Disgusting Jetstar
Interesting that all this discussion has been generated by a media story from one of the more trashy news outlets. The facts are very much different to that presented including that the "victim" at the centre of it was already being a nuisance before he boarded. It also transpires that the "victims" statement about off loading if the police were called was made to the PIC who had come out of the flight deck to try and resolve the issue. The PIC thought that would peacefully resolve the matter but of course the "victim" decided to take it up a notch.
You explain how his (and his family's) comfort, safety, and security were managed (as per JQ's CoC) by the CC dictating that he move to another seat. Did she take all reasonable steps (as per JQ's CoC)? No other passenger except the one mutually swapped with, who had voluntarily accepted any change in their own circumstances, was affected in any way. The direction to him to move back to his seat was not based on anything except the CC's whim at the time. She took no reasonable steps. She didn't apply it evenly, She didn't apply it to the other passenger. She didn't make a big deal that two passengers had supposedly endangered everyone else on board by not sitting in their assigned seat. She went after just one, based on whatever floated her boat at the time. And that's bullsh*t. It then turned into a clash of personalities. Absolutely nothing to do with safety, just pig-headedness on both parts. Unfortunately, CC stupidity and intransigence is protected, while a passenger's is not.
The following 3 users liked this post by Traffic_Is_Er_Was:
The simply fact is a crew member asked a passenger (rightly or wrongly) to do something. That passenger did not comply. Therefore that passenger was asked to leave the aircraft. As they also did not comply with that instruction, the AFP was called. What happened after that is nothing to do with the crew. But I will say this...
For those who blame the CSM have you considered the following?
1. What if 15 pax want you swap seats is that okay? How many is okay? 1? 3? 12?
2. What level Of non compliance from pax is acceptable?
3. When the aircraft is delayed and a report is required from the CSM , Is Jetstar going to support her decision to provide good customer service instead of following the ops manual?
3. Was she ever provided any sort of customer service training?
4. The fact she works for one of the worst companies in Australia in terms of care, respect and support for it's staff? What is the likely hood of being on the wrong side of Jetstar's punitive culture? I'd say its very high.
5. Many of Jetstar's regular "clientele" can be difficult, misbehaving and feral. Maybe she just reached her limit?
I think this incident is just a result of a poor customer service at the airport mixed with a frustrated and tierd crew, sick of feral pax and continually being beaten down by a horrible management and punitive culture resulting in a zero care factor. Mix that with a couple of keen AFPs with their fingers on the trigger and you get this incident.
If one of my crew are having a problem with a pax I'm not going into the cabin to show them my superiority. I'll listen and if they feel they can't get the passenger to be compliment or they are uncomfortable then the pax is getting off. End of discussion. I trust my crew. Exactly the same as they trust me to do my job.
Jet star treating you like **** is not a reason for ignoring my crews instructions. After all the only people JQ treat worse than their pax is their employees! We all know how ****** jetstar is. It's not an excuse to be a prick.
For those who blame the CSM have you considered the following?
1. What if 15 pax want you swap seats is that okay? How many is okay? 1? 3? 12?
2. What level Of non compliance from pax is acceptable?
3. When the aircraft is delayed and a report is required from the CSM , Is Jetstar going to support her decision to provide good customer service instead of following the ops manual?
3. Was she ever provided any sort of customer service training?
4. The fact she works for one of the worst companies in Australia in terms of care, respect and support for it's staff? What is the likely hood of being on the wrong side of Jetstar's punitive culture? I'd say its very high.
5. Many of Jetstar's regular "clientele" can be difficult, misbehaving and feral. Maybe she just reached her limit?
I think this incident is just a result of a poor customer service at the airport mixed with a frustrated and tierd crew, sick of feral pax and continually being beaten down by a horrible management and punitive culture resulting in a zero care factor. Mix that with a couple of keen AFPs with their fingers on the trigger and you get this incident.
If one of my crew are having a problem with a pax I'm not going into the cabin to show them my superiority. I'll listen and if they feel they can't get the passenger to be compliment or they are uncomfortable then the pax is getting off. End of discussion. I trust my crew. Exactly the same as they trust me to do my job.
Jet star treating you like **** is not a reason for ignoring my crews instructions. After all the only people JQ treat worse than their pax is their employees! We all know how ****** jetstar is. It's not an excuse to be a prick.
The following 5 users liked this post by cLeArIcE:
The safety risk caused by old mate’s refusal to follow the instruction to move back to his allocated seat was […
The father is a nervous flyer ,it would appear.
Everyone is different with
Genetic instinct is to protect your family or die trying.
His genuine/or imagined ability to protect his family is best served by his presence, not 10 rows back.
As ordered and demanded by insensitive AFP. CC.
His wife may possibly also be a very nervous person with perhaps limited English skills , her husbands’ presence will enhance her ability to cope with the family’s’ safety ,with whatever happens on take off or inflight, real or imagined.
Filing a complaint later does not resolve their immediate anxiety.
As dealing with all mixes of passengers they have individually diverse background in confidence, respect and faith in authority to protect their family.
That is reinforced by some posts on this “professional forum”
Everyone is responsible for risk assessments in the workplace.
Check list & SOP, Deviation is well documented.
Ignorance on the crew awareness of the childs’ father genuine safety concern especially escalating the situation.
The father is a nervous flyer ,it would appear.
Everyone is different with
Genetic instinct is to protect your family or die trying.
His genuine/or imagined ability to protect his family is best served by his presence, not 10 rows back.
As ordered and demanded by insensitive AFP. CC.
His wife may possibly also be a very nervous person with perhaps limited English skills , her husbands’ presence will enhance her ability to cope with the family’s’ safety ,with whatever happens on take off or inflight, real or imagined.
Filing a complaint later does not resolve their immediate anxiety.
As dealing with all mixes of passengers they have individually diverse background in confidence, respect and faith in authority to protect their family.
That is reinforced by some posts on this “professional forum”
Everyone is responsible for risk assessments in the workplace.
Check list & SOP, Deviation is well documented.
Ignorance on the crew awareness of the childs’ father genuine safety concern especially escalating the situation.
The guy ultimately ended up getting tasered because of this decision by the CC to intervene.
The following 3 users liked this post by Lookleft:
Ditto a failure by black passengers to comply with a crew member’s direction that all black passengers must sit in their allocated seats
to confirm that all black passengers will do what they are told during the flight
to confirm that all black passengers will do what they are told during the flight
The following users liked this post:
Its quite clear that you are not interested in the facts. The facts are the "victim" got tasered by the AFP for not following their instructions. Jetstar staff are not issued and are not trained on the use of a taser.
When you board any aircraft if the CC say that you have to return to the seat number printed on your boarding pass they are not picking randoms to make themselves feel better. They are doing so because of a reason they don't have to explain.
The following 2 users liked this post by Traffic_Is_Er_Was:
Be outraged then TIEW. The Captain tried to sort it out and the "victim" wanted the police. The "victim" then decided to assault the AFP so he got tasered for his decision to not do what they asked.
What reason would that be then? As has been stated the CC just want to get through the day doing the job they are asked to do, in the manner the airline wants it done, with the co-operation of the passengers.
Go by train then or drive yourself.
They are picking specific passengers for a reason they can't explain,
None of those are rigidly adhered to by the airline.
The following users liked this post:
The terms of the CC’s power/authority to give instructions in CASR 91.580 are:Let’s set aside the fact that flight, as defined in the Act, hadn’t commenced.
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 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.)
Try reading what I actually wrote - and only what I wrote - which simply said that a previous posters claim that asking the bloke to move to his allocated seat compromised his safety is, in my opinion, rubbish.
It no doubt compromised his personal desire to sit with his family, but his safety? BS.
Regardless of anything else if he’d just done as he was told he could have swapped seats five minutes after takeoff and spent the entire flight until just before landing in the seat he wanted. And if he still felt aggrieved afterwards he could have filed a complaint.
That’s what any normal rational person would do.
The fact he got tasered and dragged off the plane is entirely his fault, although I know these days personal responsibility is basically non existent.
The following 4 users liked this post by rcoight:
I have never worked for Jetstar so can’t comment on whether the culture there encourages people to use discretion when it comes to varying company policy. Or whether senior management will back junior staff if they commit any inadvertent breach of the rules.
But having worked at CASA for a brief period, and having dealt with them over many years, I can tell you that some of the most difficult people within that organisation are those who oversee cabin safety procedures and cabin crew training. To cop an audit from this lot can be a nightmare. They will nitpick the slightest deviance from the regulations and company operations manual. When they approve EP instructors they really put them through the wringer. A pilot flight examiner approval is much easier than some of what I have seen in the cabin crew training arena.
Having been trained by, and working in, such a culture , the CC’s handling of ‘old mate’ is no surprise. Also, bear in mind it was he - not she - that demanded the cops be brought in to resolve the issue. Which they did…
But having worked at CASA for a brief period, and having dealt with them over many years, I can tell you that some of the most difficult people within that organisation are those who oversee cabin safety procedures and cabin crew training. To cop an audit from this lot can be a nightmare. They will nitpick the slightest deviance from the regulations and company operations manual. When they approve EP instructors they really put them through the wringer. A pilot flight examiner approval is much easier than some of what I have seen in the cabin crew training arena.
Having been trained by, and working in, such a culture , the CC’s handling of ‘old mate’ is no surprise. Also, bear in mind it was he - not she - that demanded the cops be brought in to resolve the issue. Which they did…
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.
At the point where he threatened staff and became abusive is right where he SHOULD have been carted off by the cops for some attitude adjustment
My humble take on the situation is that the airline might require you to be in your ticketed seat for the take off in the event of a take off incident where there are casualties. Makes for easier identification possibly, depending on the nature of the accident. One might even ask the question why go to the bother of assigning seats, have traveled on an airline DC-9 where it wasn't policy, you grabbed whatever seat you wanted of those available, first in best dressed. A light load might have required CC to direct pax to certain rows for CoG reasons perhaps, our flight was chock full both ways.
Something police and customs staff see all too regularly.
I heard him pull the race card and claim discrimination
The identification rationale is false.
In a serious crash the seats detach from the rails and end up piled up at the front of the cabin,
The seat numbers are on the overhead lockers. No help.
That is where the DVI team comes in, as people move seats all the time, without being found out.
Also remember the airline has no idea who is on their aircraft as ID is not required.
In a serious crash the seats detach from the rails and end up piled up at the front of the cabin,
The seat numbers are on the overhead lockers. No help.
That is where the DVI team comes in, as people move seats all the time, without being found out.
Also remember the airline has no idea who is on their aircraft as ID is not required.
The following 2 users liked this post by Icarus2001:
Look, CC were probably wrong in requesting this passenger to go to his allocated seat. We don't know why they requested it, none of us were there. I'll say it again, CC were probably wrong.
But this pasenger was definitely wrong in not complying. Yes, it would suck to be away from his family, yes he had every right to be irritated, but not complying is not an option.
For some posters that took this to absurdity asking if I would comply with instructions of doing pushups or whatever it was, have you ever heard of such a request?
I am going to take it to another extreme, should all passengers that have traveled on MD-80 planes go all the way forward, to avoid noise from those back mounted engines? Who cares if CC tells them to go back to their seats due to CG. Or should I just ignore CC if I decide I want to seat in first class if there are empty seats? There is no safety reason that prevents me doing so. I mean, I want it, so I have every right to do so.
What he should have done is to comply, lodge a complaint after landing and chose never to fly that airline again. He could even sue them for caused distress, if he choses so. And all of us here would fully support him in doing so.
But this pasenger was definitely wrong in not complying. Yes, it would suck to be away from his family, yes he had every right to be irritated, but not complying is not an option.
For some posters that took this to absurdity asking if I would comply with instructions of doing pushups or whatever it was, have you ever heard of such a request?
I am going to take it to another extreme, should all passengers that have traveled on MD-80 planes go all the way forward, to avoid noise from those back mounted engines? Who cares if CC tells them to go back to their seats due to CG. Or should I just ignore CC if I decide I want to seat in first class if there are empty seats? There is no safety reason that prevents me doing so. I mean, I want it, so I have every right to do so.
What he should have done is to comply, lodge a complaint after landing and chose never to fly that airline again. He could even sue them for caused distress, if he choses so. And all of us here would fully support him in doing so.
The following 2 users liked this post by admikar:
Also remember the airline has no idea who is on their aircraft as ID is not required
When you live....
transpac at least passports have been correlated to boarding pass
The following users liked this post:
Megan, I am referring to domestic flights. No ID required to print boarding pass. Even if it was I can hand my boarding pass to another male who could board instead of me. As I said, airlines have no idea who is on board.
