Disgusting Jetstar
And there we have some more data points for our Milgram Experiment: Koan is pushing that 450 volt shock button with alacrity. Orange future? Not so much.
[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.
This bit I really enjoyed:
And it appears that if I were to choose to fly on Jetstar and we were to be allocated adjacent seats, you'd have no choice but to sit along side me and, if you were to change despite CC direction, you'd be a criminal. Enjoy!
On the other hand I could well imagine megan wanting to change seats away from the person with halitosis having a quiet, polite and respectful word with the CC about changing seats. I could then imagine that the CC would arrange for megan to change seats once the aircraft is in the air. No fuss, no drama but a reasonable request met that satisfies everyone's requirements.
The following users liked this post:
Lead B I take your point but perhaps remove the "safety" and rule based elements...
If one goes to the local shopping centre, which is private property, just like an aircraft performing public transport, there are rules posted at the entrance. Such things as shoes must be worn, no dogs, suitable clothes etc. If one enters without shoes and is asked to leave by staff or a security guard then one must comply, it is private property. If the "offender" is not compliant then the police will be called to remove the person. Very similar to what happened here.
The taser issue is a red herring, if old mate had complied with a LAWFUL instruction from the AFP to leave the aircraft then he would not have been tasered. Police have strict rules for their use. It is easy to see from the video that this passenger was belligerent with the AFP, very likely he was just the same with cabin crew.
Leady, why do you need to bring race into it?
This is not about race, it is about bad behaviour. Could the cabin crew have de-escalated the situation? Possibly. Would they feel inclined to do that if the passenger was belligerent to begin with? Unlikely.
Again, if the passenger had approached cabin crew politely he would most likely have got his seat swap. If he had move when asked to do so then the AFP would not have been called. If he followed the AFP instructions he would not have been tasered. So many time he could have shown good judgement and behaviour but did the opposite.
If one goes to the local shopping centre, which is private property, just like an aircraft performing public transport, there are rules posted at the entrance. Such things as shoes must be worn, no dogs, suitable clothes etc. If one enters without shoes and is asked to leave by staff or a security guard then one must comply, it is private property. If the "offender" is not compliant then the police will be called to remove the person. Very similar to what happened here.
The taser issue is a red herring, if old mate had complied with a LAWFUL instruction from the AFP to leave the aircraft then he would not have been tasered. Police have strict rules for their use. It is easy to see from the video that this passenger was belligerent with the AFP, very likely he was just the same with cabin crew.
Leady, why do you need to bring race into it?
Ditto a failure by black passengers to comply with a crew member’s direction that all black passengers must sit in their allocated seats.
Again, if the passenger had approached cabin crew politely he would most likely have got his seat swap. If he had move when asked to do so then the AFP would not have been called. If he followed the AFP instructions he would not have been tasered. So many time he could have shown good judgement and behaviour but did the opposite.
The following 5 users liked this post by Icarus2001:
This is what passengers agree to when booking with Jetstar.
Jetstar conditions of carriage. 4.6 Seat Allocation
Although we will try to accommodate your seat reservation request, Jetstar does not guarantee you any particular seat. We can change your seat at any time, even after you have boarded the aircraft, including for safety, security or operational reasons.
11.2 Control of Passengers
We will take all reasonable steps to maintain the comfort, safety and security of all Passengers. If necessary, we may restrain you or remove you from any flight anywhere, for example if you:
Jetstar conditions of carriage. 4.6 Seat Allocation
Although we will try to accommodate your seat reservation request, Jetstar does not guarantee you any particular seat. We can change your seat at any time, even after you have boarded the aircraft, including for safety, security or operational reasons.
11.2 Control of Passengers
We will take all reasonable steps to maintain the comfort, safety and security of all Passengers. If necessary, we may restrain you or remove you from any flight anywhere, for example if you:
- conduct yourself so as to endanger the safety of the aircraft or any person or property on board,
- obstruct, or fail to comply with any direction of, any crew member,
- behave in a manner to which other Passengers may reasonably object,
- interfere with a crew member who is performing his or her duties on board an aircraft,
- tamper or interfere with the aircraft or its equipment.
The following 3 users liked this post by Cloudee:
And they did change his seat. From the one he had booked on the original flight, to the one he was "assigned" on the new one. Then he changed it back by mutual agreement with another passenger (who by the way was not punished by JQ for also failing to sit in their assigned seat). However, the argument to him is that he is being told he must move back and sit in his assigned seat because that is his assigned seat. I state again for the umpteenth time, there is no requirement in JQ's Conditions of Carriage to have to sit in your assigned seat. So while they can change your seat, in this case there was absolutely no reason or requirement to. They directed him because they could. No other reason. So, you could argue, have they
F*ck no. They didn't take any steps. They went out of their way to impact the comfort and safety of this passenger. The Conditions of Carriage are supposed to work both ways.
take(n) all reasonable steps to maintain the comfort, safety and security of all Passengers
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 3rd Apr 2023 at 04:11.
The following 3 users liked this post by Traffic_Is_Er_Was:
I’m not arguing the rules , like most things there is a lot of grey and not sitting in your assigned seat on a jetstar flight is grey , not following a crew members instruction is black and white , has to be followed . My fascination is how it got to where it got too ? Would have this got to the absurd level of having a customer tasered ( yes I accept this is a police matter ) , the cabin crew member can’t have been happy with the outcome ? Maybe she was and that’s an issue in itself . If it was a Qantas flight would it have got to a father being tasered in front of his family ? . In my opinion it’s not a rules and regs thread , it’s what state is our industry in thread .
A bunch of goal post moving is going on here, for obvious reasons.
I said, earlier, that for all I know old mate was removed on the basis of trespass, consent to him being on the aircraft having been revoked as a consequence of behaviour that crew reasonably considered unacceptable. That’s not the same as him being removed on the basis that he committed a criminal offence as soon as he failed to comply with any CC direction.
I used the examples I used, Icarus2001, to try to make clear that the failure by a passenger to comply with any CC direction does not automatically have an adverse effect on objective safety. The only way to get to that outcome is to reason that failure to comply with any CC direction is in and of itself a safety issue. And it would inexorably follow – from this ‘Cartman logic’ - that a failure to comply with a direction that all black passengers sit in their allocated seats is a safety issue. It’s a stark hypothetical to make a simple point that some seem incapable of conceding. (I'm looking in the direction of folks like you, KAPAC.)
When we confront the fact – because it is a fact – that not all directions necessarily have a causal consequence for safety (unless you subscribe to ‘Cartman logic’) and also concede that the powers/authorities of crew – both cockpit and cabin - in the CASRs have an express link safety, it does not necessarily follow that old mate was a criminal as soon as he failed to comply with any CC direction. Those who think it necessarily follows are the people who’d administer those 450 volts shocks with alacrity in a Milgram Experiment.
As to the conditions of carriage quoted by Cloudee, that’s about the contract between the passenger and the operator. Breach of contract is not a crime. And you can’t, by some clauses or acknowledgments in the contract, expand the crew’s statutory powers under the CASRs. Those powers are what they say they are.
Breach of contract by a passenger may result in the operator being able to refuse to carry the passenger, and to revoke consent to the passenger being on board with the result that passenger is trespassing as soon as the passenger is asked to leave. It’s the trespass that’s the crime, not the failure to comply with CC directions. But even then, consider what would happen if the operator revoked consent to a passenger being on board because of the failure of the passenger to comply with one the directions I’ve used as examples. Would removal from the flight be lawful if the basis was a failure to comply with one of those directions, simply because of some words in a contract?
(Then there's the minor point noted by TIER: The conditions of carriage do not prohibit passengers from swapping seats.)
It may turn out that old mate was lawfully tasered for resisting arrest after being lawfully arrested. They’re now questions before the courts. But the message remains loud and clear. For the Cartmans out there: Passengers must respect CC authority. For the others: If you’re going to swap seats with someone on a Jetstar flight, make sure CC don’t find out.
I said, earlier, that for all I know old mate was removed on the basis of trespass, consent to him being on the aircraft having been revoked as a consequence of behaviour that crew reasonably considered unacceptable. That’s not the same as him being removed on the basis that he committed a criminal offence as soon as he failed to comply with any CC direction.
I used the examples I used, Icarus2001, to try to make clear that the failure by a passenger to comply with any CC direction does not automatically have an adverse effect on objective safety. The only way to get to that outcome is to reason that failure to comply with any CC direction is in and of itself a safety issue. And it would inexorably follow – from this ‘Cartman logic’ - that a failure to comply with a direction that all black passengers sit in their allocated seats is a safety issue. It’s a stark hypothetical to make a simple point that some seem incapable of conceding. (I'm looking in the direction of folks like you, KAPAC.)
When we confront the fact – because it is a fact – that not all directions necessarily have a causal consequence for safety (unless you subscribe to ‘Cartman logic’) and also concede that the powers/authorities of crew – both cockpit and cabin - in the CASRs have an express link safety, it does not necessarily follow that old mate was a criminal as soon as he failed to comply with any CC direction. Those who think it necessarily follows are the people who’d administer those 450 volts shocks with alacrity in a Milgram Experiment.
As to the conditions of carriage quoted by Cloudee, that’s about the contract between the passenger and the operator. Breach of contract is not a crime. And you can’t, by some clauses or acknowledgments in the contract, expand the crew’s statutory powers under the CASRs. Those powers are what they say they are.
Breach of contract by a passenger may result in the operator being able to refuse to carry the passenger, and to revoke consent to the passenger being on board with the result that passenger is trespassing as soon as the passenger is asked to leave. It’s the trespass that’s the crime, not the failure to comply with CC directions. But even then, consider what would happen if the operator revoked consent to a passenger being on board because of the failure of the passenger to comply with one the directions I’ve used as examples. Would removal from the flight be lawful if the basis was a failure to comply with one of those directions, simply because of some words in a contract?
(Then there's the minor point noted by TIER: The conditions of carriage do not prohibit passengers from swapping seats.)
It may turn out that old mate was lawfully tasered for resisting arrest after being lawfully arrested. They’re now questions before the courts. But the message remains loud and clear. For the Cartmans out there: Passengers must respect CC authority. For the others: If you’re going to swap seats with someone on a Jetstar flight, make sure CC don’t find out.
Why do passengers think that they are entitled to know what is in a company's operations manual? The OMs are part of the airline approval that CASA provides so thats all you need to know. If CASA requires the airline to conduct a headcount and passengers are required to sit in their allocated seats then thats the end of it.
The following users liked this post:
who by the way was not punished by JQ for also failing to sit in their assigned seat
They went out of their way to impact the comfort and safety of this passenger.
If you think that your view of your rights and obligations on board a Jetstar aircraft are correct then feel free to complain to Jetstar. If you think this is just a problem at Jetstar then you are simply wrong.
How many times do you have to be told that there was no "punishment"
Many many times passengers deliberately or otherwise will sit in a seat other than their assigned seats
Its when they refuse to comply with the instruction to return
The 'other" passenger did as he was asked so all good
They actually ensured the safety and comfort of all the other passengers who sat in the seat they had been assigned.
They also had been affected by the change of aircraft type and were probably not sitting in the same seats that they had been originally assigned. (my bolding and underline)
If you think that your view of your rights and obligations on board a Jetstar aircraft are correct
If you think this is just a problem at Jetstar then you are simply wrong.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 3rd Apr 2023 at 07:20.
The following users liked this post:
Many many times passengers deliberately or otherwise will sit in a seat other than their assigned seats.
The following 2 users liked this post by tossbag:
Listen friend. I have near 30 years experience with this mostly PIC from small turboprop to WB transpacific . Made mistakes before. You cannot take these animals into the air their behavior always gets worse. Here you had a completely confused and hostile irrational passenger who will not even follow instructions to take his own allocated seat ? Completely beyond the pale of any reasonable standard of human behavior. Now if he was truly aggrieved and discriminated against he should have simply deplaned in a calm manner and gone through Jetstar, the courts and relevant tribunals as necessary to lodge any claims of discrimination racial or otherwise. ALL airlines take any case of discrimination very seriously and only have the right to deny transport to customers based on their behavior.
Originally Posted by Koan
confused and hostile irrational passenger who will not even follow instructions to take his own allocated seat ?
That does not make him "an animal" or any of that kind of emotive rubbish. It makes him a father and, IMHO, someone who had a reasonable request that Cartman refused to work with. That the CC didn't do ID checks on the rest of the passengers to make sure they were sitting in their assigned seats is evidence enough there isn't - and never was - a safety issue in a one-for-one seat swap of this nature. Try sitting in an exit row and being told you have to swap as the CC deems you ineligible because they don't think you can lift the window, or whatever reason they give. "But I'm not in my assigned seat anymore, miss! I don't wanna ride the lightning, so I have to stay here!"
You cannot take these animals into the air their behavior always gets worse. Here you had a completely confused and hostile irrational passenger who will not even follow instructions to take his own allocated seat ? Completely beyond the pale of any reasonable standard of human behavior.
Give Koan a taser to use on these animals.
It seems to me the only thing that impacted old mates safety was his refusal to follow instructions.
(note I’ve made no comment on whether the whole situation could have been handled better)
Not at all. I don't instruct law enforcement in how to deal with trespassers that is their business. Due to security concerns post 911 we have very few interactions with customers regarding boarding issues on the ground. I just back up my crew and trust their judgement.
Now just the other day I happened to board late with the paperwork and I observed the behaviour of a passenger who was arguing with a gate agent about having to check his bag due to no more overhead locker space. I heard him pull the race card and claim discrimination. The agent scanned his boarding card and as the man was walking away to enter the jet bridge he turns around to face the agent and states loudly in front of dozens of people "I am the n-word you don't want to fxxx with and I will fxxx you up". So I pulled the agent aside and asked him "What is going on he just threatened you?" The agent told me the guy was "just a character". So I had a short greeting with the passenger in the jet bridge to asses his demeanor and then a huddle with our lead FA to advise of the situation. It turned out OK after some more grumbles during boarding and extending his false grievances to other customers he eventually took his seat and shut up.
I guess his outburst was just "a turn of phrase" that we must accept in this coarsening society.
The man had complied and reluctantly checked his bag.
People have a right to be rude as long as they follow all crew instructions.
Now just the other day I happened to board late with the paperwork and I observed the behaviour of a passenger who was arguing with a gate agent about having to check his bag due to no more overhead locker space. I heard him pull the race card and claim discrimination. The agent scanned his boarding card and as the man was walking away to enter the jet bridge he turns around to face the agent and states loudly in front of dozens of people "I am the n-word you don't want to fxxx with and I will fxxx you up". So I pulled the agent aside and asked him "What is going on he just threatened you?" The agent told me the guy was "just a character". So I had a short greeting with the passenger in the jet bridge to asses his demeanor and then a huddle with our lead FA to advise of the situation. It turned out OK after some more grumbles during boarding and extending his false grievances to other customers he eventually took his seat and shut up.
I guess his outburst was just "a turn of phrase" that we must accept in this coarsening society.
The man had complied and reluctantly checked his bag.
People have a right to be rude as long as they follow all crew instructions.
Last edited by Koan; 3rd Apr 2023 at 22:07.
Really? How exactly was the safety of the passenger impacted by changing seats? Was the new seat less safe than the old one?
It seems to me the only thing that impacted old mates safety was his refusal to follow instructions.
(note I’ve made no comment on whether the whole situation could have been handled better)
It seems to me the only thing that impacted old mates safety was his refusal to follow instructions.
(note I’ve made no comment on whether the whole situation could have been handled better)
(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.
(a) relating to the safety of the aircraft; or
(b) relating to the safety of a person on the aircraft.
You have already implicitly conceded that merely swapping seats by agreement had no impact on the safety of passengers. (It could be different if, for example, one of them was an exit row seat and the swapper into the exit row seat was not capable of carrying out exit row duties).
Can you now please articulate, with precision, your opinion as to the safety risk caused to the aircraft or to a person on the aircraft by old mate’s refusal to follow the instruction to move back to his allocated seat. Please start the sentence with:
“The safety risk caused by old mate’s refusal to follow the instruction to move back to his allocated seat was […STATE THE SAFETY RISK CAUSED TO THE AIRCRAFT OR A PERSON ON THE AIRCRAFT…]."
Are you in the camp whose opinion is that any failure by a passenger to comply with any CC instruction causes, in and of itself, a safety risk?
(It’s pretty clear that the situation could have been handled better in principle, but according to Lookleft and das the Jetstar Ops Manual dictated that it couldn’t.)
You've got it wrong Koan - and massively so! He was not a Until the CC ordered him into a seat away from his family, that he had swapped back to. This wasn't some drunken yobbo in hi-vis who's got ****faced in the lounge before his flight to Newman and who you know is going to cause issues airborne - it was a father who - quite reasonably IMHO - had arranged a mutual swap with another passenger to allow him to peacefully travel next to his family as he had arranged prior - afterall he had arranged it himself prior to the aircraft swap when Jetstar went back on that arrangement (for whatever reason), and who the CC decided to make an example of for no other reason than they could.
That does not make him "an animal" or any of that kind of emotive rubbish. It makes him a father and, IMHO, someone who had a reasonable request that Cartman refused to work with. That the CC didn't do ID checks on the rest of the passengers to make sure they were sitting in their assigned seats is evidence enough there isn't - and never was - a safety issue in a one-for-one seat swap of this nature. Try sitting in an exit row and being told you have to swap as the CC deems you ineligible because they don't think you can lift the window, or whatever reason they give. "But I'm not in my assigned seat anymore, miss! I don't wanna ride the lightning, so I have to stay here!"
That does not make him "an animal" or any of that kind of emotive rubbish. It makes him a father and, IMHO, someone who had a reasonable request that Cartman refused to work with. That the CC didn't do ID checks on the rest of the passengers to make sure they were sitting in their assigned seats is evidence enough there isn't - and never was - a safety issue in a one-for-one seat swap of this nature. Try sitting in an exit row and being told you have to swap as the CC deems you ineligible because they don't think you can lift the window, or whatever reason they give. "But I'm not in my assigned seat anymore, miss! I don't wanna ride the lightning, so I have to stay here!"
You follow crew instructions (even if they are wrong) or get off. You comply with security forces or get hauled off.
Thanks for the long post but a time to deal with right or wrong comes later when this man takes his false grievances to the courts to sue Police for false arrest (and grievous bodily injury ) and the airline for discrimination and denial of carriage in material breach of the contract of carriage.
Sure it will work out great for him.
Last edited by Koan; 3rd Apr 2023 at 23:02.
The following users liked this post:
To be clear, he did leave the aeroplane in hand cuffs and went to prison.
When they are reasonable, rational instructions concerning safety.
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”?
Got it, thanks for the history lesson Adolf. Good luck with that approach in life.
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.
When they are reasonable, rational instructions concerning safety.
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”?
Got it, thanks for the history lesson Adolf. Good luck with that approach in life.
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.
So now entitled to choose what is reasonable and rational in a FCOM I think I should buy a cigar and one of those pocket ashtrays and light up during boarding People smoked for decades onboard there is no immediate concern to safety of flight. When told to put it out I will refuse then claim discrimination.