emphasis is placed on customer service training and dispute resolution at Jetstar.

I wonder if the Captain or FO went down to have a reasonable discussion with him and to listen to his concerns? Not mentioned in the article.
RtpicaL

Lets be honest here, a lot of the pilots I have worked with want as little to do with the passengers as possible.

I have experienced a growing culture of disregard and lack of empathy in aviation and other industries. Time is money now and that is all that matters in Australia 2023.

This culture combines with the government media driven cultures of fear, the new follow orders from the " officials" or else culture and the new import from the usa: if you complain you are an ist / orange man bad person etc etc etc.

I enjoyed working with passengers mostly and had patience with them and from what passengers told me it was a rare thing.
Could this be a factor in this increasing trend of air rage / airport rage and all the other increasing rage?

Discuss....

[MagnumPI]

RtpicaL

Lets be honest here, a lot of the pilots I have worked with want as little to do with the passengers as possible.

I have experienced a growing culture of disregard and lack of empathy in aviation and other industries. Time is money now and that is all that matters in Australia 2023.

This culture combines with the government media driven cultures of fear, the new follow orders from the " officials" or else culture and the new import from the usa: if you complain you are an ist / orange man bad person etc etc etc.

I enjoyed working with passengers mostly and had patience with them and from what passengers told me it was a rare thing.
Could this be a factor in this increasing trend of air rage / airport rage and all the other increasing rage?

Discuss....

You're probably right.

My theory is that people are far less comfortable having difficult conversations and resolving disputes. Anecdotally, I see this all the time in business with people trying to negotiate or resolve disputes over text or email instead of picking up the phone or meeting face to face. Pre-internet you use to complain about a business by writing or calling to speak with someone who (hopefully) cared. These days most people just let loose on a keyboard, and will say things that they'd never otherwise say to a human being!

Many pilots may not be particularly charismatic (and perhaps that suits their occupation just fine most of the time) - but you should still be able to hold a discussion with a passenger.

Nothing reported on yet about whether or not the CA or FO tried to speak with the passenger before the authorities arrived with a freshly charged taser. I hope one of them tried.

[davidclarke]

This bloke did the wrong thing and he got arrested. No one is contesting that.

Travelling with young children is one of the most stressful undertakings as a parent. Some times you don’t think rationally.

The reality is that if the Cabin Manger just simply facilitated a seat change then none of this would have happened period.


This is not the cabin crews fault. It’s the absolute lack of customer service training that takes place. Train your crews to follow the rules and procedures while taking a compassionate approach! But as we have seen time and time again there is no culpability in the QF group.

[dr dre]

Many pilots may not be particularly charismatic (and perhaps that suits their occupation just fine most of the time) - but you should still be able to hold a discussion with a passenger.

Nothing reported on yet about whether or not the CA or FO tried to speak with the passenger before the authorities arrived with a freshly charged taser. I hope one of them tried.

Looking at it from another perspective. Passengers need to follow cabin crew instructions. If they aren't going to do it on the ground then they probably won't do it inflight, therefore they should be removed from the flight before it gets airborne and the problem becomes a lot harder to solve. A pilot can't keep going back into the cabin during the flight to tell an unruly passenger to behave, if they won't listen to CC on the ground then that's reason enough to remove them.

[dr dre]

The reality is that if the Cabin Manger just simply facilitated a seat change then none of this would have happened period.



Or if the guy just sat where he was supposed to then none of this would've happened. Period.

[MagnumPI]

You're assuming people are rational actors dr dre, but they're often not. There's always going to be disputes. Of course passengers should follow instructions, but when they don't the crew should have the skills to de-escalate.

As davidclarke posted just above you, there's a common thread in just about all of the publicity concerning QF Group lately - lack of customer service skills, which comes from lack of training, and perhaps a genuine lack of empathy from someone's personality - in which case they should never be hired.

It's a good thing that many posters here in the thread aren't hostage negotiators. The hostages would be killed every time!

[davidclarke]

Or if the guy just sat where he was supposed to then none of this would've happened. Period.

I just trying to show that the situation could have been diffused quickly quietly and none of this would needed to have taken place. Period.

[flightleader]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1258x1618/3c3017c6_2ee1_472c_aa4b_56b6931d6c9f_cae3a5970d4b0419bc53f20 38040fd47d7e658e3.jpeg
For sure nobody would want this.

[framer]

We really have no idea exactly what unfolded.
It appears to me that the CC was fairly calm and quiet when she relayed to the pax that they now have reason to offload him. Was she told to relay that after chatting with the Captain? Who knows? Had the gate manager already informed the crew that the pax had been difficult in the terminal? Who knows? Was the person he had swapped with in an emergency exit but unsuitable to be there? Who knows?
Whatever the situation leading up to the AFP taking over, the method used to get him off is an AFP issue, not Jetstars.
Cabin Crew don’t get paid enough or trained enough to make nuanced decisions around W&B, they are just told that it is of critical importance. At the end of the day he chose to dig his heels in and we’ve all seen the result.

[PoppaJo]

You're probably right.

My theory is that people are far less comfortable having difficult conversations and resolving disputes. Anecdotally, I see this all the time in business with people trying to negotiate or resolve disputes over text or email instead of picking up the phone or meeting face to face. Pre-internet you use to complain about a business by writing or calling to speak with someone who (hopefully) cared. These days most people just let loose on a keyboard, and will say things that they'd never otherwise say to a human being!

Many pilots may not be particularly charismatic (and perhaps that suits their occupation just fine most of the time) - but you should still be able to hold a discussion with a passenger.

Nothing reported on yet about whether or not the CA or FO tried to speak with the passenger before the authorities arrived with a freshly charged taser. I hope one of them tried.

Everyone has different ways in approaching passengers communication. I don’t speak to passengers (unless medical), generally it goes nowhere. Either they follow my crews instruction, or they are off. It’s that simple. I get the crew to give them the go or no go question, generally they won’t answer, so they are off. I then close the cockpit door and the AFP can do whatever they wish.

You can see how it can go south if crew get too involved, that Virgin event with the pilot in a punch on with the passenger near the cockpit door wasn’t great. I’ve seen a few videos in the US with Pilots getting on the wrong side of being involved.

[Chris2303]

When Michael O'Leary's protégé, one Alan Joyce, took over Qantas he set up Jetstar in the Ryanair mould, complete "no sitting together unless you pay".

That policy caused this and Jetstar's check in contractors and cabin attendants exacerbated it by following the LCC's "customer service doesn't apply here" attitude.

So, indirectly, and drawing a long bow, the buck stops at the Irishman's desk. Of course AFP didn't help either

[Ollie Onion]

When Michael O'Leary's protégé, one Alan Joyce, took over Qantas he set up Jetstar in the Ryanair mould, complete "no sitting together unless you pay".

That policy caused this and Jetstar's check in contractors and cabin attendants exacerbated it by following the LCC's "customer service doesn't apply here" attitude.

So, indirectly, and drawing a long bow, the buck stops at the Irishman's desk. Of course AFP didn't help either


No, the passenger not following the Cabin Crews instructions caused this.

[Pinky the pilot]

No, the passenger not following the Cabin Crews instructions caused this.

And of that, I am certain, is how any Court of Law will view it.

[PoppaJo]

I suggest listen to the longer YouTube version, the AFP officers state the reasons to the passenger in why he is being removed, and the consequences if he does not comply.

[Buster Hyman]

Never had an issue with PAX location for a Loadsheet. I did need to get an accurate count of children and infants once in order to get the last pallet on a DC-10 to HNL, but that was a weight issue, not balance.

As for the computer putting the Trim “on the edge”… I would imagine you’d want to get that software patched pretty quick! Besides, there’s a couple of envelopes that you work to & the Airbus or Boeing limit is not the default! 🙄

[blubak]

When Michael O'Leary's protégé, one Alan Joyce, took over Qantas he set up Jetstar in the Ryanair mould, complete "no sitting together unless you pay".

That policy caused this and Jetstar's check in contractors and cabin attendants exacerbated it by following the LCC's "customer service doesn't apply here" attitude.

So, indirectly, and drawing a long bow, the buck stops at the Irishman's desk. Of course AFP didn't help either
What is this crap that if you want to sit together you have to pay extra!
Ok,so theres no excuse for violence or threats but what about a bit of common sense,no matter what the cabin crew are paid or where they come from,is it really that hard to try & accomodate a family wanting to sit together.
If its true about having to pay extra to sit together as described in a few of the previous posts the people running this sh..show need to have a good look at themselves.
Just another opportunist attempt to get a few more $$$ in the bank for kpi bonuses etc.

[SWBKCB]

What is this crap that if you want to sit together you have to pay extra!
Ok,so theres no excuse for violence or threats but what about a bit of common sense,no matter what the cabin crew are paid or where they come from,is it really that hard to try & accomodate a family wanting to sit together.
If its true about having to pay extra to sit together as described in a few of the previous posts the people running this sh..show need to have a good look at themselves.
Just another opportunist attempt to get a few more $$$ in the bank for kpi bonuses etc.

Welcome to the world of low cost airlines, this is how it works. Suck them in with the low headline fare and make your money on the 'extra's'

[Speed_Tape]

In terms of what happened in the early days, rows of seats were blocked off according to a chart which took into account the W&B restrictions.

It wasn't pick a seat, any seat. It was pick a seat, not in these rows though.

[SHVC]

I am DISGUSTED to see jetstar using the AFP to taser a man in Perth who just wanted to be seated with his infant and wife.
NO EXCUSES, Jetstar should have accommodated this man.
I don't care if they are worried about weight and balance, there is NO EXCUSE for separating a father from a new born.
All the dumb arse crew had to do to make it work was a seat swap with another passenger, or be fair and reasonable and re-calculate the W&B.
BUT NO ...... Jetstar megalomaniac crew in their complete lack of experience and professionalism and humanity, decided to call in the dogs and destroy this family with tasers.
PATHETIC JETSTAR. NO EXCUSES.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/bolic-bet-malou-updates-confronting-vision-emerges-of-passenger-being-tasered-on-jetstar-flight/9f158b50-7edb-473d-a0ed-ae054bcf5767
Wow, just Wow! You are such an ill informed person who doesn’t even know what actually occurred or what the law and regulations are. Firstly Jetstar didn’t get the AFP to taser the guy, he wanted to be a hero not only he didn’t follow the cabin crew directions he took it a step further and didn’t follow the AFPs direction. The company have a policy, the CASR hold the regulation this guy simply thought he was above all. If only he knew he could have moved after take off and moved back before landing.

[soseg]

Where was the other passenger sitting that was willing to facilitate the seat swap and what are the rules on an airbus with LMCs?

[ShyTorque]

I’d pay extra not to have to sit next to my wife….

[AerialPerspective]

I am DISGUSTED to see jetstar using the AFP to taser a man in Perth who just wanted to be seated with his infant and wife.
NO EXCUSES, Jetstar should have accommodated this man.
I don't care if they are worried about weight and balance, there is NO EXCUSE for separating a father from a new born.
All the dumb arse crew had to do to make it work was a seat swap with another passenger, or be fair and reasonable and re-calculate the W&B.
BUT NO ...... Jetstar megalomaniac crew in their complete lack of experience and professionalism and humanity, decided to call in the dogs and destroy this family with tasers.
PATHETIC JETSTAR. NO EXCUSES.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/bolic-bet-malou-updates-confronting-vision-emerges-of-passenger-being-tasered-on-jetstar-flight/9f158b50-7edb-473d-a0ed-ae054bcf5767

It's not just Jetstar sadly. I remember a story about VA not so long ago where it certainly appeared from the reporting that a passenger asked a question and the gate staff called the police. I don't know what sort of a society we are headed toward but I know in my day, the role of front-facing customer service staff was to discuss matters with customers and not call the police as soon as someone disagrees with them. They euphemistically call it 'calling security' when they're in fact, calling the police.

If you were in your front yard and your neighbour said they really didn't like the sort of lawn you'd put down, would you tell them it's your choice or would you call the police because they 'might' get aggressive. Seriously, this is a joke these days, the slightest look of disagreement and in come the goons. It comes from people being employed and put in positions who have absolutely zero ability to deal with people.

[AerialPerspective]

Where was the other passenger sitting that was willing to facilitate the seat swap and what are the rules on an airbus with LMCs?

Let's not split hairs here, yes, technically they shouldn't swap people around but let's face it, if it's one passenger and they're both adults, they're both recorded at the same standard weight anyway so it makes absolutely ZERO difference to the weight and balance. Years ago, a QF 747 arrived in MEL from SYD and two pallets had been loaded in opposite positions in error, in LMC terms it was a 10 tonne error, in reality, the error was the difference in weight of what was stated and what was reality so, really, about 2-3t. The Captain barely noticed it but asked for it to be investigated. One passenger swapping with another, less effect than the drinks trolley rolling down the aisle.

[AerialPerspective]

Wow, just Wow! You are such an ill informed person who doesn’t even know what actually occurred or what the law and regulations are. Firstly Jetstar didn’t get the AFP to taser the guy, he wanted to be a hero not only he didn’t follow the cabin crew directions he took it a step further and didn’t follow the AFPs direction. The company have a policy, the CASR hold the regulation this guy simply thought he was above all. If only he knew he could have moved after take off and moved back before landing.

Yes, and it would have been perfectly reasonable for the CC to tell him that but they apparently didn't so the situation was escalated FAR beyond what was necessary. We have people in customer service roles now who can't deal with people. Gate staff often call the police with the slightest disagreement. In my day, we'd have a discussion with the person and try and talk them down or find a solution, today, at the slightest disagreement they 'call security' like it's some sort of weapon (it's not security, it's the police). I have personally witnessed this happen when it was nothing more than a passenger questioning the staff member in a reasonable manner.

Let's not forget, we're talking about a generation, some of whom that need to take mental health leave when someone unfriends them on FB.

[AerialPerspective]

Welcome to the world of low cost airlines, this is how it works. Suck them in with the low headline fare and make your money on the 'extra's'

It's not that simple. There are limited seats and anything could have happened here, the husband might have been running late and checked in separately or they may have checked in late when there wasn't three seats available together. If it's the latter, then it's really not JQ's fault if they check in at the last minute or arrive later in the check in process. In the likes of QF and NZ there are systems and processes within departure control to ameliorate this happening but sometimes it's unavoidable. When a check in entry is done for two or three people in the same entry, any system will in the first instance attempt to seat them together.

Fault in my view is that the check in agent should have noted it and seen if there was something they could have done to fix this before the passenger got on the aeroplane.

Many years ago in QF, being a full service carrier, there were seats held back that were used for this purpose and if at the end of a flight a couple were split seated, there was a procedure to pick someone with a vacant seat next to them, upgrade that person to the next class of travel and seat the couple together. If there wasn't, the couple were upgraded to the next class even if split seating prevailed because at least they were being given something in compensation.

Everybody thinks it's a simply equation but it isn't. Pre-seat most of the flight to try and avoid split seating and you run the risk of causing it because seats get held until the end for the people pre-seated, causing split seating. It's a balancing act to get the best result, usually depending on load, the percentage dictates what size groups get pre-seated, e.g. down to groups of three if the flight is 70% full, down to two if 80%, etc. etc. Believe me, people, very smart people, have looked at this problem for decades and there's no one-size-fits-all solution.

[AerialPerspective]

People do not get tasered for being model citizens. Likely more went on than what was shown on that short video clip.

Yes, and police of course never overreact and use their weapons of escalation - they ALWAYS do the right thing and never overreact. I come from a Police family, they were all level headed but we all know there are people out there that get a uniform and become gung ho.

I remember having AFP remove people from aeroplanes in the old days of AN and QF and they didn't have tasers and never had to use any weapons. They just used their voices and their training to explain to the person why they must leave NOW. Society is too quick to go to the next step now and Police are becoming more and more heavily armed. I mean when there's a bank robbery, what precisely justifies CRT police having assault rifles, in a country where they are banned and you can't buy/obtain them? Where does this end? Are we going to have riot police with tactical nukes in 40 years time?

[AerialPerspective]

The passengers don’t know aviation law so can’t be the judge on whether or not this guy did something wrong, which he did. Firstly he failed to comply with the lawful directions of the cabin crew on what seat he needed to sit in. Secondly he failed to comply with the police’s instructions to come with them off the aircraft.

Passengers don’t run the cabin and don’t arrange their own seat swaps.



It could have been weight and balance, or just the fact he swapped all on his own. Whatever it is, the CC’s instructions are lawful.

We also don’t know what preceded that conversation because the video recording only starts from when the CC told the guy he wasn’t going to be allowed to fly. As the video shows he is clearly being belligerent, whatever the cause, and is probably not going to comply with other instructions from the crew inflight.

I'd just observe, the video "at the point it starts" shows him being belligerent and nothing of what occurred prior so it's not a complete picture. I agree you can't have pax swapping everywhere but with nearly 40 years of experience I question if this couldn't have been handled better.

[AerialPerspective]

Good lesson for all passengers. If you want to get to your destination with minimum fuss, do as instructed. You don't have to like the instructions but you must follow them.

Looks like this chap failed to get his family booked in seating together. Not sure how that is Jetstar's fault. He says on the video "Go and get the police, I will move when they come". So, how is this Jetstar's fault again and in which way is this pathetic or disgusting? I feel for the cabin crew who are simply following the instructions of their company and the regulator but also for the AFP having to deal with yet another individual putting themselves ahead of the collective.

I'm sorry, but unless they turned up late or checked in separately, you can't say it's not Jetstar's fault. The check in agent has eyes and the ability to read and would have seen they were split seated. Maybe he/she did, maybe the pax didn't care at that stage or maybe they just handed them the BP and let them go blissfully unaware. I don't know a check in agent of any experience who wouldn't have looked at the seats and at least tried to do something, if they were the 207, 8 and 9th to check in out of 209 then it's not JQ's fault but if they checked in halfway, I know it's a low cost carrier but there's no cost in moving a few seats around and re-printing the BP.

[AerialPerspective]

He was not tasered over the seat issue. His refusal to follow the directions of police, dispute several warnings, lead to the forceful removal from the aircraft.

But you've got to ask yourself if it was really necessary for it to get to that point. I don't know what it's like now but I agree with one of the other posters who said QF CC used to be the masters at fixing these problems. The FSD would have a quick chat to the pax, tell them he/she knew about their seating issue and when the aeroplane is airborne we'll sort it out and if we're out of options v.v. people moving, we'll make it up to you in another way. Lot's of nice people who were understanding ended up sitting in two seats together that were vacant at the back of J/Class and got lavished with champagne and other goodies. They then went and told their entire friends/family to fly with QF.

[AerialPerspective]

Sorry John "I believe cabin crew have the ability to swap allocated seats quickly and easily using their Ipad in their hand"
Not correct.
The pax manifest held digitally at the departing station is the master doc and is a legal requirement. The crew ipad uploads from that, not in reverse. It serves for identification purposes in the event of "the sh1t really hitting the fan" and feeds into the weight and balance calcs (minor issue here on a 200 odd ton a/c)
The message is simple, do as you are bloody told or put on those Nike's and start walking.
Plus in any airline you cannot swap seats in the system willy-nilly as it's locked out once the LS is produced.

[AerialPerspective]

Numerous flights international and internal over nearly a decade, some years ago, and not once did I see an incident in the cabin. Now whether the ticket paying public have become more anti-social, less law abiding (yes, they have) or whether CC have become more megalomanic (yes, they have) is debatable on who threw the first rock. On that both sides fed of each other. There is nothing like an over-the-top Karen type person to cause an equal response.
Despite all the over-hyped bad publicity Qantas gets these days and the deserved criticism in many respects of the 'Feral Abacus' running QF, you never hear of this sort of thing on a Qantas aeroplane. Perhaps because despite all the changes over the last 10-20 years, the CC are still professional and know how to deal with people.

[KAPAC]

Feels like it could be a story of a good bloke having a bad day ? I got a mental image of a decent family man who’s been pushed that bit too far , sitting in the middle seat 20 rows from his kid just holding it all in and just says f it , no more !

[SWBKCB]

I'm sorry, but unless they turned up late or checked in separately, you can't say it's not Jetstar's fault. The check in agent has eyes and the ability to read and would have seen they were split seated. Maybe he/she did, maybe the pax didn't care at that stage or maybe they just handed them the BP and let them go blissfully unaware. I don't know a check in agent of any experience who wouldn't have looked at the seats and at least tried to do something, if they were the 207, 8 and 9th to check in out of 209 then it's not JQ's fault but if they checked in halfway, I know it's a low cost carrier but there's no cost in moving a few seats around and re-printing the BP.

From the Jetstar website:Family travel and seatingYou can select and purchase seats for your family when you book through our website or with one of our friendly team members (https://www.jetstar.com/au/en/contact-us).


If you choose not to select your seats, they will be randomly assigned at check in, at no additional cost.
We do our best to seat families together when we allocate seating and we’ll make sure that young children are seated with a parent or guardian, but we can’t guarantee you’ll be all together. That’s why it’s best to select your seats when you book your flights.

[ChrisVJ]

As for the "He should just pay the $5" remark:
We booked flights last year with Westjet, not a particularly low cost airline, and the there and back seat charges would have cost nearly $180. As it happens we have a Westjet credit card that gives us extra baggage or that would have cost another p$90. $270 added to the cost of your flights ain't peanuts.

[RENURPP]

I'm sorry, but unless they turned up late or checked in separately, you can't say it's not Jetstar's fault. The check in agent has eyes and the ability to read and would have seen they were split seated. Maybe he/she did, maybe the pax didn't care at that stage or maybe they just handed them the BP and let them go blissfully unaware. I don't know a check in agent of any experience who wouldn't have looked at the seats and at least tried to do something, if they were the 207, 8 and 9th to check in out of 209 then it's not JQ's fault but if they checked in halfway, I know it's a low cost carrier but there's no cost in moving a few seats around and re-printing the BP.
What’s a check in agent??
i

[SHVC]

The whole point is being missed here, whether you agree of the demand of the passenger wanting to be seated with his family or not, when you board the aircraft you agree that you will follow crew member instructions if you agree or not none of these instructions are unreasonable.
This guy flat out denied and if you watch the video in full he comes across as intimidating to the CM by raising his voice. The CM escalated to the PIC where then the AFP got involved where they also gave this guy a lawful direction where he denied after multiple warnings AFP officers they also escalated as this guy denied to follow their lawful directions.
All this guy had to do was follow the direction of the CM and none of this would of occurred and he would be in ML with his family that it was so important for him to sit with, now he is on the other side of the country wasting money on hotels. I hope he gets the full extent of the law thrown at him and never to fly a QF group AC again. We can’t have this behavior occurring on board AC.

[framer]

I remember a story about VA not so long ago where it certainly appeared from the reporting that a passenger asked a question and the gate staff called the police.
And do you believe that story to be accurate? If so you aren’t using your brain to overcome your emotions, you’re just identifying a story that fits with your idea that things are no good now days, and rolling with it. Apply some critical thinking to that story. It’s complete rubbish.
​​​​​​​Gate staff often call the police with the slightest disagreement. In my day
No they don’t. Why do you think that’s the case? I’ve operated about 4000 sectors out of major Australian ports in the last 15 years and have had Police to the aircraft twice. Both well deserved, one booze and ego, the other mental health.
​​​​​​​but with nearly 40 years of experience I question if this couldn't have been handled better.
If it could have been handled better my guess is that the improvements are to be made after the AFP entered the scene. That said, I don’t want to judge them without knowing the full story.

[AerialPerspective]

So how did they get away with "free seating (unallocated)" when they first launched?

As I said, nobody ever cared about seating and identification purposes wasn't ever a consideration (CASA/the airline/the crew)



If it's a mutal swap (as I said), it has no effect at all.

Your argument is invalid.

they got away with it at launch because the limits applicable to the weight and balance envelope contained substantial buffers to accommodate that system rather than an index effect for each kg in each seat based on passenger weight. Please learn something about weight and balance before making such a statement.

[AerialPerspective]

And do you believe that story to be accurate? If so you aren’t using your brain to overcome your emotions, you’re just identifying a story that fits with your idea that things are no good now days, and rolling with it. Apply some critical thinking to that story. It’s complete rubbish.

No they don’t. Why do you think that’s the case? I’ve operated about 4000 sectors out of major Australian ports in the last 15 years and have had Police to the aircraft twice. Both well deserved, one booze and ego, the other mental health.

If it could have been handled better my guess is that the improvements are to be made after the AFP entered the scene. That said, I don’t want to judge them without knowing the full story.

No. I’ve actually witnessed it several times and had to put the brakes on re calling the police. If you’re sitting on the flight deck or CC you don’t see everything that goes on in the gate or at check in. There is a more eager tendency to call than there was in the past. My judgement is that the training and the leadership has declined. My brain functions fine thanks and I don’t need a lecture about things I’ve witnessed with my own eyes.

[ChrisVJ]

The whole point is being missed here, whether you agree of the demand of the passenger wanting to be seated with his family or not, when you board the aircraft you agree that you will follow crew member instructions if you agree or not none of these instructions are unreasonable.
This guy flat out denied and if you watch the video in full he comes across as intimidating to the CM by raising his voice. The CM escalated to the PIC where then the AFP got involved where they also gave this guy a lawful direction where he denied after multiple warnings AFP officers they also escalated as this guy denied to follow their lawful directions.
All this guy had to do was follow the direction of the CM and none of this would of occurred and he would be in ML with his family that it was so important for him to sit with, now he is on the other side of the country wasting money on hotels. I hope he gets the full extent of the law thrown at him and never to fly a QF group AC again. We can’t have this behavior occurring on board AC.


All the FA had to do was recognise that it didn't really matter if both the swappers were happy and the passenger would be in ML with his family instead of back spending a load of money on hotels etc. etc.

See, anyone can make an argument that makes sense to their own point of view!

[finestkind]

Despite all the over-hyped bad publicity Qantas gets these days and the deserved criticism in many respects of the 'Feral Abacus' running QF, you never hear of this sort of thing on a Qantas aeroplane. Perhaps because despite all the changes over the last 10-20 years, the CC are still professional and know how to deal with people.

Fair enough. Just because you don't hear of it does not mean it is not happening. Unfortunately, I disagree with your comment on Quantas CC's being professional above what is now the norm. From 1990 to 2000 I noticed a very obvious decline in CC's manners and attitude and up until today has not changed. Don't get me wrong I have come across some fantastic people and understand that dealing with the ice cream licking public is no picnic (very memorable one on a Dash 8 with 28 odd passengers. Greeted everyone, children included, by name and continued to do so while checking and serving, with extraordinary proficiency, professionalism and engagement. My children being, quite young, were astounded that this person knew them)

[SHVC]

All the FA had to do was recognise that it didn't really matter if both the swappers were happy and the passenger would be in ML with his family instead of back spending a load of money on hotels etc. etc.

See, anyone can make an argument that makes sense to their own point of view!

My point of view is you follow the rules, this guy did not.

[Icarus2001]

It serves for identification purposes in the event of "the sh1t really hitting the fan"
A myth often repeated.

Do some research on DVI teams. Victims are never identified by the seat they are sitting in for all the obvious reasons.
​​​​​​​Also remember that in the developing country that is Australia, airlines have no idea WHO is traveling on their aircraft.

[KAPAC]

Decades flying in a big country to the north and I’ve seen whole aircraft been taken over by passengers in protest of delays , police turn up and shrug saying it’s your problem . Never seen cops remove a passenger unless arrested for stealing only in Australia do we taser for wanting to swap seats ?

[megan]

In this instance the seating issue shouldn't have made it to the aircraft, traveling as a family he should have had it sorted at checkin, checking in at a kiosk doesn't permit seating coordination, it's pot luck. Traveling as a family of five we leave seating till we put the bags through, staff have always managed a row plus two across the aisle or row in front/behind. Don't know if having frequent flyer cards helps, or the fact we are always early. Checking in late is obviously going to seriously curtail your options.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I'm sorry, but unless they turned up late or checked in separately, you can't say it's not Jetstar's fault. The check in agent has eyes and the ability to read and would have seen they were split seated. Maybe he/she did, maybe the pax didn't care at that stage or maybe they just handed them the BP and let them go blissfully unaware. I don't know a check in agent of any experience who wouldn't have looked at the seats and at least tried to do something, if they were the 207, 8 and 9th to check in out of 209 then it's not JQ's fault but if they checked in halfway, I know it's a low cost carrier but there's no cost in moving a few seats around and re-printing the BP.

You risk being nibbled to death by ducks. If you let one passenger dictate where they'll sit and how they'll behave then you'll be dealing with, potentially, 20 then 30 and then a whole plane load of pax who want to decide how the operation is going to be run.

In my day

Society has changed. More flying, fewer frills, more passengers, greater sense of entitlement. You'd have to be blind not see the changes in societal behaviours since the internet was invented.

[AerialPerspective]

What’s a check in agent??
i

They're the person that checks people in with bags or those that can't manage to operate the check in kiosk.

[AerialPerspective]

You risk being nibbled to death by ducks. If you let one passenger dictate where they'll sit and how they'll behave then you'll be dealing with, potentially, 20 then 30 and then a whole plane load of pax who want to decide how the operation is going to be run.

Never said people should be able to choose their seats or do their own seat swaps, not at any time. I was saying that there is an entry in the system to change a pax from one seat to another, it's not rocket science and it's possible to do it at check in. It's called customer service, even in an LCC. They all rave about it on their website so they should show at least a modicum of an effort.


Society has changed. More flying, fewer frills, more passengers, greater sense of entitlement. You'd have to be blind not see the changes in societal behaviours since the internet was invented.

Again, I'm not an idiot, I know flying has changed but that's not what I was talking about. There are ways to deal with things and ways not to. I wasn't there for the whole thing but I suspect the approach was possibly a bit more officious than it needed to be.

[AerialPerspective]

In this instance the seating issue shouldn't have made it to the aircraft, traveling as a family he should have had it sorted at checkin, checking in at a kiosk doesn't permit seating coordination, it's pot luck. Traveling as a family of five we leave seating till we put the bags through, staff have always managed a row plus two across the aisle or row in front/behind. Don't know if having frequent flyer cards helps, or the fact we are always early. Checking in late is obviously going to seriously curtail your options.

Spot on Megan. It's not rocket science.

[neville_nobody]

Society has changed. More flying, fewer frills, more passengers, greater sense of entitlement. You'd have to be blind not see the changes in societal behaviours since the internet was invented.

I'd go one step further and say Facebook not the internet. Everything seemed normal until about 2009ish then it all just went off the rails in terms of social interaction/decorum.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So how did the cabin crew even become aware of these two swapping seats? I've seen passengers move to empty seats before take off, I've seen passengers swap seats during boarding or before take off. I've never seen the cabin crew come and tell them to move back, even if they saw them do it. I thought maybe the guy just took that seat and the assigned passenger complained to the crew when he found the guy in it, but in I see in the video the swap seemed to be mutual. Irrespective of the "failed to obey the instructions of the crew" angle, how the hell did it spiral out of control in the first place? There's more to this, and the reasons could be ugly.

[pbwhi0]

Rules are Rules, If you don't follow cabin crew directions then you are breaking them. Whether you think it's right or wrong the crew acted within their boundary. It's not a bus, tram or Light rail, you are given a seat which is probably for a safety reason ( weight/balance) then you sit in it.
Weight and balance on a jet when two males change seats - give me a break! Jet passengers are not weighed - standard weights are used.

[Lapon]

Never seen cops remove a passenger unless arrested for stealing only in Australia do we taser for wanting to swap seats ?

He was tasered for failing to follow a direction from the coppers, not for wanting to swap seats.

It was his inability to follow directions in the first place that led to the cops turning up.

His argument over his entitlement to swap seats is an entirely seperate issue, the two should not be confused.

[SHVC]

So how did the cabin crew even become aware of these two swapping seats? I've seen passengers move to empty seats before take off, I've seen passengers swap seats during boarding or before take off. I've never seen the cabin crew come and tell them to move back, even if they saw them do it. I thought maybe the guy just took that seat and the assigned passenger complained to the crew when he found the guy in it, but in I see in the video the swap seemed to be mutual. Irrespective of the "failed to obey the instructions of the crew" angle, how the hell did it spiral out of control in the first place? There's more to this, and the reasons could be ugly.

I would guess it could of been a 321 with multiple head counts incorrect then CC going to the manifest to rectify. it was picked up when they were looking for a female name and ther was a male name in the seat.
Or they just could have seen him do it.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

picked up when they were looking for a female name and ther was a male name in the seat.
So then they ask where should you be sitting and he points to where the female is and they go "Are you Jane Doe?" and she says yes , well that makes the head count ok because we know she is on board, so move along nothing to see here. Jane Doe is on the aircraft. What if the wife was sitting in the swapped seat. If they were doing the head count and saw a female in the seat would they have queried who she was? I bet not. Then, horror of horrors, the aircraft would have departed with someone in the wrong seat!!!
Or they just could have seen him do it.
So not seeing him do it results in the aircraft departing and flying to it's destination safely, with no screaming match or tasering prior to departure, but seeing him do it results in a screaming match and a tasering? You have to ask if making the fuss is worth it. Does it really matter what seat you sit in as long as you are actually on the aircraft? It's not like they do an ID check on everyone to ensure the seating matches the manifest each and every time before departure.
If they had asked the cabin crew if they could swap and been given permission, especially in the hustle and bustle of boarding, is that ever noted anywhere? Is the change radioed or ACARS back to base so that the all important paperwork is kept up to date. My a*se it ever would be.
As for the vital "paperwork", there is no need for anyone on board to even prove they are who they claim to be anyway. There is no requirement to show ID buying the ticket, checking in, getting on board, or after seating to confirm that the right people are in the right seat (apparently a vital safety consideration!). So what does it really matter who sits where? If the head count (that's if they even do one) matches the expected number they're closing the door and going. They wouldn't have a clue who is actually on board or who is sitting where. It's all just assumptions.

[John Citizen]

they got away with it at launch because the limits applicable to the weight and balance envelope contained substantial buffers to accommodate that system rather than an index effect for each kg in each seat based on passenger weight. Please learn something about weight and balance before making such a statement.


​​ Each kg in each seat

Wrong again.

I believe their system works on 3 aircraft zones and not on the individual seat. So a person can be anywhere in a particular zone (front or back) yet have no effect on the weight and balance calculations.

Please get your facts right before making false statements. Seems obvious here who doesn't know about weight and balance.

[ChrisVJ]

So if he had swapped seats without asking after take off would they have turned the plane around and had the police meet them on the tarmac?

[ChrisVJ]

I'd go one step further and say Facebook not the internet. Everything seemed normal until about 2009ish then it all just went off the rails in terms of social interaction/decorum.

Actually it's been going off the rails since the end of the first world war when people discovered those in authority were mostly incompetent.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So if he had swapped seats without asking after take off would they have turned the plane around and had the police meet them on the tarmac?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that, inferring from the "personalities" I can see in the video, quite probably.

[deja vu]

How very Australian.
There is a minor seating issue, CC can't be bothered to make the effort to help so the pax sorts it out for himself with a another. Uh Oh, he didn't count on the hurt EGO did he, so let the escalation begin. Oh, and the cops were just waiting to bring out their thuggery.

[HKFlyer777]

I noticed CC (and police?) instructing passengers quite firmly not to film. Anyone know the legal position regarding this?

[Don Diego]

Day Jar Voo, so tell us pray tell how you would handle this belligerent and defiant individual?? While you are at you might like to enlighten us why it is “very Australian”.

[Global Aviator]

I often found back when I was an airline Capitano that on the ground it was fairly easy to diffuse a situation by the Captain just being present.

Pax who had paid for emergency exit but had crutches, pax paid for xyz but some other issue, pax etc…..

I would never compromise the CSM’s position but merely assist. Often at times just standing in the galley when issues, amazing how quickly passengers would change their tune with CC when Captain came out.

Of course I have no idea what happened in this instance, however it is amazing that a situation can get to the taser point.

Not every pilot has the confidence to step out the flight deck (yes only on the ground), but as I said, personally I saw the change in pax behaviour several times by doing this.

[Icarus2001]

I noticed CC (and police?) instructing passengers quite firmly not to film. Anyone know the legal position regarding this?

If on private property one needs permission to film. It used to be written in the fine print in the in flight magazine but I think they gave up.
Public areas are fair game. Notice our ever friendly media will film in a public terminal but not inside a privately owned aircraft.
There is a caveat if you believe an offence is being committed.

[megan]

Is the interior of an aircraft providing public transport considered private property, I would say yes. different rules apply for public and private property? Public is OK, private property the owner dictates the rules.

https://lawpath.com.au/blog/legal-film-public-places

[wonderbusdriver]

He got what he asked for.
Shut up, listen and stop arguing.
If sitting in a cramped tin can stresses you too
much, you will have to look for a different mode of transportation.

”Get the police and I will go.”
Well, he didn’t,
didn’t shut up,
didn’t listen - behaves like a dog - and is treated like one.

Get him off the plane and get everyone else to where they want to go!

[ScepticalOptomist]

I often found back when I was an airline Capitano that on the ground it was fairly easy to diffuse a situation by the Captain just being present.

Pax who had paid for emergency exit but had crutches, pax paid for xyz but some other issue, pax etc…..

I would never compromise the CSM’s position but merely assist. Often at times just standing in the galley when issues, amazing how quickly passengers would change their tune with CC when Captain came out.

Of course I have no idea what happened in this instance, however it is amazing that a situation can get to the taser point.

Not every pilot has the confidence to step out the flight deck (yes only on the ground), but as I said, personally I saw the change in pax behaviour several times by doing this.

Totally agree, though the times are changing. Some of the newer breed need their safe spaces and would probably feel threatened by having to deal with anything remotely confrontational.

[airdualbleedfault]

So many uneducated/unwashed /know it all DHs on this forum nowadays, oh the joys of the internet.
I sit here staring in disbelief at some of the idiot comments on here, particularly by non transport category pilots/SLF.
Old mate booked seats that weren't together, probably to get a good deal, end of frigging story. Wether or not you hate Jetstar this is not their fault. They weren't sending old mate off to the Russian front for 20 years, just asking him to sit in his allocated seat for a few hours, possibly within earshot of his beloved new born child.
Faaark some people really need to get the F over themselves

[Icarus2001]

Is the interior of an aircraft providing public transport considered private property, I would say yes.

There is no doubt, private property. A train or terminal is public. Some catches though, for example you are in your front garden mowing the lawn in your bikini and I drive past and snap a photo. That is legal as there is no expectation of privacy even though you are on private property as I can see you from a public road.

So in summary, by the letter of the law if crew ask you to stop filming and you don’t then you have failed to follow a lawful instruction and can be removed from the aircraft. Good luck with that.

It’s all in the how right? If I quietly ask the CM if I can swap if the other passenger agrees and make a point of being polite and respectful it would probably be successful. This tool behaved like a child.

[Mach E Avelli]

So many uneducated/unwashed /know it all DHs on this forum nowadays, oh the joys of the internet.
I sit here staring in disbelief at some of the idiot comments on here, particularly by non transport category pilots/SLF.
Old mate booked seats that weren't together, probably to get a good deal, end of frigging story. Wether or not you hate Jetstar this is not their fault. They weren't sending old mate off to the Russian front for 20 years, just asking him to sit in his allocated seat for a few hours, possibly within earshot of his beloved new born child.
Faaark some people really need to get the F over themselves
What he said.
Recently spent 3 months travelling around Europe on trains, aircraft and ferries. Bought tickets, often printed with a seat number, over which I had no control.
Found seat, sat down, made the most of the scenery.or food (such as it was), got to destination at the same time as the other hundreds on board. Job done, no one disrupting the system with seat swaps.
​​​​This guy could have just complied.and maybe later could have had a whinge on a review site like TripAdvisor.
​​​​​​Instead, what's the bet when he called in the cops he was hoping to play the victim/race card and it backfired?

[Propstop]

One time I was travelling SYD-SIN on SQ. I went to take my seat and a guy was there (economy) who said he would like to sit next to his wife.
The seat he offered me was in Business. We both cleared it with the Purser and I had a very comfortable flight. The crew were amazed he was happy to sit in economy and give up a good seat. I expect it was company travel and had to pay for his wife.

[KAPAC]

One time I was travelling SYD-SIN on SQ. I went to take my seat and a guy was there (economy) who said he would like to sit next to his wife.
The seat he offered me was in Business. We both cleared it with the Purser and I had a very comfortable flight. The crew were amazed he was happy to sit in economy and give up a good seat. I expect it was company travel and had to pay for his wife.

Im guessing you’re not married ?

[das Uber Soldat]

They should bill this idiot for the cost of the electricity used to charge the taser.

[PPRuNeUser01531]

Clearly a race-card revolt. I gotta navigate around these trouble making self righteous nuffies at work and play. HR teams are writing volumes about how to avoid and deal with them. Being a straight,white,C of E, Aussie male I'm at a disadvantage as soon as I walk out my front gate.

[KRviator]

There is no doubt, private property. A train or terminal is public.AAhh, no. It's not. Certainly not in NSW, where it's considered "inclosed lands" and you require authorisation to firstly be there, secondly to photograph on it. Now, most rail operators (CityRail/SydneyTrains/Whatever-they-call-themselves-this-week) have specific photography policies, you still don't have carte blanche the way you do walking down the footpath - but it isn't "public property" so much as it is "publicly accessible" - you can still be locked out of the rail network and the trains that run on it - and that's a very important distinction.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

We both cleared it with the Purser and I had a very comfortable flight.

Oh my God!!!....That means......you were not in your assigned seat for takeoff!!!! How in all that's holy did the flight manage to occur after that??? Was not the safety of the entire aviation industry irreparably compromised??? People have been tasered over flagrant abuses like that.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I gotta navigate around these trouble making self righteous nuffies at work and play......Being a straight,white,C of E, Aussie male I'm at a disadvantage as soon as I walk out my front gate.
No, it only shows when you open your mouth.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I sit here staring in disbelief at some of the idiot comments on here, particularly by non transport category pilots/SLF.
I didn't see any transport category pilots at the coal face during this incident? Perhaps continuing to sit up front behind the locked door oblivious to what is going on down the back might not have been the best thing to do in this case. Maybe actually attending and exercising the authority those bars give you might have brought about a different outcome? Maybe some command judgment might have come in handy?

[Pinky the pilot]

selfappointed; Having finally decided to actually have a look at the video concerning the incident, I would suggest that there could be a valid basis for debate on your comment.

There are always two sides to every story.

[SOPS]

I have to agree with selfappointed. I had to do a training course at work all about “ dealing “ with numpties like this. The course made it very clear that because I am a white, middle aged, man, I was probably in the wrong to start with.

[Eclan]

I didn't see any transport category pilots at the coal face during this incident? Perhaps continuing to sit up front behind the locked door oblivious to what is going on down the back might not have been the best thing to do in this case. Maybe actually attending and exercising the authority those bars give you might have brought about a different outcome? Maybe some command judgment might have come in handy?
Have you ever actually been a captain?

The pilot already has a job to do: fly the jet. What on earth do you really think he's going to do when he turns up to a tasering in the making? The CC have training and experience in dealing with aggressive ferals, unlike Capt. Lardbelly in his lollipop hat and coinslot who would probably pop an aorta (or his pants seam) if he had to duck a punch. Most CC generally don't want the pilot getting in the way and out of breath while attempting to inflate his ego with some type the crew have seen many times before.

Pilots don't know how to fight and his employer would prefer the event ends with the pilot able to fly the service not busy picking up his teeth. Leave the action to the CC who aren't going to escalate it and in fact the ground staff whose job it is until the door is closed. All the pilot needs to do is take the advice of the CC when it comes to deciding whether or not to exercise his authority to offload the feral who, these days, has no respect for any authority including some pilot mistakenly believing he's a king of some kind. Don't rely on ground staff for this decision as they just want the problem to go away into the sky with you.

The good captains are the ones who say "Keep me informed and tell me if you want him offloaded."

It's a bus with wings, not a cruise ship.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

He swapped agreeably with another pax.

There was never any reason for the cabin crew to make him swap back. No c of g issues ever.

The whole situation was created by the complete incompetence of the jetstar cabin crew.

re the police thuggery -

The witness in the video said categorically that at no time was Mallou physically or verbally abusive to the police, and yet they used 4 tasers on him. I can’t believe posters on here stating that that is acceptable.

perhaps the cops should have shot him. That would be acceptable to after all………

No, the cabin crew was totally totally wrong and the police were the typical brute mindless thugs that Australia is now shamedly renowned for.

[SixDemonBag]

He swapped agreeably with another pax.

There was never any reason for the cabin crew to make him swap back. No c of g issues ever.

The whole situation was created by the complete incompetence of the jetstar cabin crew.

re the police thuggery -

The witness in the video said categorically that at no time was Mallou physically or verbally abusive to the police, and yet they used 4 tasers on him. I can’t believe posters on here stating that that is acceptable.

perhaps the cops should have shot him. That would be acceptable to after all………

No, the cabin crew was totally totally wrong and the police were the typical brute mindless thugs that Australia is now shamedly renowned for.

where do you draw the line with who CAN relocate seats and who can’t? How do you keep track that? What about everyone sits in their assigned seat for TAKEOFF. After that, fill your boots.

For starters, you don’t have to be Physically or verbally abusive to be a pest, cause disruption, and ignore commands from crew members.

How do you think things would pan out if every passenger knew there would be no consequences for acting entitled and being uncooperative?

yes, I agree verbal diffusion is the best result. I wasn’t there in this instance. But to infer that the use of force shouldn’t be on the cards is naive.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

[QUOTE][where do you draw the line with who CAN relocate seats and who can’t? How do you keep track that? What about everyone sits in their assigned seat for TAKEOFF. After that, fill your boots/QUOTE]

ummmm - there is no line - he agreed to swap. He didn’t move to an empty seat.
I travel extensively in the US and I see people asking to swap seats all the time. Never seen someone say no if it to sit with a family member.

Like I said - there was no reason for the cabin crew to be so authoritarian- shame on jetstar.

[das Uber Soldat]

Like I said - there was no reason for the cabin crew to be so authoritarian- shame on jetstar.
There is a reason, its called complying with their manuals. If they don't, they can get in the ****. Why should the cabin crew risk sanction with the company because some idiot thinks the rules don't apply to him? If you don't like the policy in the manual, don't fly jetstar. Go to the US and fly all over there if you want, fill your boots. Not complicated.

Old mate was given a simple instruction. He decided the rules don't apply to him. Cabin crew have to put up with morons day in, day out so I don't blame them for cracking the ****s at this nitwit. Fail to comply? Call the AFP. I'd do the same.

The AFP found this clown so uncooperative that he got a free lightening ride for his trouble.

There are smarter ways to disagree with a policy than this. Hopefully as he lay spasming on the ground this finally occurred to him. Oh wait, thats right, run to the media and claim perpetual victimhood.

This is the way.

Play stupid games..

[Capt Fathom]

I suspect as part of their training, Cabin Crew are told passengers cannot change seats until after take off. They are not paid enough to make decisions outside what they were taught. I doubt very much they have the time or inclination to be obstructive.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

das Uber soldat
Very inhuman of you. Pax don’t read ops manuals .

and the fact that you can even condone the blatant use of excessive force by the thugs merely shows what a horrible person you must be.

[das Uber Soldat]

das Uber soldat
Very inhuman of you.
Nothing in this drivel of a reply constitutes an argument.

You familiar with this brand new thing called the Civil Aviation Regulations? Have a read of CAR 215(9)

Each member of the operations personnel of an operator (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/car1988n158290/s212.html#operator) shall comply with
all instructions contained in the operations manual in so far as they relate
to his or her duties or activities.

And you guessed it, offence of strict liability.

The CC have absolutely no choice, they must enforce their ops manual. I ask again, why should they risk not just sanction with the company, but potentially criminal sanction because this idiot believes the rules don't apply to him?


Pax don’t read ops manuals .

Thats nice. How about a website though. Can they read a website?

Remember, it’s always a good idea to purchase your seat in advance if you’re picky about where you sit. If you don’t, you’ll be automatically assigned a seat which you might not like, or you might not get to sit with your friends"

Is it your argument that failing to even bother reading any of the easily accessible information on fare rules obviates you of any responsibility to adhere to them?

If sitting next to your family is so critical to you that you're prepared to commit an offence and endure a violent confrontation with the police, maybe spend the extra few clams to secure it? You don't get to take advantage of the cheap fare, then demand privilege's of a higher fare.

and the fact that you can even condone the blatant use of excessive force by the thugs merely shows what a horrible person you must be.
Yes, I'm terrible. The next Hitler no doubt. Everyone should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without consequence.

Take a bow.

[KAPAC]

I’ve been directed by checkin staff to organise seat swaps once on board so I can sit with my kids when staff travel was tight and we did not get seats together . Checkin staff could not be bothered to change others . I pointed out it was company policy not to seat a female child next to an adult male but made no difference , got told to ask cabin crew for assistance. On board senior cabin crew helped change a passenger so my daughter and I change . Happens everyday all over the world . Seat swaps are normal even in Australia , last minute no paperwork , cabin crew do it to stop problems . Never seen or heard of a taser required , ever . Something horrible wrong here .
P.S , loved going down with my hat on to stand next to the cabin crew while she handled a disruptive passenger . One of the perks !

[Capn Bloggs]

loved going down with my hat on to stand next to the cabin crew while she handled a disruptive passenger . One of the perks !
Love it! :ok::ok:

[cLeArIcE]

Our poor cabin crew have to deal with entitled dicks like this every day. Passengers have gotten worse since Tiger disappeared. If sitting next to your family for a few hours is so critical, just pay the dam $15. Fair enough ask the crew the question, but because you don't like her answer doesn't give you the right to not follow instructions. Do what you're told and complain to the airlines later.
Do I agree with all the rules? Not necessarily. Do Jetstar offer the support and customers service that passengers deserve? No of course they don't. But, if you are given a direction by a crew member and choose not to follow it expect the AFP. If you choose to not following their instructions, your probably going to have a bad Day.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Leave the action to the CC who aren't going to escalate it
or ARE they?
Pilots don't know how to fight
No one is asking them to fight. I'm expecting them to exercise the authority those 4 bars give them (and the reason they get the top dollar on the aircraft) and actually attend to a problem in their aircraft that is escalating rapidly out of hand. Perhaps the captain (who for some reason is still held in some esteem by the passengers) actually coming and explaining to the guy why he needed to go back to his seat (at least for the take off) would have diffused this and perhaps carried more weight than a CC just stonewalling. It certainly wouldn't have hurt PR wise for the other passengers, who must have been left wondering just what the f*ck was going on. I dare say the aircraft would have probably left the gate sooner as well.
Keep me informed and tell me if you want him offloaded.
If you are just a rubber stamp, why not give the CC the authority? Seems to be a pain to bother you.
It's a bus with wings, not a cruise ship.
Well then maybe you just need to be paid like a bus driver if that's your attitude to the position.
What about everyone sits in their assigned seat for TAKEOFF. After that, fill your boots
If that is the case, what is the big deal about moving before takeoff. If it makes no difference after, what possible difference can it make before? I do grant the appropriate pax next to exit rows etc, but surely that is something that the cabin crew could monitor, rather than any other MUTUAL seat swap. If my wife and I board, and she sits in my seat and I sit in her seat, who will ever know, let alone care, however it seems to be the major safety concern here. If a bit of common sense had prevailed, the whole "failed to obey direction" would never have happened.
I don't see a "self entitled numpty" in the video. I see a customer (because that is what he is) being confused by the staff as to just what the problem is and what the major crime he has committed is. Perhaps if there were a rational explanation that actually made any sense in the real world provided to him rather than I said, so you have to, it may not have escalated to the point where he gets electrocuted for his troubles.
​​​​​​​Something horrible wrong here .
But no one wants to go near that elephant in the room.

[Lapon]

I cant believe people here are standing up for this passenger.

He doesn't need an explanation of what the problem is in order to follow instructions.
I think most of us could put our individual sense of entitlement aside before the AFP would need to be called.

Clearly he didn't know when to pull his head in when the AFP arrived either and he got the zap.

If he disagreed or wanted further explanation he could have written a letter of complaint afterwards.
If you dont think he deserved a taser then take it up with the AFP.

The moment you start negotiating with the person who won't comply is the moment you've lost authority.

[On eyre]

I cant believe people here are standing up for this passenger.

He doesn't need an explanation of what the problem is in order to follow instructions.
I think most of us could put our individual sense of entitlement aside before the AFP would need to be called.

Clearly he didn't know when to pull his head in when the AFP arrived either and he got the zap.

If he disagreed or wanted further explanation he could have written a letter of complaint afterwards.
If you dont think he deserved a taser then take it up with the AFP.

The moment you start negotiating with the person who won't comply is the moment you've lost authority.

“Got the zap” - hopefully he’s had the snip as well 👍

[das Uber Soldat]

If that is the case, what is the big deal about moving before takeoff.
Try reading the thread. The answer has already been provided.

[Global Aviator]

or ARE they?
No one is asking them to fight. I'm expecting them to exercise the authority those 4 bars give them (and the reason they get the top dollar on the aircraft) and actually attend to a problem in their aircraft that is escalating rapidly out of hand. Perhaps the captain (who for some reason is still held in some esteem by the passengers) actually coming and explaining to the guy why he needed to go back to his seat (at least for the take off) would have diffused this and perhaps carried more weight than a CC just stonewalling. It certainly wouldn't have hurt PR wise for the other passengers, who must have been left wondering just what the f*ck was going on. I dare say the aircraft would have probably left the gate sooner as well.


Exactly.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Try reading the thread. The answer has already been provided.
I've been reading all the pages. I haven't seen a straight answer yet.

[admikar]

I've been reading all the pages. I haven't seen a straight answer yet.
Big deal is because CC said so. Were they in the wrong? Probably. But you are to comply. End of story.

[PoppaJo]

das Uber soldat
Very inhuman of you. Pax don’t read ops manuals .

and the fact that you can even condone the blatant use of excessive force by the thugs merely shows what a horrible person you must be.

What is the other option aside excessive force? To those who don’t comply with crew or AFP instructions? Just sit and stand with them for an hour going back and forth arguing?, because these pax will if you give them the platform.

As I mentioned earlier, I had a similar event, the couple would stop arguing with my crew, I told my crew to give them the go or stay question and I required an answer immediately otherwise you are being removed. Nope. Just wanted to negotiate further. I asked the AFP to remove them immediately as I wish to depart. They continued to argue with the AFP also. After the AFP officer raised his voice they complied. Taser them. Drag them off by the leg. Cable tie them. Myself and the 180 others don’t care. Whatever means, just get them off.

[das Uber Soldat]

I've been reading all the pages. I haven't seen a straight answer yet.
You have. I'll give it to you yet again.

The CC were complying with a requirement stipulated in their operations manual. CAR 215(9) orders them to comply with all provisions of their operations manual. This is a provision of strict liability.

Are you familiar with strict liability Traffic?

If you disagree with the policy, that is another matter. CC on the day had absolutely no choice but to issue an instruction to this bloke to move. He refused a lawful order. The police were called. Have a problem with their conduct? Call the AFP. Has nothing to do with Jetstar.

[Lead Balloon]

Alas, CAR 215 has been repealed.

Guidance of wise folk.

Strict adherence of fools.

Best those fools cite current law.

Why don't they taser every passenger who unbuckles their seatbelt then stands up after landing, before the seatbelt light has been extinguished and despite instructions from CC? It's a strict liability offence for each and every passenger who does this, and I remain outraged that each of them is not arrested and charged - and tasered in the event of non-cooperation - each time I see this after landing, which happens to be every time after landing on commercial RPT.

[Bull_Shark]

Anyone else notice those little signs everywhere you go now, at cafes, restaurants, supermarkets, banks, airports… pretty much any business large or small… those little signs that say “Please respect our staff, abuse won’t be tolerated, please be patient” etc.

Yeah.

The problem doesn’t lie with the police, nor the cabin crew, or even Jetstar.

The problem is that there are a lot of disgusting human beings who for whatever reason (social media, internet, Covid, hardships whatever excuse you want to use) think that they are more important, entitled and special than anyone else.

That’s what it is.

So guess what, if you want to rage against the system and think you’re more special than anyone else, you’re going to get tasered and dragged off like the idiot you are.

[das Uber Soldat]

Alas, CAR 215 has been repealed.

Guidance of wise folk.

Strict adherence of fools.

Best those fools cite current law.
Granted, but a distinction without difference having been moved into part 121. Is it your position that Airline operational personnel are no longer required to comply with their relevant operations manual?

Why don't they taser every passenger who unbuckles their seatbelt then stands up after landing, before the seatbelt light has been extinguished and despite instructions from CC? It's a strict liability offence for each and every passenger who does this, and I remain outraged that each of them is not arrested and charged - and tasered in the event of non-cooperation - each time I see this after landing, which happens to be every time after landing on commercial RPT.
I see. So, given you clearly know better, please enlighten us. You're faced with old mate who's made it clear he's not moving. Now what?

[SQUAWKIDENT]

If I had children I'd want to sit as far away from them as possible.

What a silly man. If you want to sit together - book seats together.

I hate to think what his children are going to turn out like when they're older. They'll probably need therapy.

[Jack D. Ripper]

So old mate swaps seats with another pax to be near his family

Nobody complains until the officious CC decide its a problem.

Now they invoke the Regulations and he falls right into the ‘you’re disobeying our instructions’ trap.

But he and other pax are all perplexed as to what the actual (not the new CC instructions) problem is???

So it would seem that we now live in a world where if a power hungry flighty takes a dislike to you, you better just take it lest you’ll feel 10,000 volts coursing through you……

Some will say he should have complied and then lodged a complaint…. True… but a pointless waste of time and energy.

The way it turned out, Jetstar copped a whole lot of negative press, no doubt further damaging their brand (if thats even possible) and a kid now traumatised having seen their dad tasered and dragged off a plane like a criminal (lets no even go into the racial images).

Surely it would have been easier, less effort and brand damage if Lucy Lou had just let everyone remain happy.

[nose,cabin]

The child needs assistance in emergency from their father on safety grounds. Otherwise an unaccompanied minor.

[KAPAC]

Watched him interviewed, he did not explain it very well but he mentioned on the first attempt at a departure they were seated together . Then on next attempt he was separated so swapped to correct mistake .

Yes Yes , passengers must follow instructions ,it’s the law, no one is special etc etc .

[SHVC]

So old mate swaps seats with another pax to be near his family

Nobody complains until the officious CC decide its a problem.

Now they invoke the Regulations and he falls right into the ‘you’re disobeying our instructions’ trap.

But he and other pax are all perplexed as to what the actual (not the new CC instructions) problem is???

So it would seem that we now live in a world where if a power hungry flighty takes a dislike to you, you better just take it lest you’ll feel 10,000 volts coursing through you……

Some will say he should have complied and then lodged a complaint…. True… but a pointless waste of time and energy.

The way it turned out, Jetstar copped a whole lot of negative press, no doubt further damaging their brand (if thats even possible) and a kid now traumatised having seen their dad tasered and dragged off a plane like a criminal (lets no even go into the racial images).

Surely it would have been easier, less effort and brand damage if Lucy Lou had just let everyone remain happy.

The kid will be traumatized because of the actions of their father, not of the actions of the AFP. If he can’t follow directions from the law, what is he teaching his kid anyway. This guy seem like a real $hit bag.

[Orange future]

What safety concerns arise from a passenger swapping seats?

Are passengers permitted to swap seats in flight?

[Lapon]

What safety concerns arise from a passenger swapping seats?

Are passengers permitted to swap seats in flight?

Can't speak for JQ, but my outfit requires passengers to remain in thier allocated seat until after takeoff.

The intent is to prevent a scramble for the out of zone empty seats, but the intent of a policy, discretion or the ability to apply common sense is not given to our CC. They are given minimal training, a rigid script to follow, and a stick to ensure they produce thier widgets without independent thought. Blame the system not them.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Some will say he should have complied and then lodged a complaint…. True… but a pointless waste of time and energy.

Whereas what happened instead was a good use of his time and energy?

[Lookleft]

Why don't they taser every passenger who unbuckles their seatbelt then stands up after landing, before the seatbelt light has been extinguished and despite instructions from CC? It's a strict liability offence for each and every passenger who does this, and I remain outraged that each of them is not arrested and charged - and tasered in the event of non-cooperation - each time I see this after landing, which happens to be every time after landing on commercial RPT.

I am not surprised that you sit there outraged, probably in a similar fashion to when you have to read the QNH back to Canberra Approach! The passengers are told to sit down by the CC. As the crew are complying with the requirement by being seated themselves then they can only issue verbal instructions to comply with the regulations. They will be offloading themselves anyway so no need for the AFP or tasering. If however they refuse to disembark then the AFP with the tasering option will be in play. If pax are not going to follow instructions before takeoff then its not going to get any better once in the air as the CM has lost any vestige of authority. All this pax had to do was follow the CC instructions and all would have been fine. Quite possibly he was told that once airborne then the seats could have been sorted out. For all those who think what does it matter, then you do not understand the clusterF#%$k that is Jetstar's loading system. A lot of you would not be aware that Jetstar nearly had an A321 go off the end of 16 in Melbourne because of an aircraft swap and too many pax were loaded forward. The PF pulled back at Vr and nothing happened, the aircraft stayed firmly attached to the runway. So the problem lays with the airline and the crew have to bear the brunt of the consequences.

[Fliegenmong]

I think everyone here would know that a singular pax changing a seat will make FA difference to weight & balance. Similarly, in a catastrophic event seat numbers dont identify people strewn across a runway!

Seems like inexperienced crew on a power trip, need to learn a little about discretion maybe? Sure, of course he should have complied! But was what he was complying with worth the bad publicity that was the end result?

[Global Aviator]

Watched him interviewed, he did not explain it very well but he mentioned on the first attempt at a departure they were seated together . Then on next attempt he was separated so swapped to correct mistake .

Yes Yes , passengers must follow instructions ,it’s the law, no one is special etc etc .

First I’ve seen reference to this. Was the first flight delayed/ cancelled?

[Lapon]

I think everyone here would know that a singular pax changing a seat will make FA difference to weight & balance. Similarly, in a catastrophic event seat numbers dont identify people strewn across a runway!

Seems like inexperienced crew on a power trip, need to learn a little about discretion maybe? Sure, of course he should have complied! But was what he was complying with worth the bad publicity that was the end result?

That idea worked in years past, the reality at many airlines now is that (cabin) crew are trained to a minimum standard and any discretion they once had has gone.
They must follow the script... or else!

Besides this moron passenger got tasered by the cops. We've all been out of line in arguments before, but never neen tasered. What does that say about the guy.

The policy might have been unnecessary, but not as unnecessary as this guys actions obviously were.

[Eclan]

Anyone else notice those little signs everywhere you go now, at cafes, restaurants, supermarkets, banks, airports… pretty much any business large or small… those little signs that say “Please respect our staff, abuse won’t be tolerated, please be patient” etc.

The problem doesn’t lie with the police, nor the cabin crew, or even Jetstar.

The problem is that there are a lot of disgusting human beings who for whatever reason (social media, internet, Covid, hardships whatever excuse you want to use) think that they are more important, entitled and special than anyone else.
For every badly-behaved or in your words "disgusting" customer needing to read that sign is a badly-behaved, boorish, ill-mannered, entitled customer-service person who brings bad behaviour upon him or herself by providing such a ****ty, sub-par and frustrating experience to the paying customer that sanity is pushed to the limit. In the dining industry Aussies are renowned for providing grudging service as if they are above having to bow to anyone else, even someone paying the salary.

When I see those "respect our staff" signs my first thought is generally about how bad the service must be to enrage the customers frequently enough to warrant such a defence. Those signs are little more than a cop-out for the standard of their service or product which is the fault of anyone but the customer. Jetstar and Qantas are regularly in the news for the crimes against humanity to which their paying passengers are routinely subjected and I notice the PAs now include a parental-style urging to respect the staff.

One day someone should do a study on the weird, symbiotic yet antagonistic relationship between punter and sandwiche-chucker. For a few hours at a time, they need each other yet often detest each other. One is fed by the other and vice versa and yet the antipathy displayed toward each other, particularly to the pax by the hostie, is bizarre.

Whereas what happened instead was a good use of his time and energy?
At least he got his energy re-charged at no extra cost.

[Eclan]

.......lets (sic) no (sic) even go into the racial images.


What is it you're trying to say here, Jack? Spit it out.

(My bold and italics.)

[nose,cabin]

The father of this young child only had the best intentions for his child.

Safety and their well being should be the crew’s first priority, or so they remind us.

Imagine RTO with evacuation, or depressurising need oxygen,

the child is alone and in need of assistance, he did not see the preflight briefing from his low eye level seat,
and can not understand the takeoff briefing card.

It is the crew’s responsibility to ensure children are safe and not left alone. Not separate them.

Children are your future customers, treat them as very important customers, good airlines provide colour pencils and books etc.

[ScepticalOptomist]

The father of this young child only had the best intentions for his child.

Safety and their well being should be the crew’s first priority, or so they remind us.

Imagine RTO with evacuation, or depressurising need oxygen,

the child is alone and in need of assistance, he did not see the preflight briefing from his low eye level seat,
and can not understand the takeoff briefing card.

It is the crew’s responsibility to ensure children are safe and not left alone. Not separate them.

Children are your future customers, treat them as very important customers, good airlines provide colour pencils and books etc.

The child was with its mother.

[Lead Balloon]

I see. So, given you clearly know better, please enlighten us. You're faced with old mate who's made it clear he's not moving. Now what?It would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances. If there’s been a swapping of seats by agreement between passengers, there’s no W&B risk and we know that being in the allocated seat for post-accident identification purposes is a furphy. Did old mate make it clear that he wasn’t going to comply with any directions of any crew in any circumstances? Lots of responsible people refuse to do patently stupid things but otherwise comply.

But I get it: With all the strict liability offences in the rules, the hapless minions called crew aren’t allowed to assess the safety implications and de-escalation options. As soon as there was a refusal to comply, it had to be escalated and the only option was to insist on compliance and to call in the police when there was a failure to comply. Otherwise, the hapless minions called crew commit their own strict liability offence for failure to comply with the ops manual. It’s ‘safety’ through imposition of strict liability on everyone for failure to strictly comply with the rules. No room for any application of any wisdom, here.

(One of the fascinating aspects of the tasering of old mate is that the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety directions (CASR 91.575) is confined to directions given “during the flight”. Similarly, the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety instructions (CASR 91.580) is confined to instructions given “during a flight”. There is a definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act. Can anyone point me to the bit of CASR that says that the word “flight” in CASRs 91.575 and 91.580 has a different meaning to the definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act?

Had the aircraft started moving under its own power before the CC directed old mate to return to his allocated seat? It may turn very untidy for the airline and AFP if old mate was never subject to a lawful direction to return to his allocated seat. And a bit embarrassing for those who keep saying that old mate committed a strict liability offence as soon as he failed to do what he was told by CC...)

[megan]

One day someone should do a study on the weird, symbiotic yet antagonistic relationship between punter and sandwiche-chuckerAmazing how you use an acceptable term for the customer and yet a derogatory wording for the CC, there be a problem. Society in general has a problem, respect is missing, I can honestly say I've never had a problem as a customer with anyone, treat the other with respect and it will be returned in spades. Jetstar went tech in Brisbane and the chap at the desk was providing exemplary service in arranging overnight accommodation, dinner, transport etc, chap in front of me was a FIFO worker and started with the demands on the basis of "we provide so much business to the company", very belligerent and got short shift from the Jetstar chap who told him in no uncertain manner that if he didn't belt up he wouldn't be getting any service at all.

Flew into Brisbane one morning on a Thai international which went tech (why always Brisbane) and so didn't get to the ultimate Tulla destination. Desk staff were inundated with a full 777 load to organise onward travel and handing out vouchers for the terminal restaurant when a six foot something twenty stone of so barged to the front of the line with a list of demands, got up from my seat and tried to calm him down, brother and I then headed for the restaurant, walking down the finger this chap was right behind us saying "come outside and lets sort this out" then kicked me in the ankle trying to trip me up. Sitting in the restaurant two police walked in, came to our table wanting details as to what had occurred, told the story and asked if we wanted to press charges for assault, explained that folk do get upset in such circumstances and sort of understandable, but on reflection should have had him charged as I later thought I bet he uses his intimidating bulk to always get what he wants. What I didn't know until later was at the time we walking down the finger the chap and we were being followed by a prison governor and some of his guards who were part of our travel group, so if he wanted to kick off he was in trouble. It was they who alerted the police. Travel to Tulla was finally arranged on a QF 767 via Sydney, staff ensured the bully was the very last to board and had to endure the jeering, hooting and clapping of all on board as he made the trek from the front entry door to the very last row at the back.

Drove a young pilot to catch a flight to Adelaide from Tulla enroute to their first flying job, bags of belongings which were assigned as freight, when checking the freight in got talking with the lad behind the desk as to what it was all for and he cut the charges in half, can't remember the airline as its some decades ago. Treat folk with respect and it gets returned with interest.

[Mach E Avelli]

(One of the fascinating aspects of the tasering of old mate is that the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety directions (CASR 91.575) is confined to directions given “during the flight”. Similarly, the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety instructions (CASR 91.580) is confined to instructions given “during a flight”. There is a definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act. Can anyone point me to the bit of CASR that says that the word “flight” in CASRs 91.575 and 91.580 has a different meaning to the definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act?

Had the aircraft started moving under its own power before the CC directed old mate to return to his allocated seat? It may turn very untidy for the airline and AFP if old mate was never subject to a lawful direction to return to his allocated seat.)
Only a sleazebag ambulance chasing lawyer reading this would seriously put forth such an argument. Sadly, the state of our judiciary is so soft, that some judge with no regards for setting dangerous precedent could well accept it.
In my day it was simple. The Captain was in command from the moment he boarded the aircraft until he handed it over at the end of the duty. It followed that Cabin Crew held certain authority because they were delegated by the Captain.
Whatever happened to CDF?

[KAPAC]

Ground agent must have authority over seating before door closed . Cabin crew are making assessments of individuals while boarding and if one found not fit to fly or occupy emergency seating then has obligation to resit them , offload or call in the taser team ?

[Lookleft]

I have never heard of a passenger who has been turfed off an aeroplane for not following instructions, successfully suing the airline over the definition of flight.

[Eclan]

Amazing how you use an acceptable term for the customer and yet a derogatory wording for the CC, there be a problem.
My apologies for the imbalance but I couldn't think of an adjective sufficiently derogatory to describe your stereotypical Jetstar pax and yet not a such a generalisation as to possibly be confused with certain elements of wider society.

As for the crew, most of them can see the humorous side and accept sandwiche-chucker, biscuit-flinger, trolley-dolly, wagon-dragon, etc etc as terms of endearment.

I can honestly say I've never had a problem as a customer with anyone, treat the other with respect and it will be returned in spades.
It sounds like you are a master of Zen or close to it. I salute you.

Treat folk with respect and it gets returned with interest.
It's nice when this works however I'm not sure I'd go so far as to imply this is an unshakeable principle of contemporary social interaction.

......on a QF 767 via Sydney, staff ensured the bully was the very last to board and had to endure the jeering, hooting and clapping of all on board as he made the trek from the front entry door to the very last row at the back.
Classic.

[Eclan]

I have never heard of a passenger who has been turfed off an aeroplane for not following instructions, successfully suing the airline over the definition of flight.
Maybe we'll see a new legal precedent set as a result of this; it could be very interesting. Let's hope the punter includes pprune in his search for legal advice. And why not? Many pilots get their financial advice here.

[Lead Balloon]

Only a sleazebag ambulance chasing lawyer reading this would seriously put forth such an argument. Sadly, the state of our judiciary is so soft, that some judge with no regards for setting dangerous precedent could well accept it.
In my day it was simple. The Captain was in command from the moment he boarded the aircraft until he handed it over at the end of the duty. It followed that Cabin Crew held certain authority because they were delegated by the Captain.
Whatever happened to CDF?Jeez mach, you’re doing a bit of messenger execution there. I merely quoted what a couple of the rules say and pondered the consequences of them meaning what they say if they were what the CC were relying on as the source of their authority. I didn’t write those rules.

Even ‘in your day’ there was – and remains to this day - the quaint concept that subjecting a person to physically injurious contact – like tasering them – then manhandling them and depriving them of liberty were crimes, unless conducted with lawful authority and reasonable force. Even the toughest of tough judges won’t accept “CDF” as the lawful authority excusing what would otherwise be crimes. (Though I do note that, back in the ‘good ol days’ of police engaging in the sport of ‘poofter bashing’, the poofters were asking for it. It was CDF, wasn’t it.)

I don’t know the basis upon which the police decided they had authority to do what they did to old mate. For all I know, the crew decided that he was no longer permitted to be on board and was therefore trespassing as soon as he was informed of that then failed to leave the aircraft when asked to do so. Arresting someone for trespass is not the same as arresting them for failing to comply with safety directions or safety instructions under the CASRs I quoted. And I don’t know the specifics of the ‘turfings off’ to which Lookleft referred.

All I can say is that if the only basis upon which the police intervened was old mate’s failure to comply with a safety direction under CASR 91.575 or a safety instruction under CASR 91.580, the durr-obvious starting point for anyone defending him will be to 'read' those provisions. And when those provisions are read, there is a durr-obvious limitation as to when a direction or instruction binding under the provisions may be given. As I say: I didn’t write them. And I did ask whether I’d missed anything obvious.

[das Uber Soldat]

It would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances. If there’s been a swapping of seats by agreement between passengers, there’s no W&B risk and we know that being in the allocated seat for post-accident identification purposes is a furphy. Did old mate make it clear that he wasn’t going to comply with any directions of any crew in any circumstances? Lots of responsible people refuse to do patently stupid things but otherwise comply.

But I get it: With all the strict liability offences in the rules, the hapless minions called crew aren’t allowed to assess the safety implications and de-escalation options. As soon as there was a refusal to comply, it had to be escalated and the only option was to insist on compliance and to call in the police when there was a failure to comply. Otherwise, the hapless minions called crew commit their own strict liability offence for failure to comply with the ops manual. It’s ‘safety’ through imposition of strict liability on everyone for failure to strictly comply with the rules. No room for any application of any wisdom, here.

(One of the fascinating aspects of the tasering of old mate is that the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety directions (CASR 91.575) is confined to directions given “during the flight”. Similarly, the obligation of a passenger to comply with safety instructions (CASR 91.580) is confined to instructions given “during a flight”. There is a definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act. Can anyone point me to the bit of CASR that says that the word “flight” in CASRs 91.575 and 91.580 has a different meaning to the definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act?

Had the aircraft started moving under its own power before the CC directed old mate to return to his allocated seat? It may turn very untidy for the airline and AFP if old mate was never subject to a lawful direction to return to his allocated seat. And a bit embarrassing for those who keep saying that old mate committed a strict liability offence as soon as he failed to do what he was told by CC...)
For the last few decades at least, it certainly was an offence of strict liability, so you can stow the attitude. Yes, a whole 15 or so months ago that was repealed and moved with what appears to be a distinction for 'flight', so if you want to argue in court that you're under no obligation to follow CC instructions during the pushback, by all means undo the seatbelt, hop up and run around. I'm sure only success awaits.

What shouldn't be in debate is whether or not the CC are able to invent their own rules in contravention with their ops manual. No. Oddly enough, you seem to recognise this fact, so the actual point of your post is lost on me, beyond an 'aaakkcctthhhuaallly' moment that is of course, Pure Professional Pilot.

It would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances.
Except it wouldn't. I asked you in the previous post, is it your position that operating personal are not required to comply with policy and procedures laid out in their operations manual? You dodged the question so I put it to you again. Because if no, then the entire argument is moot. CC did what they were required to do, the end. It seems more like you have an issue with strict liability, which will incur no objection from me. But it has nothing to do with JQ.

[Lead Balloon]

And there we have it.

You asked what I would do, I answered that what I would do would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances, and you simply assert that it wouldn't. I even explained that I understand why you drones consider you have no choice but to comply with the ops manual rather than apply any of your own wisdom. I said I get it.

Every day I give thanks to all the deities that I'm not a cockpit meat puppet. I pity you, das.

[Lookleft]

Every day I give thanks to all the deities that I'm not a cockpit meat puppet.

​​​​​​​I'm sure your brother would appreciate that description of his profession.

[Bull at a Gate]

To all of you who blamed the passenger for not selecting seats properly - KAPAC has it right. He was going to be with his family until Jetstar switched aircraft.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

You have. I'll give it to you yet again.

The CC were complying with a requirement stipulated in their operations manual. CAR 215(9) orders them to comply with all provisions of their operations manual. This is a provision of strict liability.
Were they? What requirement would that be? That passengers must sit in their assigned seats? I haven't seen JQ doing ID to seat checks of every passenger prior to pushback to ensure they are compliant with their Ops Manual. Why was this individual singled out if no one else was checked that they were sitting in their assigned seat....you know,....as per the requirement apparently stipulated in their operations manual? You know, the one that the now defunct CAR ordered them to comply with? You know, the one with the strict liability?

[das Uber Soldat]

You know, the one that the now defunct CAR ordered them to comply with? You know, the one with the strict liability?
I've already addressed the CAR. Provisions still exist, just moved. Still strict liability.

What requirement would that be?
The one written in black and white in OM12?

That passengers must sit in their assigned seats?
That's the one. You've even had another pilot from a different operator confirm that this requirement exists in their operation also. Its hardly unusual or unique.

I haven't seen JQ doing ID to seat checks of every passenger prior to pushback to ensure they are compliant with their Ops Manual. Why was this individual singled out if no one else was checked that they were sitting in their assigned seat....you know,....as per the requirement apparently stipulated in their operations manual?
When the headcount fails, out comes the manifest and you better believe they go through each passenger on a name basis to ensure they are where they're supposed to be.

All of this is utterly irrelevant. To revisit, you claimed the CC acted incorrectly. So, I'll ask you the same question that Lead Balloon has now dodged 3 times.

Do you believe operational personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual? We can wrap this whole thing up right now with an answer to that question. I'm all ears.

Moving on;

You asked what I would do, I answered that what I would do would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances, and you simply assert that it wouldn't.

I even explained that I understand why you drones consider you have no choice but to comply with the ops manual rather than apply any of your own wisdom. I said I get it.
These two statements are contradictory. Statement 1 you declare that you'd potentially act in contravention to your ops manual. Statement 2 you say you 'understand' why us 'drones' (lovely) have no choice.

So you haven't answered my question at all. Either you believe operational personnel are required to comply with the ops manual (which would include you, thus precluding you from making your own decision), or you don't, which creates a whole other interesting conversation. For the 3rd time, which is it?

Every day I give thanks to all the deities that I'm not a cockpit meat puppet. I pity you, das.
You must be fun at parties.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

DAS DRONE -
Part 1-
I presume the doors were open.
As stated he had bought a ticket to sit with is his family.
Aircraft Changed.
He agreeably swapped with another pax to be seated next to his family,
There was never a c of g issue.
The CC should have let him be- there was no safety issue.
The CC should have first brought the issue to the ground staff.
I assume the CC brought the issue she felt to the Captain. (Well she should have). The captain should have allowed him to stay.
They should have pushed back on time an all happy.

Part 2
The Police Thugs-
I am pretty sure that they will get their arses handed to them on a plate in court. Use of TASER in the absence of a physical threat to them, as annunciated by the witnesses, is a crime.

Like Lead Balloon states - SOPS are not black and white. Never have been. Only fools and drones follow them at all times to the the letter.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The one written in black and white in OM12
Enlighten me with what OM12 says? I'm as blissfully ignorant of its content as I'm sure the passengers are.

[Orange future]

Having finally viewed the video in its entirety and listened to every witness interview I could find, it leaves me slightly disturbed that so many posters in this debate are totally comfortable with the outcome of this incident and speechless that some even appear gleeful.

As others have stated, we live in a world of grey, seldom black and white including the operation of an aircraft.

Australia always has had a considerable culture of blind compliance and here it is in full display. It turns out, not surprisingly that there is more to the incident than originally thought and some posters should have kept their powder dry.

This passanger was put in a damned if you do/damned if you dont situation by an airline customer service culture that too frequently substitutes practicality and pragmatism with a demand for total compliance regardless of the absurdity of the situation.

[KRviator]

Do you believe operational personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual? We can wrap this whole thing up right now with an answer to that question. I'm all ears.So, my question is you say the operators OM's require passengers to stay in their assigned seats until after takeoff. Now I've no inherent problem with that concept if it's not a one-for-one swap, but if it is one-for-one and mutually agreed, then personally believe it should have been ignored in this event and all others, for the reasons others have put forward. If CC want to make an issue of it, why do they not cross-check seat assignment vs photo ID for every flight? Short answer is, (you know, and I know) they don't and 99.95% of the time, they couldn't care less anyway unless someone's gone to an unoccupied seat with the potential W&B issues that could result, slim as that chance may be.

But...

Go back a few years to the brouhaha where a male passenger (and more than one...) was moved from his assigned seat because he was sitting next to an unaccompanied minor - presumably the manifest wasn't updated, given it was the CC that ordered the move immediately before pushback, so why would that instance be acceptable - as it's "company policy to order such a move based solely on gender" - yet this one, is not?

To me, this particular instance smacks of the CC trying to emulate Cartman, "You will respect my authoreteh!" - and FWIW, I would challangebthe CC if they tried the similar thing on me, if I was travelling. Yes, my kids could sit next to the KRviatrix with me being 4,5,10 rows away - but in an emergency, particularly having regards to an evacuation, there's no way she could reasonably get herself and the two kids off the aircraft. But so long as I'm in my assigned seat, that's all good, right?

[ChrisVJ]

"Every passenger shall sit in his/her assigned seat."
"Passengers shall obey the instruction of the crew."

Simple. CC assign that passenger to that seat and the swapper to theirs. Passengers sitting in assigned seats and following instruction of CC.

[Lead Balloon]

You’re not comprehending what I’ve written, das. Please read this again, twice:[What I would do] would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances. If there’s been a swapping of seats by agreement between passengers, there’s no W&B risk and we know that being in the allocated seat for post-accident identification purposes is a furphy. Did old mate make it clear that he wasn’t going to comply with any directions of any crew in any circumstances? Lots of responsible people refuse to do patently stupid things but otherwise comply.

But I get it: With all the strict liability offences in the rules, the hapless minions called crew aren’t allowed to assess the safety implications and de-escalation options. As soon as there was a refusal to comply, it had to be escalated and the only option was to insist on compliance and to call in the police when there was a failure to comply. Otherwise, the hapless minions called crew commit their own strict liability offence for failure to comply with the ops manual. It’s ‘safety’ through imposition of strict liability on everyone for failure to strictly comply with the rules. No room for any application of any wisdom, here.I get it das: You interpret your Ops Manual as holy aviation writ, giving you and your crew ZERO options to exercise ANY judgment or apply ANY wisdom because that would be – prepare to genuflect – a strict liability offence for failure to comply with the Ops Manual. I get it.

But there’s a reason for that old saying about rules being for the guidance of wise people and strict adherence of fools. I get the impression that you don’t understand the reason.

I’ll give you a very simple example, to try again to get the point across. It’s a strict liability offence not to declare a MAYDAY if I realise I’m going to land with less than 30 minutes of final reserve fuel. Am I going to comply that rule when I can see the circuit area of the quiet little country aerodrome in G at which I’m about to land 2 minutes into that fuel? No. You can call the police to taser and arrest me after landing, but I’m not declaring a MAYDAY. (And before the usual suspects launch breathlessly into the ‘but what if’s’ about aircraft blocking the runway or having to go around or whatever, I’ll apply my judgment to those circumstances if they arise. You might be having a conniption about my outrageous flouting of the rules and be itching to get me tasered, but we’re different. That’s my point. The different perspectives are obvious throughout this thread.)

Lookleft: My brother is long and happily retired from a successful career, exercising judgment and applying wisdom to complex problems – including dealing with passenger issues – over decades at the front end of heavy metal. Passengers tasered: Nil.

[Lookleft]

So the label "cockpit meat puppet" doesn't apply to pilots of a certain vintage? You do realise that this is a forum for professional pilots. If you want to denigrate professional pilots you denigrate them all, even the retired ones.

[Lead Balloon]

It appears you’re not paying sufficient attention, either, Lookleft (though in your case it’s usually a consequence of blind prejudice). Had you been paying sufficient attention and not been blinded by prejudice, you’d know and accept that this forum is for whomever chooses to post in it, subject to agreement to the terms of use and other policies.

Some pilots claim to be professionals when their behaviour demonstrates otherwise. I don’t describe pilots who exercise judgment and apply wisdom in their decision-making as cockpit meat puppets. They know who they are – of whatever vintage, retired or otherwise – and I’m confident they’re not feeling denigrated by mere words used by a nobody like me.

You presume to speak for all 'professional pilots'. Big call.

[Lookleft]

There are professional pilots and then there are wannabes. You presume to judge pilots who don't meet your personal standard of who are "cockpit meat puppets" and who are not. I think I have a better idea of the mindset of the professional pilot. I can also tell the mindset of those who think they know what goes on in the cockpit but then try to bluster their way into a discussion with legal weasel words. A big call? I have to make them all the time as a professional pilot.

[das Uber Soldat]

You’re not comprehending what I’ve written, das.
There is little requiring comprehension there. You've dodged the question now 4 times. "The rules apply to others, not to me" isn't an answer.

For the 5th time, do you believe operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.

This is a yes/no question. I don't need another waffling paragraph featuring some curated made up scenario in a bid to avoid the question. Just a yes, or a no.

Can you manage even this?

[das Uber Soldat]

Enlighten me with what OM12 says? I'm as blissfully ignorant of its content as I'm sure the passengers are.
Asked and answered.

Meanwhile, as expected, you've dodged my question. I'll ask again.

Do you believe operational personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual?

Yes or no.

Its like pulling teeth with these people.

[Eclan]

There is little requiring comprehension there. You've dodged the question now 4 times.......For the 5th time, do you believe operating personnel are required to .......This is a yes/no question. I don't need another waffling paragraph featuring some curated made up scenario in a bid to avoid the question. Just a yes, or a no...... Can you manage even this?

It appears you’re not paying sufficient attention, either, Lookleft .............blinded by prejudice.........cockpit meat puppets. They know who they are – of whatever vintage, retired or otherwise – ..............You presume to speak for all 'professional pilots'.

certainly was an offence of strict liability, so you can stow the attitude. Yes, a whole 15 or so months ago that was repealed and moved with what appears to be a distinction for 'flight'

It’s a strict liability offence not to declare a MAYDAY......

My god, what rot is being posted here. A guy changed seats and became disruptive and was removed and we have this garbage being thrown back and forth, ad nauseum. No wonder we are the butt of jokes in the international aviation scene, no wonder we have so many rules and regulations governing our lives in this nanny state if this is how people in our society really think things should work. You guys do us proud. You do know people from other countries read this forum, right? They come here for a laugh.

I'd rather read through another covid vaccines thread than this crap. Where's the flying binghi???

[das Uber Soldat]

My god, what rot is being posted here. A guy changed seats and became disruptive and was removed and we have this garbage being thrown back and forth, ad nauseum. No wonder we are the butt of jokes in the international aviation scene, no wonder we have so many rules and regulations governing our lives in this nanny state if this is how people in our society really think things should work. You guys do us proud. You do know people from other countries read this forum, right? They come here for a laugh.
Take it up with the legislators? What people need to get their head around is that those at the coal face have little choice but to comply with their manuals.

[Lead Balloon]

There is little requiring comprehension there. You've dodged the question now 4 times. "The rules apply to others, not to me" isn't an answer.

For the 5th time, do you believe operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.

This is a yes/no question. I don't need another waffling paragraph featuring some curated made up scenario in a bid to avoid the question. Just a yes, or a no.

Can you manage even this?There is much requiring comprehension, das.

I didn't say the rules apply to others, not me. I keep saying that rules are for the guidance of wise people and strict adherence of fools and keep trying to get you to comprehend why.

The scenario I gave was not a 'curated made up scenario'. It was actually the subject of a discussion I had with an ATO (or flight examiner or whatever they're called these days) during my most recent flight review. It is a real life example of a real obligation to which I am subject, on pain of strict criminal liability, with which obligation I choose not to comply because my judgment is that compliance in the scenario discussed will contribute not thing one to anyone's safety. The ATO agreed with me.

I don't "believe" that operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual. I know they have a statutory obligation to comply with their ops manual.

For the 6th time: I get it. Please just get on which strict adherence to the rules. You appear simply incapable of comprehending any scope for the exercise of any judgment or application of any wisdom contrary to a rule.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Arguing with a lawyer is like mud wrestling a pig. After a while, you get the feeling he enjoys it.

If the rules were written by wise men, then even blind, obedient fools would appear wise. Alas, lawyers got involved.

[cxflog]

Where's the flying binghi???
I would much prefer to read his garbage than that which is being posted here.

#freetheflyingbinghi

[das Uber Soldat]

I don't "believe" that operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.
Halleluiah, we finally have a straight answer. And what an answer it is.

I think we're done here.

[Icarus2001]

A bit mean with the selective quoting there Uber...

What he said was...

I don't "believe" that operating personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual. I know they have a statutory obligation to comply with their ops manual.

[das Uber Soldat]

A bit mean with the selective quoting there Uber...
Not at all, and indeed if you take the full quote, I believe that makes it even worse. He knows he's required to follow the rules and still believes he's not bound by them.

Good luck with that.

[Lookleft]

I know they have a statutory obligation to comply with their ops manual.

In fairness to LB I think this was his answer but his vicarious knowledge of operating in the world of airline ops just does not allow for this:

​​​​​​​You appear simply incapable of comprehending any scope for the exercise of any judgment or application of any wisdom contrary to a rule.


Operating outside the manuals is only available in an emergency and is explicitly stated in the airline manuals. Go outside the manual because you as an individual don't think it its sensible, wise, whatever will only get you shown the door. LB ask your ATO mate what would be the consequence of your scenario if it was a commercial operation. If you didn't declare a MAYDAY fuel even for two minutes into your reserve then CASA and the airline would be after your head before you left the flight deck.

[Lead Balloon]

In fairness to LB I think this was his answer but his vicarious knowledge of operating in the world of airline ops just does not allow for this:
Operating outside the manuals is only available in an emergency and is explicitly stated in the airline manuals. Go outside the manual because you as an individual don't think it its sensible, wise, whatever will only get you shown the door. LB ask your ATO mate what would be the consequence of your scenario if it was a commercial operation. If you didn't declare a MAYDAY fuel even for two minutes into your reserve then CASA and the airline would be after your head before you left the flight deck.Hopefully CASA and the airline would taser and arrest you first. After all, you would have deliberately flouted the rules like old mate.

So the safety implications of consuming 2 minutes of final reserve when in a private aircraft in sight of the quiet destination aerodrome in G might be different than for an RPT jet inbound to a busy airport? Crikey. And, in contrast to a MAYDAY from the private aircraft, there could be some response by ATC and others to effectively mitigate the risks of the RPT jet’s fuel state? Struth.

I’ll have to write all that down in my Big Book of Vicariously Gained Knowledge.

As a matter of interest, how many different airlines have you flown for, Lookleft? You das? If for more than one, did all their Ops Manuals impose exactly the same obligations on crew about who deals with passengers who refuse to comply with a direction from CC, and in what way?

I’m wondering whether the Jetstar Ops Manual is written on the basis that when you’re running a cattle class service the passengers deserve to be treated like cattle.

[tossbag]

No wonder we are the butt of jokes in the international aviation scene, no wonder we have so many rules and regulations governing our lives in this nanny state if this is how people in our society really think things should work.

You know what I found out today, that it's actually law that you can only have a certain number of cattle per acre. How cool is that? One less thing that a farmer needs to make a decision about in their busy day. I'll bet pilots wish they had more rules like this.

I don't care if other countries laugh at us, at least we have governments that care enough about us to free us from personal responsibility and decision making.

[Pinky the pilot]

at least we have governments that care enough about us to free us from personal responsibility and decision making.

I will leave comment to the above quote to others who are far more erudite and intelligent than I.

Tossbag; Please confirm that the above quoted comment was made very much 'tongue in cheek.'

[cLeArIcE]

Honestly if you gave me the choice of sitting through a whole Jetstar flight or being tasered, ****ing myself and being dragged off by the AFP I'm not sure which I'd pick.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Do you believe operational personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual?
Since it doesn't seem that you can answer a straight question, I'll get yours out of the way. Yes I do. It's a pretty standard workplace requirement. My workplace has policies and procedures I am bound by as well.
Now, what is the wording in the ops manual, this mysterious OM12, that the JQ CC was following to the letter that resulted in this situation? How else can we establish if the operational personnel were in fact complying with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.

[cloudsurfng]

Honestly if you gave me the choice of sitting through a whole Jetstar flight or being tasered, ****ing myself and being dragged off by the AFP I'm not sure which I'd pick.


best post on the entire site 😂

[Icarus2001]

cLeArIcE, a very astute observation. I would like to buy you a beer. Brilliant.

[sideslyp]

Yep, Australia 2023 - I live there...Crew and Police and trained robots, no initiative, no brain, no empathy, total lack of problem solving skills - do it by the book and paragraph. Try talking to jetstar customer service - I'll take my chance with a google AI once it replaces them all.
I hope that this guy takes them to court, the passengers provide sufficient evidence and he gets a couple of millions. Its the only way to change things - hit them where it hurts.

[Lookleft]

Don't worry "that guy" will get his day in court but there won't be any compensation. This is not just a Jetstar problem and if you want to be outraged at the way disruptive passengers are treated then put those words into a search engine. You might want to look at ICAO's take on the problem, for a problem it is. https://www.icao.int/Meetings/LegalSeminar/Documents/TC_State%20of%20the%20Issue%20of%20Unruly%20Passengers.pdf

LB you really are clueless when it comes to jet RPT operations:

So the safety implications of consuming 2 minutes of final reserve when in a private aircraft in sight of the quiet destination aerodrome in G might be different than for an RPT jet inbound to a busy airport? Crikey. And, in contrast to a MAYDAY from the private aircraft, there could be some response by ATC and others to effectively mitigate the risks of the RPT jet’s fuel state? Struth.

I can just imagine Captain LB blithely disregarding his F/O's concern about landing with the FR not being intact and not declaring MAYDAY fuel. I can also well imagine Captain LB trying to bluster his way through the subsequent Flight Ops and CASA interview explaining why the F/O's use of the Emergency Statement was way over the top as Captain LB knew the aircraft and all its occupants were perfectly safe with 28 minutes of FR in the fuel tank.

[Lead Balloon]

I wouldn't do that in those circumstances. That's the point. If you don't get that point - rather than being deliberately obtuse - I genuinely fear for your passengers.

[cloudsurfng]

Yep, Australia 2023 - I live there...Crew and Police and trained robots, no initiative, no brain, no empathy, total lack of problem solving skills - do it by the book and paragraph. Try talking to jetstar customer service - I'll take my chance with a google AI once it replaces them all.
I hope that this guy takes them to court, the passengers provide sufficient evidence and he gets a couple of millions. Its the only way to change things - hit them where it hurts.

they won’t have any money left after they lose in the high court.

[kitchen bench]

Its the only way to change things - hit them where it hurts.

So, that's what happened to old mate. Can we expect him to change???? :)

[Lookleft]

That's the point. If you don't get that point

You are the lawyer, you get paid more by not getting to the point. No need to worry about my passengers, its yours I fear for with your "I know planes" attitude. More than happy to have one less belligerent passenger who thinks they know better than the crew to not travel on my aircraft.

[Lead Balloon]

I ask you and das a second time:As a matter of interest, how many different airlines have you flown for, Lookleft? You das? If for more than one, did all their Ops Manuals impose exactly the same obligations on crew about who deals with passengers who refuse to comply with a direction from CC, and in what way?I also note that TIER’s question to das remains unanswered:[W]hat is the wording in the ops manual, this mysterious OM12, that the JQ CC was following to the letter that resulted in this situation? How else can we establish if the operational personnel were in fact complying with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.

[oicur12.again]

Blind obedience to irrational rules enforced by a poorly trained 21 year old backed up by the threat of physical violence?

Orwell will be spinning in his grave.

[plainmaker]

My understanding garnered from a few years ago (actually longer than I wish to admit to) was that the 'Authority' of the Captain was only established when the doors were closed.
While the aircraft was at the airbridge, or connected in another way to ground support, then the jurisdiction was still vested in the local plod (or airport authority).
Somewhere in my archaic filing system, I have the precedent authority - originally derived from the Hague Convention.

Now a boarding pass would constitute an 'instruction' but that is issued well before a captain or crew member takes 'command'.

So it begs the question - when does an 'instruction' given by the CC or TC become a 'lawful command'. Same sits with Maritime Law from whence our Aviation Law was derived.

[Lead Balloon]

That’s the question I highlighted earlier, but of course was executed for pointing out the fact that there is a constraint on when a binding safety direction under CASR 91.575 or safety instruction under CASR 91.580 may be given. My underlining added: 91.575 Passengers—compliance with safety directions

(1) A passenger on an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if, during the flight:

(a) a direction mentioned in regulation 91.570 [to fasten seatbelts, set the seat to the upright position etc] is given to the passenger; and

(b) the person does not comply with the direction.

(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

91.580 Passengers—compliance with safety instructions by cabin crew

(1) A cabin crew member of an aircraft may, during a flight, give an instruction to a passenger:

(a) relating to the safety of the aircraft; or

(b) relating to the safety of a person on the aircraft.

(2) A passenger on the aircraft contravenes this subregulation if:

(a) a cabin crew member gives a passenger an instruction under subregulation (1); and

(b) the passenger does not comply with the instruction.

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (2).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.The CA Act defines “flight” to mean, in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft:[T]he operation of the aircraft from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking‑off until the moment at which it comes to rest after being airborne[.]

The following CASR appears not to be constrained to the duration of a flight and instead to any person on an aircraft at any time. But note that an element of the offence is that, as a result of the person’s behaviour, “the safety of the aircraft or persons on the aircraft is endangered”. Doing a seat swap so a bloke can sit next to his wife and child? Yeah nah. 91.525 Offensive or disorderly behaviour on aircraft

(1) A person on an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if:

(a) the person behaves in an offensive or disorderly manner; and

(b) as a result of that behaviour, the safety of the aircraft or persons on the aircraft is endangered.

(2) The operator or a crew member of an aircraft for a flight may refuse to allow a person to board the aircraft if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is likely to behave in an offensive or disorderly manner that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft or persons on the aircraft.

(3) Without limiting subregulation (1) or (2), a person is taken to behave in an offensive or disorderly manner if the person:

(a) assaults, intimidates or threatens another person (whether the assault, intimidation or threat is verbal or physical, and whether or not a weapon or object is used); or

(b) intentionally damages or destroys property.

(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.I may be missing something.

[KRviator]

My understanding garnered from a few years ago (actually longer than I wish to admit to) was that the 'Authority' of the Captain was only established when the doors were closed.
While the aircraft was at the airbridge, or connected in another way to ground support, then the jurisdiction was still vested in the local plod (or airport authority).
Somewhere in my archaic filing system, I have the precedent authority - originally derived from the Hague Convention.

Now a boarding pass would constitute an 'instruction' but that is issued well before a captain or crew member takes 'command'.

So it begs the question - when does an 'instruction' given by the CC or TC become a 'lawful command'. Same sits with Maritime Law from whence our Aviation Law was derived.ISTR something similar from my reading of the Air Law textbooks a while back... Insofar as the CASR's, there is this...NFI if it is still current with the MOS' and Part 135's and 121's and, and, and Part godknowswhat these days though.
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 91.215
Authority and responsibilities of pilot in command
(1) This regulation applies in relation to the operation of an aircraft during the following period:
(a) from the earlier of:
(i) the time the aircraft's doors are closed before take-off; and
(ii) the time the flight begins;
(b) to the later of:
(i) the time the aircraft's doors are opened after landing; and
(ii) the time the flight ends.
(2) The pilot in command of the aircraft:
(a) has final authority over:
(i) the aircraft; and
(ii) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on the aircraft; and
(b) must ensure:
(i) the safety of persons on the aircraft; and
(ii) the safety of cargo on the aircraft; and
(iii) the safe operation of the aircraft during the flight.There's a few definitions listed, but the main one, "Flight" only refers to "flight" means flight in:
(a) an aeroplane; or
(b) a helicopter, other than a tethered helicopter; or
(c) an airship; or
(d) a glider, other than a hang glider, powered hang glider, paraglider or powered paraglider; or
(e) a gyroplane; or
(f) a powered-lift aircraft.

[Lead Balloon]

Yes, and CASR 91.220 gives the operator and PIC, but not CC, powers that apply before and after the "flight" as defined in the CA Act:91.220 Actions and directions by operator or pilot in command

(1) The operator or pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight may do a thing mentioned in subregulation (2) if the operator or pilot in command believes it is necessary for the safety of:

(a) the aircraft; or

(b) a person on the aircraft; or

(c) a person or property on the ground or water.

(2) The things are as follows:

(a) direct a person to do something while the person is on the aircraft;

(b) direct a person not to do something, or to limit the doing of something, while the person is on the aircraft;

(c) direct a person to leave the aircraft before the flight begins;

(d) with such assistance and by the use of such force as is reasonable and necessary:

(i) remove a person or a thing from the aircraft before the flight begins; or

(ii) restrain a person for the duration of the flight or part of the flight; or

(iii) seize a thing on the aircraft for the duration of the flight or part of the flight; or

(iv) place a person on the aircraft in custody; or

(v) detain a person or a thing, until the person or thing can be released into the control of an appropriate authority.

Note: Under regulation 91.225, crew members of an aircraft have a limited power of arrest.

(3) A person on an aircraft contravenes this subregulation if:

(a) the operator or pilot in command of the aircraft gives the person a direction mentioned in paragraph (2)(a), (b) or (c); and

(b) the person does not comply with the direction.

(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (3).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.Was making old mate 'unswap' necessary for the safety of the aircraft, a person on the aircraft or a person or property on the ground or water?

[tossbag]

Tossbag; Please confirm that the above quoted comment was made very much 'tongue in cheek.'

Pinkbits, I can 185% confirm that it was a pisstake. I also 185% despair (I don't really, I don't give a ****) at the mindless dickheads that inhabit this earth. Look at covid and how easy it is to manipulate scared, gutless, weak human beings.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So it begs the question - when does an 'instruction' given by the CC or TC become a 'lawful command'
Nowhere in JQ's conditions of carriage (currently dated April 2022 on their website) does it state that a passenger must sit in their assigned seat. The words assign, assigned, or assignment aren't even in it in relation to anything. Seat Allocation is a section heading only followed by fluff.
Now a boarding pass would constitute an 'instruction'..
JQ don't define "Boarding Pass" in their Conditions of Carriage. QF do though and it's the document (in paper or electronic form) that is issued to you as evidence that you have checked-in for a flight. Hardly an instruction. QF also don't mandate sitting in assigned seat which is why JQ's lack of same is understandable. VA do not mandate it either. In fact, almost all references to seat or seating are there for the airlines benefit as to why they don't have to take any notice of any preferences or whether you've paid for a particular seat class or whatever.

I looked up some random airlines. Most had nothing, but I found this in United's Contract of Carriage:
UA also prohibits Passengers from selling their seat assignments at any time and/or exchanging them at the time of boarding without first advising a member of the crew. You could argue this doesn't mean you have to get their permission or approval, you just have to let them know, You'll probably end up riding the lightning arguing the semantics of that though.

While JQ may have an expectation that a passenger will sit in their assigned/allocated whatever seat, they haven't stipulated it as a requirement of carriage to do so.

[KAPAC]

Take away is cabin crew only need to believe a passenger is a threat to safety by not following any instruction given , legal , fair or sensible need not apply ? De escalation is no longer a skill , it’s about authority and control with what’s usually considered an extreme option or last resort of calling in the tasers . Does it apply if they ask me to switch from my assigned seat to help them out which happens regularly as a StaffTraveler ? I consider myself educated for my next flight in Australia .

[Icarus2001]

The taser has zero to do with the cabin crew.

Old mate brought that on himself with his behavior towards the AFP officers,

[TWT]

Sensible people generally comply with the instructions of armed police.

[Lead Balloon]

I haven’t seen anything in this thread about the details of any direction by the PIC to old mate in accordance with CASR 91.220. I’ve seen various assertions and theories about the CC’s authority, whatever they say and whenever they say it, despite the actual terms of CASR 91.580:
Firstly he failed to comply with the lawful directions of the cabin crew on what seat he needed to sit in.

Whatever it is, the CC’s instructions are lawful.

The Crew acted completely within the powers given to them under the Regulations.

Yes, of course the CC … were operating within their legal rights.

[I]f the crew give an instruction whether you like it or not, and whether one is more right vs the other, for the love of god just follow what they say.

Of course it is true that the CC have the authority to enforce a seat allocation.

Here’s a particularly interesting assertion: Let’s not forget it’s the Captains authority as delegated to a flightie. The flighties have zero direct powers. Consistent with that assertion was this one: The Captain was in command from the moment he boarded the aircraft until he handed it over at the end of the duty. It followed that Cabin Crew held certain authority because they were delegated by the Captain. I can’t find “delegate” or “on behalf of the PIC” anywhere in Part 91.

Now of course as widely known by those in the industry, crew directions are to be followed.

[T]he MOMENT a passenger refuses to obey a Cabin Crew instruction they have committed an offence.

[W]hen you board the aircraft you agree that you will follow crew member instructions if you agree or not none of these instructions are unreasonable.

This is another particularly interesting one: The pilot already has a job to do: fly the jet. What on earth do you really think he's going to do when he turns up to a tasering in the making? The CC have training and experience in dealing with aggressive ferals, unlike Capt. Lardbelly in his lollipop hat and coinslot who would probably pop an aorta (or his pants seam) if he had to duck a punch. Most CC generally don't want the pilot getting in the way and out of breath while attempting to inflate his ego with some type the crew have seen many times before.

Pilots don't know how to fight and his employer would prefer the event ends with the pilot able to fly the service not busy picking up his teeth. Leave the action to the CC who aren't going to escalate it and in fact the ground staff whose job it is until the door is closed. All the pilot needs to do is take the advice of the CC when it comes to deciding whether or not to exercise his authority to offload the feral who, these days, has no respect for any authority including some pilot mistakenly believing he's a king of some kind. Don't rely on ground staff for this decision as they just want the problem to go away into the sky with you.

This one is, frankly, scary:Big deal is because CC said so. Were they in the wrong? Probably. But you are to comply. End of story.

As is this one:CC on the day had absolutely no choice but to issue an instruction to this bloke to move. He refused a lawful order. Who knew that Jetstar is actually a branch of the military.

[Orange future]

Sensible people generally comply with the instructions of armed police.

No, sheep do.

.The taser has zero to do with the cabin crew.

Old mate brought that on himself with his behavior towards the AFP officers,

Do you think the CC called the AFP in order to employ their negotiating skills or do you think its understood that such a move would guarantee physical conflict?

Big deal is because CC said so. Were they in the wrong? Probably. But you are to comply. End of story.

This is a downright scary comment to make.



Jetsar have just turned an aeroplane into a gulag and so many people are comfortable with that.

[nose,cabin]

Everyone is responsible for risk assessments in the workplace.

Check list & SOP, Deviation is well documented.

Ignorance on the crew awareness of the child’s father genuine safety concern especially escalating the situation

https://employsure.com.au/blog/what-is-a-risk-assessment/



Risk assessment for successful outcomes reference the childs ‘ safety for an occurrence of

RTO pax evacuation,

rapid depression, smoke in cabin. Etc.

A.Seated with mother only.

B.Seated with father only.

C.

Seated with mother and father.

Family together has symbiosis.

The father had his child’s best interest and safety in mind

THE CABIN CREW SHOULD ASSIST WITH SUPERVISION OF CHILDREN,

NOT THE OPPOSITE.

It is the crew responsibility to ensure children are safe and Not separate them.Children are your future customers, treat them as very important customers, good airlines provide colour pencils and books etc.

[Orange future]

Orange future

I made only one of those statements you attributed to me ! ( the first one).

The rest you made up.

Please amend (or delete) your post

A thousand apologies, finger trouble, my bad.

[Icarus2001]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ;11411851
.The taser has zero to do with the cabin crew.

Old mate brought that on himself with his behavior towards the AFP officers,
Do you think the CC called the AFP in order to employ their negotiating skills or do you think its understood that such a move would guarantee physical conflict?

You purposely miss the point.

As already stated, sensible people follow police instructions knowing a legal remedy is available if they are wrong.

[plainmaker]

LB

CASR 91.220 (b) and (c) are the critical bits of regulation which give the right of the PIC in this instance.
Was the instruction lawful? There is an implied delegation to the CC under 91.220(1) which stipulates the 'operator' being the airline as I read the regulation. Now a curly one, - and it is not mentioned - is there an automatic delegation to any crew member for duties within their responsibility? Or is it up to the PIC only to make the request for assistance?
Also, is a CC member who works for a Labour Hire company, an employee of the Airline. No they are not (applying the precedent in the mining industry and the recent High Court deliberations re contractor v employee arrangements that has the ATO in conniptions) but the operator does owe them a duty of care as if they were an employee.
But the critical issue turns on whether the command to sit in the assigned seat was a requirement - it clearly was not necessary for the 'safe' operation of the flight - which then must be translated if the command was necessary.
I know what my judgement would be if it came up on my list for mention.

[Orange future]

You purposely miss the point.

As already stated, sensible people follow police instructions knowing a legal remedy is available if they are wrong.No, the taser has EVERYTHING to do with the cabin crew.

Had she been a critical thinking, reasonable well trained provider of customer service she would not have abrogated her responsibility by simply palming it off to the big man with weapons.

Thank god most people dont go about their daily lives simply calling for an assault team backup everytime life gets a little difficult.

[Lead Balloon]

CASR 91.220 (b) and (c) are the critical bits of regulation which give the right of the PIC in this instance.Yes (although it is a power/authority rather than ‘right’).

Was the instruction lawful?What instruction? Did the PIC or operator give old mate an instruction? There is no contravention of CASR 91.220(3) by old mate unless he was given a direction by the PIC or operator.

Interestingly, though, the PIC and operator have power/authority to remove - with such assistance and by the use of such force as is reasonable and necessary - a person before the flight begins, even if the person has not contravened CASR 91.220(3). So on the face of CASR.220, old mate does not have to been directed by anyone to do anything and the PIC and operator still have power/authority to remove him – with assistance and by the use of reasonable force if necessary - provided the operator or PIC believes it is necessary for the safety of the aircraft, a person on the aircraft, or a person or property on the ground or water.

There is an implied delegation to the CC under 91.220(1) which stipulates the 'operator' being the airline as I read the regulation.Where does this delegation stuff come from? Under CASR, the PIC is the PIC, the operator is the operator and CC are neither (unless one of the CC happens to be the holder of the AOC authorising the flight in question). There is a separate provision authorising/empowering CC to give safety instructions to passengers: CASR 92.580, but only “during a flight”.

Now a curly one, - and it is not mentioned - is there an automatic delegation to any crew member for duties within their responsibility? Or is it up to the PIC only to make the request for assistance?There’s that delegation word again. CASR 91.220 seems to me to confer power/authority only on the PIC and operator. Does anyone have any legislative provision or judicial authority to say that, under the CASR, CC have or can be delegated the power/authority of the PIC and operator under CASR 91.220?

Also, is a CC member who works for a Labour Hire company, an employee of the Airline. No they are not (applying the precedent in the mining industry and the recent High Court deliberations re contractor v employee arrangements that has the ATO in conniptions) but the operator does owe them a duty of care as if they were an employee.For the purposes of CASR, CC are CC, and the definition is not affected by whether they are employees of the operator or ‘body shop’ supplied. Whether a person is or is not CC depends on whether they perform, in the interests of the safety of an aircraft’s passengers, duties assigned by the operator or PIC. Key point: giving someone a job to do is not the same as giving them power or authority over people. That’s presumably why, for example, CASR 92.580 is there: To give CC power/authority to issue binding directions to passengers.

But the critical issue turns on whether the command to sit in the assigned seat was a requirement - it clearly was not necessary for the 'safe' operation of the flight - which then must be translated if the command was necessary.Well, I suspect that some will argue that the PIC could form the view that failure by a passenger to comply with a CC's direction to sit in the allocated seat meant the passenger was a risk to safety. Whether the PIC did so in this case: I don’t know. Most of the expressions of opinion in this thread appear to be this effect:

CC gave a lawful direction for old mate to return to his allocated seat.

As soon as old mate failed to comply, he committed an offence.

That justified the intervention of the AFP to remove old mate.

Parade rest.

As I’ve said, I’m dubious about whether CC have power under CASR 92.580 before the flight commences, I’m very dubious about whether CC somehow get a ‘delegation’ of the PIC’s and operator’s powers/authorities under CASR 91.220 and, therefore, I’ll be very interested to find out the PIC’s state of mind and actions throughout all this (or to be shown some provision of CASR or judicial authority that says that CC have or can be delegated the PICs/operator’s power/authority under CASR 91.220).

[KAPAC]

Getting someone worked up then calling in authorities could be a managment tool ?
If I stir up my neighbours dog and it bites my kid , I get rspca in and dog gets put down would you support me or say the dog should not have bit the kid and deserved to die !

[exfocx]

I read everything that was available at the time this happened and there is no weight & balance issue. He seat swapped with another passenger. Not saying he should have behaved the way he did, but I don't think the CC handled it all that well either. The pax he swapped with wasn't the same ethnicity and stated that the tasered pax did nothing wrong (other than refuse the CC direction to go back to his original seat).

I see all the flying lawyers are out and about.

[Xhorst]

After all this time, I think only one poster has managed to hit the nail on the head:

"Every passenger shall sit in his/her assigned seat."
"Passengers shall obey the instruction of the crew."

Simple. CC assign that passenger to that seat and the swapper to theirs. Passengers sitting in assigned seats and following instruction of CC.

Simple fact (from evidence available) is that the CC refused a perfectly reasonable request for a mutual seat swap. That was the totally avoidable issue here. People talk about respect - it goes both ways. Passengers need to respect the crew, and the crew need to respect a father's desire to be sitting next to his wife and infant, and accommodate if possible.

Refusing a reasonable request which had no safety grounds for refusal would absolutely make my blood boil if it meant I would spend the next 4 hours sitting away from my wife and infant for no bloody reason.

Hopefully I wouldn't end up full-on Michael Douglas Falling Down, but I would be very pissed off. Keep in mind that a father of a new-born has an elevated protective instinct over the average male - human nature.

For all of you arguing aviation law - it's irrelevant. He's been charged with resisting arrest. Nothing to do with aviation law. However, an interesting point has been raised in the process: that annoying word "safety" keeps appearing. What was unsafe about this mutual seat swap?

One poster continually implies that the CC are powerless to authorise such a seat swap, in which case the inflexibility lies with the Airline - I'm not sure whether to believe that. I've swapped seats many times over the years - sometimes with CC approval, sometimes without their knowledge, sometimes at their request so two family members can sit together!

So, I don't get why it was a problem on this occasion.

[Boe787]

In over 40 years of flying, I have found Jetstars Cabin crew to be the most officious I have encountered.

[megan]

Quite the reverse, never found an airline where the service of one stood out from another, except Singapore perhaps, those CC served drinks as though they received a bonus on consumption. Once deplaned from a QF in LAX and presented by CC with a bag containing two bottles of wine, deplaned United at Tulla with three bottles of French wine presented by CC with white napkins still around the necks, bit of a bother being over the allowance at customs, chap went off conferred with boss and all was OK, being day before Xmas may have helped.

Never had reason to be dissatisfied with any flight undertaken anywhere in the world, other than being told to pull the blind down, I prefer to watch the world go by. A frequent Jetstar pax and absolutely no complaints,

[Lead Balloon]

After all this time, I think only one poster has managed to hit the nail on the head:



Simple fact (from evidence available) is that the CC refused a perfectly reasonable request for a mutual seat swap. That was the totally avoidable issue here. People talk about respect - it goes both ways. Passengers need to respect the crew, and the crew need to respect a father's desire to be sitting next to his wife and infant, and accommodate if possible.

Refusing a reasonable request which had no safety grounds for refusal would absolutely make my blood boil if it meant I would spend the next 4 hours sitting away from my wife and infant for no bloody reason.

Hopefully I wouldn't end up full-on Michael Douglas Falling Down, but I would be very pissed off. Keep in mind that a father of a new-born has an elevated protective instinct over the average male - human nature.

For all of you arguing aviation law - it's irrelevant. He's been charged with resisting arrest. Nothing to do with aviation law. However, an interesting point has been raised in the process: that annoying word "safety" keeps appearing. What was unsafe about this mutual seat swap?

One poster continually implies that the CC are powerless to authorise such a seat swap, in which case the inflexibility lies with the Airline - I'm not sure whether to believe that. I've swapped seats many times over the years - sometimes with CC approval, sometimes without their knowledge, sometimes at their request so two family members can sit together!

So, I don't get why it was a problem on this occasion.I agree entirely with all your practical arguments and conclusion.

(I'd only note that in order to be found guilty of resisting arrest, you have to have been the subject of a lawful arrest. For what alleged crime was old mate being arrested? That's why the substance of the safety issue becomes important if the crime is a failure to comply with a direction under one of the CASRs quoted above, all of which have a safety element. The definition of a CC is someone given duties to perform "in the interests of the safety of an aircraft’s passengers".)

[Xhorst]

I agree entirely with all your practical arguments and conclusion.

(I'd only note that in order to be found guilty of resisting arrest, you have to have been the subject of a lawful arrest. For what alleged crime was old mate being arrested? That's why the substance of the safety issue becomes important if the crime is a failure to comply with a direction under one of the CASRs quoted above, all of which have a safety element. The definition of a CC is someone given duties to perform "in the interests of the safety of an aircraft’s passengers".)

True - that part of it presumably involves the operator's lawful refusal to carry a passenger. Was it lawful? The airline could probably argue that any refusal to comply with a cabin crew direction pre-flight makes the passenger a safety risk, so unfit for carriage. The passenger could probably also argue that it wasn't a safety direction that he was non-compliant with, and so long as he could sit next to his wife and child, he was a perfectly calm passenger and fit to fly.

However, once the passenger was directed by the crew to disembark and refused, it's the job of law-enforcement to enforce the removal of the passenger, and if necessary force is required, then so be it. If he had disembarked when directed by the AFP, probably no charges would have been made. His refusal at this point was a mistake - he wasn't refusing a crew direction any longer, he was refusing a police order. He was then placed under arrest and resisted arrest. As to the use of a taser against an unarmed man in the process - that is obviously a police matter and nothing to do with Jetstar. Not good PR though. Remember that doctor in the USA who was dragged off a jet with a bloody face a few years ago?

It's just a pity it got to that point.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Simple fact (from evidence available) is that the CC refused a perfectly reasonable request for a mutual seat swap. (My bolding)

I haven't seen any video of the start of the incident, but did he request? Or did he swap and then advise of the swap when challenged by the CC? Perhaps not asking first is what peeved the CC and started the ball rolling. You never know what some people will take as an affront to their authority. As I've stated, JQ's Conditions of Carriage do not stipulate that you sit in your assigned seat, or that you request approval of or simply advise of any swaps. "You have to sit in your seat" is not backed up anywhere in writing that the Airline has stated or that the passenger has accepted.

[sideslyp]

Guys, love to see you analysing this using points of law, etc, etc...I think we all know that any action by the police or the Jetstar crew will find some sort of justification in some sort of obscure law paragraph.
And this is the problem...That right now, everyone is supposed to follow those law paragraphs which no longer give you any freedom of judgment in the best interest of the passengers or the flight. If a certain
captain of the Olympic Airways followed everything as per paragraph, then perhaps Acropolis would not exist today together with 300 people on that flight. Do you notice how doctors these days look into their
'rules' book ? For problem A - prescribe this, for problem B prescribe this....So, for everything there is a paragraph, and if a doctor steps out of line (ie: alternative medicines, different course of anybiotics) ,
he gets in trouble. In the old days, the doctors were still following the rule 'every patient is different hence requires different investigation and potentially different way of treatment from standard norm" - these days are sadly gone. Same with cabin crew,
in the old days, you were still allowed to 'think' and how to solve the problem . Now ? you are not supposed to think, you are supposed to follow a paragraph - "paragraph says: everyone must seat in their allocated seat before take off!!! - there is no space for interpretation
here, no alternatives, no avenues and the second paragraph follows : " for anyone not compiling - remove them, using force if needed" - right ? It doesnt matter that its 'safe' to switch seats, but no, the paragraph says 'no', so you
follow it, otherwise, its tea with no biscuits right ? . Same with pilots, these working for Emirates know what I mean.....

[admikar]

No, sheep do.



Do you think the CC called the AFP in order to employ their negotiating skills or do you think its understood that such a move would guarantee physical conflict?



This is a downright scary comment to make.



Jetsar have just turned an aeroplane into a gulag and so many people are comfortable with that.
Except you can't leave gulag. You can leave Jetstar airplane. In fact, he was asked to do so.

To get back on topic. When, in your opinion, passengers should stop disobeying CC and start following their instructions?

[His dudeness]

I haven't seen any video of the start of the incident, but did he request?

Not relevant. At all. This dude plays the victim and the journos seem to like to play along. People like him should be put in their place, handcuffs in this case.

If you are unable to obey authority, then you should be punished. Otherwise society can not function. If Jetstar was wrong on the reason why he was asked to leave: argue that in court. Make em pay.

You dont say "I will leave when the police come" and then not leave. Police in these situations will always side with the crew (as they have the authority on board), everybody with say 3 braincells or more, will know that. The theatrical reaction to "the footage" does not impress me either.

The "I did nothing wrong" defence won´t work.

[Lead Balloon]

Except you can't leave gulag. You can leave Jetstar airplane. In fact, he was asked to do so.

To get back on topic. When, in your opinion, passengers should stop disobeying CC and start following their instructions?Answer: When failure to follow the instructions would have an effect on the safety of the aircraft or other POB.

If CC 'instructed' you to drop and give them 10 push ups, would you comply? Instructed you to pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time? Instructed you to swap seats with your partner sitting right next to you, because you're sitting in the seat allocated to her and she's sitting in the seat allocated to you?

You've been 'instructed'.

Some on here seem to take the view that any failure to follow any CC 'instruction' of itself causes a safety risk (and is an offence). That view is patent nonsense.

Old mate could have the left the aircraft when requested ... leaving his wife and infant child on board.

Have you ever had a wife and infant child?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Answer: When failure to follow the instructions would have an effect on the safety of the aircraft or other POB.

So if the person behind you was constantly banging on the back of your seat, or throwing food - intensely annoying, but no threat to safety - you don’t feel they should have to comply with an instruction from the crew to stop doing it?

[Lead Balloon]

So if the person behind you was constantly banging on the back of your seat, or throwing food - intensely annoying, but no threat to safety - you don’t feel they should have to comply with an instruction from the crew to stop doing it?In that scenario, they don't have to comply. You should actually read the CASRs quoted in this thread, which CASRs actually spell out what directions and instructions from 'crew' are binding, and when, and what constitutes disorderly and offensive conduct offences. I didn't put the safety element in them. Someone else did.

I find screaming babies intensely annoying. I find BO intensely annoying. I find bad breath intensely annoying. I've yet to find any CC who'll do anything about passengers with screaming babies, BO or bad breath. But that's why I've never flown Jetstar.

[Orange future]

Except you can't leave gulag. You can leave Jetstar airplane. In fact, he was asked to do so.

To be clear, he did leave the aeroplane in hand cuffs and went to prison.

To get back on topic. When, in your opinion, passengers should stop disobeying CC and start following their instructions?

When they are reasonable, rational instructions concerning safety.

People like him should be put in their place, handcuffs in this case.

So, was he put in hand cuffs because he broke the law or was he put in hand cuffs because he needs to be “put in his place”?



If you are unable to obey authority, then you should be punished. Otherwise society can not function.

Got it, thanks for the history lesson Adolf. Good luck with that approach in life.

So if the person behind you was constantly banging on the back of your seat, or throwing food - intensely annoying, but no threat to safety - you don’t feel they should have to comply with an instruction from the crew to stop doing it?

No, not at all. It may be annoying but if you cant deal with it as an adult then why would you expect a cabin crew member to demand them to stop it, particularly in light of what we now know will get you tasered and thrown in the klink.

The AFP tasers would be running out of charge if we expected this level of compliance on every flight.

[Lookleft]

Old mate could have the left the aircraft when requested ... leaving his wife and infant child on board.

Have you ever had a wife and infant child?

The scenario that has got all the Monday morning quarterbacks in a tizz happens frequently. Not the tazering bit but the failure to follow CC instructions especially over seating. Spare me the pathos LB, often the mother and child are very happy that the father has been kicked off.

​​​​​​​I find screaming babies intensely annoying. I hope you don't become a grandfather then. From all at the frontline at Jetstar, thankyou for your lack of patronage.

[Lead Balloon]

I ask you and das a third time:As a matter of interest, how many different airlines have you flown for, Lookleft? You das? If for more than one, did all their Ops Manuals impose exactly the same obligations on crew about who deals with passengers who refuse to comply with a direction from CC, and in what way?

I also note, again, that TIER’s question to das remains unanswered:[W]hat is the wording in the ops manual, this mysterious OM12, that the JQ CC was following to the letter that resulted in this situation? How else can we establish if the operational personnel were in fact complying with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Guys, love to see you analysing this using points of law, etc, etc...I think we all know that any action by the police or the Jetstar crew will find some sort of justification in some sort of obscure law paragraph.
And this is the problem...That right now, everyone is supposed to follow those law paragraphs which no longer give you any freedom of judgment in the best interest of the passengers or the flight. If a certain
captain of the Olympic Airways followed everything as per paragraph, then perhaps Acropolis would not exist today together with 300 people on that flight. Do you notice how doctors these days look into their
'rules' book ? For problem A - prescribe this, for problem B prescribe this....So, for everything there is a paragraph, and if a doctor steps out of line (ie: alternative medicines, different course of anybiotics) ,
he gets in trouble. In the old days, the doctors were still following the rule 'every patient is different hence requires different investigation and potentially different way of treatment from standard norm" - these days are sadly gone. Same with cabin crew,
in the old days, you were still allowed to 'think' and how to solve the problem . Now ? you are not supposed to think, you are supposed to follow a paragraph - "paragraph says: everyone must seat in their allocated seat before take off!!! - there is no space for interpretation
here, no alternatives, no avenues and the second paragraph follows : " for anyone not compiling - remove them, using force if needed" - right ? It doesnt matter that its 'safe' to switch seats, but no, the paragraph says 'no', so you
follow it, otherwise, its tea with no biscuits right ? . Same with pilots, these working for Emirates know what I mean.....

Clearly, lawyers are to blame. Common Sense has no business in a courtroom.

[Icarus2001]

When they are reasonable, rational instructions concerning safety.

That is the whole point, passengers are not qualified to make that call. They do not know the “why”. It appears cabin crew are now the same.