Disgusting Jetstar
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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...)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 28th Mar 2023 at 04:00.
The following users liked this post:
One day someone should do a study on the weird, symbiotic yet antagonistic relationship between punter and sandwiche-chucker
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.
(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.)
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?
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Classic.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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?
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?
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.
The following 2 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
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...)
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...)
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.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
It would depend on the safety implications of the circumstances.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Traffic
What requirement would that be?
Originally Posted by traffic
That passengers must sit in their assigned seats?
Originally Posted by traffic
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?
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;
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
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.
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?
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post: