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.....

Except you can't leave gulag. You can leave Jetstar airplane. In fact, he was asked to do so.

To get back on topic. When, in your opinion, passengers should stop disobeying CC and start following their instructions?

Not relevant. At all. This dude plays the victim and the journos seem to like to play along. People like him should be put in their place, handcuffs in this case.

If you are unable to obey authority, then you should be punished. Otherwise society can not function. If Jetstar was wrong on the reason why he was asked to leave: argue that in court. Make em pay.

You dont say "I will leave when the police come" and then not leave. Police in these situations will always side with the crew (as they have the authority on board), everybody with say 3 braincells or more, will know that. The theatrical reaction to "the footage" does not impress me either.

The "I did nothing wrong" defence won´t work.

Answer: When failure to follow the instructions would have an effect on the safety of the aircraft or other POB.

If CC 'instructed' you to drop and give them 10 push ups, would you comply? Instructed you to pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time? Instructed you to swap seats with your partner sitting right next to you, because you're sitting in the seat allocated to her and she's sitting in the seat allocated to you?

You've been 'instructed'.

Some on here seem to take the view that any failure to follow any CC 'instruction' of itself causes a safety risk (and is an offence). That view is patent nonsense.

Old mate could have the left the aircraft when requested ... leaving his wife and infant child on board.

Have you ever had a wife and infant child?

So if the person behind you was constantly banging on the back of your seat, or throwing food - intensely annoying, but no threat to safety - you don’t feel they should have to comply with an instruction from the crew to stop doing it?

In that scenario, they don't have to comply. You should actually read the CASRs quoted in this thread, which CASRs actually spell out what directions and instructions from 'crew' are binding, and when, and what constitutes disorderly and offensive conduct offences. I didn't put the safety element in them. Someone else did.

I find screaming babies intensely annoying. I find BO intensely annoying. I find bad breath intensely annoying. I've yet to find any CC who'll do anything about passengers with screaming babies, BO or bad breath. But that's why I've never flown Jetstar.

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.

The scenario that has got all the Monday morning quarterbacks in a tizz happens frequently. Not the tazering bit but the failure to follow CC instructions especially over seating. Spare me the pathos LB, often the mother and child are very happy that the father has been kicked off.

I hope you don't become a grandfather then. From all at the frontline at Jetstar, thankyou for your lack of patronage.

I ask you and das a third time:I also note, again, that TIER’s question to das remains unanswered:

Clearly, lawyers are to blame. Common Sense has no business in a courtroom.

That is the whole point, passengers are not qualified to make that call. They do not know the “why”. It appears cabin crew are now the same.

Lead man, the rules state that the PIC must check the safety equipment on board before flight, I never do this as the cabin crew do it (most airlines the same). They then make a statement to me that “ all the safety equipment….blah blah blah”

How does that sit with your thoughts on “delegation” of PIC authority and requirements,

Something to be found on any of the worlds airlines, can't say I've endured such on any Jetstar flight.So how can you prattle on as an expert (self appointed) on the subject of Jetstar standards, I bet you write restaurant reviews without having eaten in the establishment.As said previously, I'm a very, very happy Jetstar passenger, on the face of it I'd rather not welcome sitting along side your good self on any airline.

They're not exercising your power or authority, or discharging your obligation. Same with W&B (at least under the 'old' rules, which was always the source of heavy metal PIC angst). You can rely on other people and what you're told or toss a coin or whatever, but the outcome is that YOU commit the strict liability offence if the obligation is not discharged.

Here's an idea: Write to CASA and ask them.

I've never written a restaurant review.

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!

Part of a hypothetical discussion I know:
But they do interpret it. Because they don't check that everyone is in their allocated seat before takeoff. They pick and choose which passengers to apply it to. So claims that CC are strait jacketed into following their ops manual are BS. They apply only those parts they feel they need to.

How would you deal with it (presuming that person would not stop doing whatever it was doing)?
And can I get this as an official statement, just in case I happen to be seated behind you?

It was already said, passengers are not capable of making the call if instructions are safety related or not (most of them).

To answer LB, yes, I have a wife and had infant children. Travelled without any problems. You would be surprised how some respect gets a lot of things done your way.

I think that draws a line under this thread nicely.
​​​​​​​

I, too, have travelled without any problems. I’m entirely unsurprised that mutual respect and common courtesy are the basis on which most social interactions and disagreements are sorted out.

Icarus2001 said:I note the last sentence. Others should, too.

In a similar vein, admikar said:I note the bracketed words. Others should, too.

But let’s deal with the basic issue, head on: Let’s assume that crew – cockpit and cabin – are the only POB “qualified and capable” of deciding whether an instruction is a “reasonable and rational” direction concerning safety. Even if that assumption were true, it does not automatically follow that every direction in fact given by crew has a causal consequence for safety in fact. Unless…

It does automatically follow that every direction in fact given by crew has a causal consequence for safety in fact, if a person’s failure to comply with a direction from crew is of itself the safety issue. (And I’m guessing the Cartmans among us would take the view that it’s axiomatic that a failure to respect the orr-tho-rit-tie of crew is, of itself, a safety issue.) Let’s make that assumption.

On that assumption, it would follow that a passenger’s failure to comply with a crew direction to: “Drop and give me 10 pushups” or “Pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time” is a safety problem and an offence justifying ejection of the passenger from the aircraft. Ditto a failure by black passengers to comply with a crew member’s direction that all black passengers must sit in their allocated seats. After all, the direction was given by someone “qualified and capable” of deciding whether it’s a direction concerning safety. This crew member decided that he needed to confirm that passengers in the exit row had the physical strength and dexterity to open the emergency doors at the end of the row, rather than to accept their assurances that they were fit and able, and to confirm that all black passengers will do what they are told during the flight. After all: Any non-compliance equals a safety problem, equals an offence equals justification for ejection from the aircraft.

At this point, some of you will be saying that that is a completely ridiculous outcome and others will be saying it makes perfect sense. The content of this thread is a fascinating but unsurprising insight into the legal and philosophical aspects of obedience. The ‘Milgram Experiment’ is another and a more famous example providing that insight.

Clearly there are numerous contributors to this thread who believe there is ‘Cartman Clause’ in Part 91. If a passenger does not respect the authority of CC and comply with whatever instructions they give, the passenger is automatically a criminal and must be punished. Otherwise society cannot function. Those contributors would no doubt be licking their lips at the prospect of administering the 450 volt shock on instruction from an authority figure, in a latter-day version of the ‘Milgram Experiment’. It’s no wonder tasers are so popular!

As to crew being qualified and capable of making these safety judgments, I’m reminded of a PPRuNe thread about the weirdest habits and behaviours of PICs heavy metal. One contributor – corroborated by others – reported a PIC’s insistence that, for reasons of safety, all COMNAV frequency selector knobs MUST ONLY BE ROTATED CLOCKWISE when making selections. According to that PIC, anti-clockwise rotation increased the risk of damaging the controllers. I **** you not.

Same as I would in a restaurant or on the train. Deal with it like an adult. I certainly dont have an expectation that an annoying person in my vicinity should be subject to physical violence and then jailed.

The expectation that cabin crew can be summoned to deploy the catch all “you must do as I say” is a very slippery slope particularly when dealing with customers who are simply being “intensely annoying”.

Who gets to evaluate which particular behavior is annoying?

What if you came sashaying down the aisle in a tee shirt that said “Fxxx God”, as happened recently in the US.

To me that is “intensely annoying” and offensive. Should I call the cabin crew and request they demand you change shirts? Are you prepared to get tasered over the issue and carted away by the AFP?

Generally no, they cant.


But the situation the tasered passenger found himself in was one that would have made no sense to him. “You cant swap seats with another passenger because its unsafe despite originally being allocated the seat you have swapped into on the cancelled flight” is ridiculous to a layman and 5 minutes of customer service in the form of an explanation could well have changed the outcome dramatically.

Customer service, leadership and training are seriously lacking in this event along with very pooir judgement by the AFP who according to SEVERAL witnesses issued instructions to the man at the same time as grabbing him.

How many times did this guy expect to ask "Tell me what I am doing wrong"? Delaying every person on that plane and obstructing
the whole operation. In our mob though we have to deplane the whole aircraft before these types can be forcibly dragged off no wonder we have degenerated into a
society of entitled crybabies.

A good lesson for the man's family and kids. If not him, somebody needs to teach them. In life if they refuse legal orders to vacate from a trespass or sensitive safety/security situation police WILL deal with them harshly and take them to jail.

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.

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. Passengers do not get to dictate how an airline runs it's operation. The only thing a passenger gets a say in is whether they purchase a ticket on that airline. There is plenty of information on social media about the airline for you to make an informed decision. Just remember they all would have similar requirements for passengers to follow CC instructions.

This bit I really enjoyed:

From the statements that have been made it would be more likely to be LB that would want to change seats despite CC direction. I could well imagine the indignance of a mere CC person telling a former CASA lawyer that he was required to sit in his allocated seat. Standing his ground and refusing to sit where his boarding pass indicated the CC then advises the PIC that there is a passenger in the cabin refusing to sit in his allocated seat and follow CC instructions. The PIC simply asks for the AFP to come to the aircraft and remove you as you are delaying the flight and if you are behaving like this on the ground then your behaviour is unlikely to get any better once in the air. Your fitness to fly is in doubt. Once the AFP come aboard your statement that the CC have no authority over you is correct, its now the AFP. I assume that at this point you would realise that your won't be travelling on this flight and would go with the AFP to continue your legal treatise in the terminal. If you decided to stand on your rapidly crumbling ground then the AFP might decide that the taser is the way to go.

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.

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.

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:

• 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.

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.

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 didn't say the passengers need to know. The Ops Manual and rigid adherence to it was being held up by another poster as the reason for the situation. If indeed CASA do require passengers to sit in their assigned seats for safety, is that not something CASA should bring to the attention of the passengers (outside of the airline's Ops Manual). Can't say I've ever seen CASA signage at airports about seating requirements. Strange that the airline doesn't see it necessary to impart that information to the passengers either via their Conditions of Carriage. Can't be that safety critical if no one feels it's necessary to actually tell passengers that requirement. How can you expect compliance if people don't know they have to comply?

Why would he be? 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. Mostly passengers will end up complying with the direction of the CC to return to that seat. Its when they refuse to comply with the instruction to return to their assigned seat that the situation starts to get elevated. The 'other" passenger did as he was asked so all good, why do you want to see him punished? The protagonist in all this did not do as he was asked and got belligerent so was removed from the aircraft. His response to the AFP is evidence that his belligerence would not have got any better once the doors were closed.

No they didn't! 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.

​​​​​​​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.

There was. The requirement to return to another seat, one that he felt was not suitable, and had exchanged by mutual consent with another passenger.
Why are these passengers not directed to return their assigned seats?
No argument there, but others don't get the instruction, even though they commit the same "offence"
What was he asked? I saw no evidence of them being directed to take their assigned seat. It appears only 1 passenger was being directed. Can you confirm that after old mate was tasered and dragged out, that the other passenger was sat in his assigned seat, directly beside the family of the man. Very uncomfortable
How did they do that? Did they go around afterwards and check all passengers against seats, moving any wayward passengers back to their assigned seats in the interests of comfort and safety? I think not.
You mean JQ didn't know if people were sitting in their assigned seats? I thought it was a big problem? The CC made a big deal out of the one she chose to get involved with. Maybe like all the others she could have just ignored it and, gee, maybe nothing would have happened?
What, my view that it seems unreasonable to enforce a requirement that doesn't exist?
​​​​​​​I don't. That's the scary thing.

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.

You know what pisses me off ladies and gentlemen, the dickheads that release their seatbelts before the aircraft comes to a stop, or the seatbelt sign comes off. I've NEVER heard a direction from the CC to pax to leave their seatbelts on when they hear the 'click-clack', not once. It is a very obvious safety issue. It appears that CC get very choosy about when they intervene on 'safety grounds'

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!":ugh::rolleyes:

And there we have it.

Give Koan a taser to use on these animals.

Only in America...

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)

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.

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.)

It doesn’t matter what happened
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.