Yes but is a packed aircraft on a tight schedule the right place to argue your point ?

No. So either disembark or just shut up and do as you're told and write an angry letter to Customer Services after the event if you feel hard done by.

The reality is that all you're doing by giving the crew a piece of your mind is pissing them off. The added benefit of following the established complaints procedure is that your complaint gets looked at by a second pair of eyes and possibly even gets resolved for the long term (i.e. words with / retraining of / disciplining of crew involved)....by trying to DIY with the cabin crew all you're going to get is an ultra short-term resolution that will only last as long as the duration of the flight... nobody in HR or anywhere else will hear about it.

A lot of it is area/cultural of the pax you have onboard.

Same with the crew as well. The CC from further north of the UK are less prone to letting theatrics start.

Same with age as well, the more mature CC have more life experience and stop discussions occurring.

It is a fact that some see it as an infringement of their human rights be told what to do, and will argue black is white and vice versa.

To be honest I don't miss at all uplifting pax in the SE its been 2 years since I have. And in those 2 years I have had only one pax required to be off loaded. I will give you 2 guesses on his nationality and where he came from.


If you think its acceptable refusing a lawful instruction from flight crew do us all a favour get the Eurostar or a bus and let the rest travel in peace without subjecting them to a tantrum.

I think you are making my point for me. This is not a very measured or balanced conversation, is it?

Nope and nor will it ever be when a member of crew gives you an instruction on board an aircraft.

Nor will it be if a member of the security mafia give you an instruction

And also customs and excise/ immigration control.

All of those examples are covered by acts of parliament.

If you don't like find another means of transport. Because if you think you know better you will end up with a criminal record end of story.

Really?
The scene, passengers boarding an aircraft
On found not to be adhering to hand baggage rules one passenger stopped from boarding until rules are complied with.
Passenger immediately plays the "Get out of Jail" card and accuses staff of being racist! Discussion continues until the baggage issue resolved and passenger boards aircraft.

Passenger takes seat and immediately begins cursing and swearing at staff and about them requiring that rules (the T&Cs) be complied with, when any CC try to calm the passenger down out comes the racist card again.

Captain hears all this and intervenes, is immediately called a racist and passenger refuses to calm down or stop swearing

Passenger is off-loaded.

Takes it to the equalities agency, case thrown out!

So, should the crew have immediately allowed the T&Cs to be ignored and make a special case or were they all right to insist on following them?

So you've paid for reserved seating and ticked that little box that you agree with the T&Cs

Lets look at some

Seating changes and refunds | Choosing your seat | British Airways

So there does not seem a lot of room for discussion on-board the aircraft so why waste everyone's time

Getting steadily worse....

To fly, to serve. Fly the friendly skies. Your gonna like us. We love to fly and it shows. US Air begins with 'U'.

Of course, not all these are still with us.

That passengers have little room to manoeuvre within the T&Cs they have agreed to - yes.

(BTW I am not employed within aviation, just a passenger that seeks to follow the T&Cs)

You really shouldn't feel that you have to justify or qualify your status when posting in this forum - on this thread, or any other.

Despite what some appear to believe, there is no particular gravitas or authority that derives from being 'In' the industry. One lesson learned during my years flying and observing people 'in' and 'out' of the industry was that the more dogmatic an individual approach, the more sceptical I should be as to the value of those assertions.

As far as I can determine, this thread got heated when mad_jock (nomen est omen) started equating asking a question of the cabin crew with "backchat", the latter being a valid reason in his parallel universe for his having a passenger disembarked.

It's now evolved into threatening to gift customers a criminal record for "backchat....

Again.

If cabin crew give a legal instruction, there's no reason not to comply.
If it's a "you'll do that just because I say so", there will be a request for explanation.

And if you assign me a seat other than the one I've paid for, I'm certainly entitled to ask politely which "operational, safety or security reasons" necessitated the change.

In the hope that the captain - if he or she deems it necessary to get involved - acts like the senior management that they are and not like a jobsworth municipal parking attendant....

We're all getting our knickers crossed a little here. The Captain will very rarely get involved. It's not their domain, most will simply expect the cabin crew to deal with it..... And the majority of cabin crew will have no problem with dealing with it. If it became particularly abusive or violent and this was whilst on stand then the Captain, or indeed FO, would likely get involved.... But only for the protection of his/her crew. That scenario is still pretty rare though and it is important to add that no flight crew will get involved in disputes, violent or other whilst the aircraft is in the air. At most carriers this is simply not allowed.

The reason why they are getting their knickers in a twist is because they object to anyone telling them what to do.

The fact they have no choice in the matter and it may lead to a criminal record if they refuse is just plain infuriating.

And it should never be "because I am telling you to" although I will admit you more than likely you all have examples of that happening.

If you do see poor handling of pax on a UK flight please report it to.

CHIRP

And they will investigate. And its a top level enquiry which goes in a post holder level ie the person that is responsible to the authority's.

Swear even once at any of the crew or act in an aggressive manner and your off end of story, if it happens in the air you will be met by the police.

One of the major problems is of the airline business' own making. Here I speak collectively of all carriers. Most regular flyers know about the law and needing to obey it but 99% of Pax do not.

"Your safety is our first concern blah blah" but they NEVER say that you have to do as you are told. If pax knew why - it would be better. But, across the last 40 years of mass travel, most pax have been told THEY are the most important person.

When this is coupled with the modern sense of 'I can do anything - no one can tell me anything' then conflict is only one sentence away. The carriers need to start letting the pax know the full story and WHY. It's no good putting it in the Ts&Cs but most carriers will shy away from it as telling the pax how beautiful and perfect they are - will always appeal to the Board and CEO.

They do on the US carriers, something along the lines of "federal law requires compliance with all lighted signs, placards and crew member instructions".

I most certainly don't disagree with that PAXboy.

The people that are most in the know I have found are oil workers.

They get a full briefing by the company about being on duty when being transported to their place of work. And the apply strict rules about their conduct. Failure to comply is instant dismissal.

I have seen one airline implement a zero tolerance policy, the first month it resulted with quite a few off loads and police involvement. Then word got about and it was much better for everyone concerned pax included.

After that pax numbers started increasing. The vast majority of pax appreciate a safe secure environment. So even though they had to pay more they avoided the cheaper alternative who had all the plonkers onboard.

Which is why a firm response pays dividends. People don't want to sit in planes full of drunks being loud and the vast majority are definitely on the side of crew when they are asked to move seat for an obvious reason like getting a child with a parent and they start getting stroppy or required to move from the exit row.

The UK does have a problem with Air rage. It is cultural. From what I can tell its to do with this "respect" concept linked to the perceived social status of the person in relation to the CC.

It would be interesting though if someone pulled the statistics both of the pax and the CC involved with the incidents.

For me if you have a Geordie or Leeds CC on-board you can have the hardest and ruffest bunch of pax on board you like. Never any problems. Why? mainly because they have a don't mess with me aura from the moment the pax come on board the aircraft. You can't train that, they just have it.

Slightly off-topic but....

I've heard that even when meandering around the relatively safe vast expanses of their employer's headquarters back on dry land, oil employees are mandated to keep to one side of the staircase going up and one side going down, and one hand on the handrail at all times ?

Perhaps his madness would care to confirm ?

And some sort of false sense of entitlement.

In the company I work for we occasionally have to, for safety reasons, make decisions that are inconvenient for our customers, we know this and try hard to avoid having to take these steps.

However when we do it is usual for us to give advance warning to some, more often in these days we get the reply "You can't do that!"
Not in the sense of "it will cause me problems" but in the sense of "I will not allow you, or you are not allowed"
Well sorry but we are, in fact legally we do not even have to give notice in certain circumstances.

It is true in many oil companies. Part of a confusion between slips trips and falls (which are easy to measure) and process safety (which is very hard to measure). Ask BP.

So in a nutshell, I ask a simple question in a reasonable manner, and you wave the ANO and threaten the police and a criminal record. I am glad most of the air crew I meet don't live in that world. But it is depressing the number that seem to.

I work with an an ex eastern crew member who absolutely hated the oil/gas flights for the pure grief they would get.

mixture its a health and safety thing dictated by some safety officers.

The lifting of things can also get a bit silly. Ie you need a safety hazard assessment to pick up a fire extinguisher.

It basically covers the company against being sued for certain industrial injury's.

Depends when you ask it, I suggest you don't do it while they are shutting the doors and trying to get off stand. But leave it to later, maybe when they have finished the service. It also makes a difference if your moving while you ask it ie complying or your sat cross armed making no effort to move.

They won't do it unless there is a reason. But if they have told you to move its not optional and asking a question isn't going to change the fact your going to have to move.

And it will get more and more of it driven by the legal types as air rage is on the increase and the softly softy isn't working. There are folk now trying it on suing for emotional stress just watching when something kicks off from 5-6 rows away.

Oh how dramatic, and very unrealistic.

Before the captain appears on the scene there needs to be an escalation but when they do appear it will be short and sweet. So I would be very surprised if asking one question would result in that initial answer. By the time the captain turns up its about 95% certain your off, if you refuse then its your choice if you want to discuss it with the police. The police will not listen to anything you say they will remove you.

It also depends on if the person your asking thinks its reasonable, asking the question isn't going to change what's going to happen so why bother asking it?