Disgusting Jetstar
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 .
The following users liked this post:
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:
Here’s a particularly interesting assertion:
Consistent with that assertion was this one:
I can’t find “delegate” or “on behalf of the PIC” anywhere in Part 91.
This is another particularly interesting one:
This one is, frankly, scary:
As is this one:
Who knew that Jetstar is actually a branch of the military.
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.
Let’s not forget it’s the Captains authority as delegated to a flightie. The flighties have zero direct powers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Big deal is because CC said so. Were they in the wrong? Probably. But you are to comply. End of story.
CC on the day had absolutely no choice but to issue an instruction to this bloke to move. He refused a lawful order.
Originally Posted by 11411851
Sensible people generally comply with the instructions of armed police.
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,
Old mate brought that on himself with his behavior towards the AFP officers,
Originally Posted by 11411851
Big deal is because CC said so. Were they in the wrong? Probably. But you are to comply. End of story.
Jetsar have just turned an aeroplane into a gulag and so many people are comfortable with that.
Last edited by Orange future; 30th Mar 2023 at 23:03.
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-...sk-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.
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-...sk-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.
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?
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?
As already stated, sensible people follow police instructions knowing a legal remedy is available if they are wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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 !
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 !
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.
I see all the flying lawyers are out and about.
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.
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.
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,
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,
The following users liked this post:
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.
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'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".)
The following users liked this post:
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".)
(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".)
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.
Simple fact (from evidence available) is that the CC refused a perfectly reasonable request for a mutual seat swap.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if by the book...
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.....
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.....