Did the shorthaul Beehives over react???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the shorthaul Beehives over react???
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close to home
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comment
A bit more information is required before any worthwhile coment can be made.
Sounds like he didnt switch off his computer when requested to do so.
Perhaps he will next time.
Not a bad ploy though...he got off first.
Sounds like he didnt switch off his computer when requested to do so.
Perhaps he will next time.
Not a bad ploy though...he got off first.
Don't be a smart arse d!ckhead and you wont be taken off an aeroplane by police. Simple as that. Whether you agree with turning off all electronic devices or not is not relevant, if you want to fly, do what you are told. 
No over reaction at all in my book.
No over reaction at all in my book.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YoDawg -
I hear what you are saying. However there comes a point in each situation where you must be seen as being effective. I am far from being a 'nazi', as you put it. Though when someone repeatedly does not respond to a relaxed approach to the situation it calls for some sort of affirmative response.
Customers do not want to be told what to do by trumped up cabin crew. At the same time the customers not involved expect the cabin crew to be in control.
I cannot speak for the crew onboard, obviously, though the aircraft being meet by the AFP on arrival could have been an appropriate response.
There is a fine line in these cases. Though at the end of the day the cabin crew are only doing themselves an injustice by being seen as push overs in ignoring or even rewarding this sort of behavior.
P.S. LOVED the Beehive remark, Speedbird! So true - those girls are good value, if you know not to take them too seriously.
I hear what you are saying. However there comes a point in each situation where you must be seen as being effective. I am far from being a 'nazi', as you put it. Though when someone repeatedly does not respond to a relaxed approach to the situation it calls for some sort of affirmative response.
Customers do not want to be told what to do by trumped up cabin crew. At the same time the customers not involved expect the cabin crew to be in control.
I cannot speak for the crew onboard, obviously, though the aircraft being meet by the AFP on arrival could have been an appropriate response.
There is a fine line in these cases. Though at the end of the day the cabin crew are only doing themselves an injustice by being seen as push overs in ignoring or even rewarding this sort of behavior.
P.S. LOVED the Beehive remark, Speedbird! So true - those girls are good value, if you know not to take them too seriously.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right or Wrong, you are asked not to have electronic devices operating at certain parts of the flight. These rules are in place for whatever reason, but they are the rules. I don't think anyone is over reacting or being a nazi in asking a customer to follow operating policy.
Don't forget, even though flying is very common place and lots of people think it is like hopping on a bus, we all know it isn't. In general it does run fairly seemleesly, (yes I know all the QF bashers out there would disagree), but for such a complex process it does, and it does so because there are strict rules and policy in place for every part of the operation, that apply to both Crew and Pax.
I know it may not bring a plane down, but none the less it is a rule. If they had to make an example out of this TURKEY, so that every other pax take note, well, so beit.
Pretty simple isn't it, follow the rules or there is a consequence.
Don't forget, even though flying is very common place and lots of people think it is like hopping on a bus, we all know it isn't. In general it does run fairly seemleesly, (yes I know all the QF bashers out there would disagree), but for such a complex process it does, and it does so because there are strict rules and policy in place for every part of the operation, that apply to both Crew and Pax.
I know it may not bring a plane down, but none the less it is a rule. If they had to make an example out of this TURKEY, so that every other pax take note, well, so beit.
Pretty simple isn't it, follow the rules or there is a consequence.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Za farzer land
Age: 53
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done to that crew, Handled in a professional manner and obviously by the company procedures outlined by the ruling authority CASA. Simple really. Either stick to the rules, or let the rest of the 140 passengers on board argue the point and throw their toys out of the cot when asked simply to turn their laptop off. No brainer to me, its obviously a NO BRAINER to the customer!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: A happy place
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idiots on Aircraft
Sometimes its not such a bad thing that incidents like this do get into print . Along with the fools with their laser's it need's to be known that certain behaviour is not acceptable and there are consequences.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
indeed yawn and indeed less than an endorsement if it took >15 for AFP to attend -
As for the alleged PA advising a 'technical issue' - it further undersocres the comedy - if it is 'that' serious then the response should be at the appropriate level.
Maybe a few of my colleagues might disagree but please don't treat the punters as dummies - esp when the a/c has tied up at the aerobridge.
If the matter is 'that' serious that all the pax need to be 'detained' while awaiting attedance of the AFP, then the other 137 punters deserve an appropriate truthful explanation. - As one who in a previous pre-aircrew life commuted 3 times a week I can state with absolute authority that the punters are not dummies and any glossed up 'BS' about tech issues over PA just does not cut it.
Offending Pax should have been aproached on aerobridge/terminal.
End of the day - if it's serious enough to disenfranchise 137 pax, and CC evidence is tight then offender should be charged.
If CC case is not strong then an informal 1:1 between the Capt or FO & the offending punter on disembarkation may have been a more mature/effective resolution.
As for the alleged PA advising a 'technical issue' - it further undersocres the comedy - if it is 'that' serious then the response should be at the appropriate level.
Maybe a few of my colleagues might disagree but please don't treat the punters as dummies - esp when the a/c has tied up at the aerobridge.
If the matter is 'that' serious that all the pax need to be 'detained' while awaiting attedance of the AFP, then the other 137 punters deserve an appropriate truthful explanation. - As one who in a previous pre-aircrew life commuted 3 times a week I can state with absolute authority that the punters are not dummies and any glossed up 'BS' about tech issues over PA just does not cut it.
Offending Pax should have been aproached on aerobridge/terminal.
End of the day - if it's serious enough to disenfranchise 137 pax, and CC evidence is tight then offender should be charged.
If CC case is not strong then an informal 1:1 between the Capt or FO & the offending punter on disembarkation may have been a more mature/effective resolution.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Over here
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Food for thought
Maybe the beehives requested police on arrival below 15,000' on descent because they cannot get a punter to follow directions.
Maybe a different bunch of beehives could have convinced rogue pax to comply.
Maybe at this stage of the flight the PIC made a specific PA to pax involved who continued to refuse to co-operate.
Maybe on arrival the airport manager and not the PIC is in charge of pax disembarking or otherwise.
Maybe the PIC issued a PA advising of a delay to disembarkation on arrival with no mention of "technical reasons" as reported in the press.
Maybe there are bays at the international and domestic terminals with the same number to confuse AFP.
Maybe the pax in question refused to speak to PIC and has since been charged.
Maybe the whole thing is a storm in a teacup.
Maybe ACMS is right....yawn.
Maybe a different bunch of beehives could have convinced rogue pax to comply.
Maybe at this stage of the flight the PIC made a specific PA to pax involved who continued to refuse to co-operate.
Maybe on arrival the airport manager and not the PIC is in charge of pax disembarking or otherwise.
Maybe the PIC issued a PA advising of a delay to disembarkation on arrival with no mention of "technical reasons" as reported in the press.
Maybe there are bays at the international and domestic terminals with the same number to confuse AFP.
Maybe the pax in question refused to speak to PIC and has since been charged.
Maybe the whole thing is a storm in a teacup.
Maybe ACMS is right....yawn.
I'd love to see an on-the-spot fine for idiots such as this guy, with a 14-30 days ban from flying (any airline) for non-compliance of aircrew directions after a repeat offense.
I travel a lot for work and see people like this guy all too often, stuff like pressing the face of their iPod in to ones leg in attempt to hide it whenever CC walk past, or thinking that it is safe to turn on electronics as soon as the wheels leave the ground.
I do agree with airtags point of offering an appropriate explanation such as "We regret that we cannot disembark this aircraft just yet as we have to wait for the Federal Police to arrive to pick up the passenger in row 7C for not following crew instructions"... I'm sure that the person in 7C would get very uncomfortable, very quickly from the death stares he'd get from his fellow passengers.
Just my two cents.
I travel a lot for work and see people like this guy all too often, stuff like pressing the face of their iPod in to ones leg in attempt to hide it whenever CC walk past, or thinking that it is safe to turn on electronics as soon as the wheels leave the ground.
I do agree with airtags point of offering an appropriate explanation such as "We regret that we cannot disembark this aircraft just yet as we have to wait for the Federal Police to arrive to pick up the passenger in row 7C for not following crew instructions"... I'm sure that the person in 7C would get very uncomfortable, very quickly from the death stares he'd get from his fellow passengers.
Just my two cents.
Bottums Up
I can just see the calm in the cabin on hearing an announcement that we're waiting for the Feds. The person under suspicion would surely remain calm.
I recently had cause to have the aircraft met by the Feds after two pax were suspected of removing crew name badges from stowed uniforms (no secure crew storage facilities). My PA asked pax to remain seated whilst we completed some formalities.
No panic. No alarm, and from the comments of the disembarking pax, they were in aggreeance with how the situation was handled. Advising that the Feds were on the way might have led to two guys who'd possibly over imbibed reacting in an unpleasant manner.
I recently had cause to have the aircraft met by the Feds after two pax were suspected of removing crew name badges from stowed uniforms (no secure crew storage facilities). My PA asked pax to remain seated whilst we completed some formalities.
No panic. No alarm, and from the comments of the disembarking pax, they were in aggreeance with how the situation was handled. Advising that the Feds were on the way might have led to two guys who'd possibly over imbibed reacting in an unpleasant manner.
