BMI captain has passenger arrested for peeing
 

I found a thread on FlyerTalk about a passenger having to pee really bad and after refusing the FA's directive to remain seated the captain returned to the gate and had the passenger arrested. The full details aren't known but it does seem to me to be way overreacting if the story is a simple as was reported. Wonder what the professionals of this forum think about such situations.

Thread reference:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=803875

From what you hav typed it seems like a over reaction to me. Most Pilots would just stop the a/c and let the guy go quickly as assuming he did and returned to his seat with belt fastened ASAP. 1) its quicker than going back to stand and delaying all the other pax and 2) saves a wet seat (they do happen).



:ok:

Jem60
 

Some years ago, coming out of CDG, Air France Airbus, taxiing out, had had too much coffee in the lounge. Absolutely desperate, got out of my seat, smiled at the FA, pointed at the loo, she nodded her head, I went, returned eventually to my seat, not a word said. Recently,not going to mention the airline, Mombasa to Nairobi, my wife feeling distinctly ill, was in the loo when the aircraft touched down, although I did explain the situation to the very obliging FA.

Is it just me........or is everyone involved in aviation or airports trying their hardest to pi*s off the paying customer...........:*

While I think the FA could have let the guy go to the loo I can understand the captain's reaction to one of passengers apparently disobeying an order to sit down.

Sounds like they would have preffered the wet seat :ugh:

It's a fair question; but the answer is a bit more complex.

The problem is increasingly poor training, in several respects, and a growing alientation between airport and airline staff and the paying passengers, all stemming for a growing contempt for the customer that starts at the top in airports and airlines.

Most junior passenger contact staff, ground services and aircrew, are not only not empowered to make the often very small adjustment needed to give a passenger what's needed to resolve a problem, they are not even aware of what could be done. Moreover they have been imbued with a culture of "mustn't let them get away with it".

Then there are managers who lay down absurd and silly rules that customers must obey, often totally unnecessary, and threaten staff with dismissal if they "let them get away with" ignoring them. As often as not these rules are all to do with the airline's convenience and not the customer's, and the customer can spot this a mile off.

Most passenger have been using airlines for a lot longer than many junior staff have been working for them. And yet staff seem to be trained to think that they have some unique knowledge, and must treat passengers as though they are mentally sub-normal.

Now you have a new phenonenum of flight deck crew becoming unnecessarily macho, at the drop of a hat, and throwing people off their aircraft; occasionally one suspects that they do this in the mistaken belief that they must "back up the cabin staff" regardless of whether the cabin staff have behaved sensibly. The case this thread is about illustrates that.

I have heard the cabin safety announcement about twice every 2 weeks, on average, since 1968, and I don't actually need to hear it again. It's not my job to look interested "as an example to others". So I don't need some teenager telling me it's "for my own good", in the tones of a primary school teaching assistant. I've been in one or two evacuations, not just the crew training one.

I think that the Airline series on TV has a lot to answer for; week after week it sent a message that passengers were people to be treated like idiots, especially by handling staff, and herded from A to B to suit the convenience of staff.

Another culprit is the "you get what you pay for" culture, which a lot of passengers actually believe means they should have no expectations, and which many staff interpret as "I don't have to treat you as a customer; I'll treat you like the cheapskate you are". You only have to read some of the threads in the CC forums to get a taste of that attitude.

It all boils down to pervasive contempt for the customer that is relatively new to the air transport industry. I would date its onset as about 1995.

The blame sits, as always, at the top. Junior staff are what their companies have made them. When BAA behaves with magnificent contempt by subjecting passengers to the hell they have to endure, because BAA thinks that they are stupid enough to be encouraged to buy over-priced tat and blocks all its terminals with shops selling that, how can anyone blame its staff for spicking up on the message "These People are Mugs", and behaving accordingly.

For God's sake, the door into the terminal from Customs in T1 at LHR is covered by a huge sign; "ARRIVALS SHOPPING", it says! And sure enough, when you get through it you have to negotiate shops selling stuff that you can buy at half the price in the High Street.

Sorry, got diverted there. No, people are not trying to p**s off the paying customer, they don't even know they're doing it. Rant over.

Compromise! Has that word disappeared and the word intransigence taken its place.
A pax can hardly tote a receptacle and in cases of dire need use that, he is in too close proximity to other pax and liable to an indecency charge.
cc are not, I suppose, in a position to waive standing orders, the alternative? Wet pants and a wet seat. The reality arrest. This cannot be right. This is a rule catch 22 situation.
In my opinion it needs discussing at training and management level.

CAPOT you have said it all.................:D:D:D
I've also been flying much longer than l would like to admit to. It used to be fun. Now its all ' rush rush ....wait wait......rush wait.. get pissed off at some stupid rule.......wait wait.'
And dont get me going on that airline show........How in hell Easyjet allow the show to air with proof of how badly their spotty faced babies handle and talk to fare paying passengers. ......... Most of the problems they cause the passengers could be resolved in 2 seconds flat with a little bit of a change in their 'tude'.......
Maybe its a generation thing........:rolleyes:
God l could go on....

Happy snowy Easter to you all....:ok:

Sorry for the thread drift but I must comment on the statement below

Capot
You are not the only person on board. It is a legal requirement to make the announcement and can be reassuring to nervous pax and less seasoned travellers.If you have been told it's 'for my own good' then there must have been a reason. The CC wouldn't normally comment on someone politely sitting there whilst they go through the no doubt repetetive but necessary narrative. Maybe if you briefed them on your vast experience, they would allow you to decide what is necessary when briefing an aircraft full of different nationalities,ages and experience:rolleyes: I too, am well travelled and have been in aviation for 30+ years. I wouldn't dream of being so rude or disrespectful as to assume I know better. Pilots, CC et al sit there and listen politely when travelling. What makes you bigger than that. I don't normally read tis forum but it has opened my eyes a little to what CC have to deal with on a daily basis.http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/icons//icon8.gif Rant Off

Airline staff could do a lot more in the 'customer service' department but Capot your post does look rather 'one sided'; what strikes me from watching programmes like Airline and travelling for real is not how poorly trained the staff are (far from it most seem quite good actually) but for whatever reason how rude and difficult passengers have become.

A lot of the people that appeared on Airline (obviously the cameras tend to focus on them) seem to behave as if losing a piece of luggage is the end of the world....or take out anger on staff who's only crime is delivering bad news (like there has been an ATC strike in Spain or something) and have no appreciation that actually in the bigger scheme of things their problems don't warrant their outbursts of swearing that they direct towards staff.

Capot vs Gunky Tom
 

Capot did not say that the announcement should not be made, just that he does not have to pretend to paying attention when he knows the routine by heart. I fly a to CDG every two weeks on the same type of aircraft and carrier for the last 3+ years. I could do the presentation myself, without error. Cabin Staff vary in their response to customers. I have seen some get irritated with SLF who don't pay attention but were not in any way disruptive. One passenger ahead of me was looking out of the window and the CC came over and asked him to pay attention. I think that is OTT, she had no idea if he did the flight daily. On the other hand, passengers who talk through the safety demo should be corrected, as they could be interfering with another passengers ability to hear the presentation. There is no law saying a passenger must listen, just one that says that the briefing takes place. Furthermore, any CC who says that their attention has not drifted during a training session is just a liar, so why get so high and mighty with a passenger who has seen and heard the presentation dozens or even hundreds of times?

I once commented to a pilot friend of mine at EZ that I couldn't understand why EZ allowed the programme to show, because it often showed their staff in a poor light. I remember one episode with a scouser of oriental origin who was literally goading a passenger who was upset and seemed to be trying to provoke her. It was astounding the stroppy attitude she had towards a passenger who was in the wrong, (late as usual), but obviously distressed and very anxious. His reply was that EZ regarded the programme as a valuable tool for lowering passenger expectations and educating them about the rules and expectations of low cost travel. In that respect the show was useful for them.

Only snag with this, is that if you watch the show often enough you will find the staff apply the rules erratically, are often wrong themselves and don't know how to handle it when they are. They often become belligerant or disappear when they get it wrong. The other day the same scouse "customer service agent" was denying boarding to a group of Somali travellers to Switzerland becuase they didn't have the right documentation. She was rude, hostile and aggressive. She was also wrong. When she was told she was wrong, she was less than apologetic and instead started justifying herself. Pathetic.

Good evening everyone.. first time poster here, please be gentle.. after 16 years as cabin crew, this is my take on it.. aircraft starts taxi, obviously the seatbelt sign is on. Pax gets up to go to loo.we cannot physically stop a pax from getting up, just remind them that the seatbelt sign is on, for a pretty good reason. we don't know the conversation between cc and pax. but the cc would have to inform senior cc that the cabin is not secure. the senior would pass that on to flight deck.ultimately the captain would make the decision then. whether it's "let me know when it is secure", or whatever.It's the captain 's call.never would I imagine the plane to stop during taxi and wait for pax to sit down...!! That would close LHR..!! pax is disregarding a direct order by getting up while seatbelt sign is on. captain's decision.. end of story... should have gone before you got on..

Good Evening 13 Please

Welcome to PPRuNe.

I think you will find that " being gentle" is not something that happens too often on here :)

Your words " end of story.. should have gone before you got on"

If you read the thread of FlyerTalk you would have read that the aircraft had doors closed and pushed back then remained on the ground for about 1 hour.

Seems that the pax could not wait to go and with having a 1 hour wait on the ground then soon the call of nature is going to affect some people.

We are not all equipped with the bladder of a bull:}

He was a grown man for :mad: sake, could he not hold it?!:hmm:

I did read it, but I did just go back and read it again properly. I had realised there was a delay on the ground, but missed the 2nd one, after starting to taxi. From a pax perspective, the problem would have been the aircraft stopping again after starting to taxi.I appreciate the feeling of needing a wee, have been very heavily pregnant, twice..However once that pax undoes the seatbelt and walks, while the seatbelt sign is lit, the cabin crew member has no choice but to inform senior cc, that the aircraft is not secure for take-off. It's not a punishment, or a power trip, just our job. I wonder sometimes reading these posts, that pax want us 2 be over zealous in some parts of our job, but not bother with other aspects. And I have been cc in this situation many times, and I will be the first to say, it's not what you say but how you say it, and i'm talking about crew here, but the cc did the right thing, but maybe never thought it would come to going back to stand and off loading the pax.

Very unlucky for the pax.

by the way my two young kids spent 5hrs in the car without a wee....

not knowing the whole story, but there's so much time to go during boarding, why wait till we're taxiing? Every passenger survey comes back saying on time performance is the most important criterion, so we do our best to meet OTP. If a pregnant woman asked me to go, fine, but couldn't he have held it for another 10 mins? So please give cabin crew a break, we see about 500 pax a day, and even if only .01% are nutters, that's still quite a few we see each month. A colleague of mine got peed on when she told a pax he couldn't go to the toilet. Yes, he was met by police on the stand.

Capot, a very good post :D :D :D

easy1, a very very stupid statement - made without due consideration to a possible medical condition.

My wife had a medical problem which prevented her from "holding it" for more than a few minutes. She did her best to avoid creating any problems but sometimes circumstances, such as unexpected undetermined ground delays gave her no choice but to have the need to go to the loo just prior to taxy. Fortunately, she was always lucky to have sympathetic CC.

My own problem is that I am not as young as I used to be, and it's all very well for people to say hang on to it, but I can assure you that the desire comes on VERY quickly at times, AND CANNOT BE HELD. My wife assures me that women are much more capable at hanging on. I have found that the ONLY way I can deal with this, if boarding an aircraft, is to TOTALLY abstain from ANY liquid intake for at least two hours before boarding. I have the greatest respect for FAs, especially the Air France one mentioned in my earlier thread, you have so many different personalities to put up with. My wife and I have always appreciated your efforts. Thankyou.

Maybe - but how would anyone in that situation know it was only going to be ten minutes - they had been "taking off" for an hour already.

UFO
BTW I have to take water tablets, make me want to go at some very inconvenient times, managed to hold it until seatbelt signs off every time so far, but could never guarantee I always will be able to.

Good job he was not on this US Airwyas flight

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=319466

The pilot on that flight was armed and the pax in question may have been "dispatched" rather than going back to the gate :}:}

People on medications that include diuretics may not have much option, as others have said. The 'don't drink for two hours beforehand' then gives other problems, such as dehydration - as I've found out the hard way. It wasn't two hours, either, and seems worse for diabetics. That could really end up spoiling the FA's (and the captain's!) day.

Avman,
Please tell me how my comment is 'very stupid'?!!!!
If it is a medical problem then the crew should have been made aware of this, so many times pax will wait until the last minute to go and they are suprised when the crew say no!!
Also there is no such thing as a 'stupid' opinion, this is a forum for people to express how they feel about whats been writen.:rolleyes: Get off your high horse. :ugh:

Err, OK, that's what I did with regard to what you wrote. However, I withdraw my previous statement and replace it with:

easy1, IMHO you made a rash uninformed comment.

Chill ;)

I have to agree with easy1. If you've got a medical problem, tell the crew and we will do our best to accommodate you. But if we say "sorry, the seatbelt sign is on, you'll have to sit down" and you say ":mad: off I'm going", we pretty much are obliged to consider you a threat to safety, or drunk, or on drugs. If you say "I'm really sorry but I just can't hold it any longer" and give me those eyes :sad: which say "no really, I gotta go now!", I'll even open the toilet door for you because none of us wants to deal with that! If pax treated crew with respect and as people rather than blame us for a delay (most probably an ATC restriction), you'll find we can be really very nice, and if you're charming, you may find yourself upgraded, or even better on someone's staff-travel list!

This is from the original source:

I would in principle agree with you boardingpass, but doesn't appear to have been the case, certainly with regard to any initial (if any at all) abusive language or aggresive stance here.

Who knows, perhaps it came down to the CC not wanting to lose face and wanting to assert his/her position of authority over common sense? That wouldn't be a first either!

quote capot
 

"I have heard the cabin safety announcement about twice every 2 weeks, on average, since 1968, and I don't actually need to hear it again. It's not my job to look interested "as an example to others". So I don't need some teenager telling me it's "for my own good", in the tones of a primary school teaching assistant. I've been in one or two evacuations, not just the crew training one."

I presume you havent flown on the exact same aircraft since 1968. Every airline has different types and sizes of aircraft. Therefore a different amount of emergency exits and different locations of the exits. The airline I work for currently has Boeing and Airbus and the demos are different, there are different lifejackets which are put on a different way from each other. Both types operate the same route so you may think your listening to the same demo over again, but possibly are not. Even if you always fly on Airbus for the same company things can change. We will soon have bigger Airbus which again will have the emergency exits located in a different place. In a few days time our saftey demos are going to change slightly as well so if i were you id think again before proclaiming you know it all and think you could say it word for word. How would you feel if the person sat beside you thought they knew it and didnt pay attention and ended up blocking your way out.

It is a legal requirement that every passenger understands the safety demo for the type of aircraft they are on.

Other passengers have a right to want to listen to the safety demo and want to save their lives. Maybe you dont value your life as much.

And as for the teenager remark. Crew are there to help save your life in an emergency, they are professional, mature and highly trained. So give them some respect.

quote jimworcs:
"I fly a to CDG every two weeks on the same type of aircraft and carrier for the last 3+ years. I could do the presentation myself, without error"

Just have some consideration that sometimes things do change and airlines change their aircraft. Ok so maybe you look at the safety card when you get on to check its the same aircraft type. As i mentioned before my companys safety demonstration is also slightly changing in a few days. So maybe it might just be in your best interests to be polite and and give the crew a few seconds of your time. There is time on the flight to read your papers/do your work etc. Whats a few minutes. Remember cabin crew's main concern is safety, they arent there to serve tea and coffee. Give them a few minutes of their time and im sure they will definetly give you their time should you need it.

I think alot of the comments here about staff not being given the responsibilty to make minor executive decisions are spot on, and I think that it is because their managers are more concerned with covering their own backsides in the event of a decision being made. As a result the whole system looks inflexible and hostile (which I think it is increasingly becoming). No one these days is allowed to use intelligent discretion, even those in positions of responsibility (ie the captain mentioned at the beginning of the thread) because of the fear of being hung out to dry by his mangers at the subsequent enquiry because the passenger fell over during the taxi whilst going to the lav whilst the seat belt light was on, as I'm sure he would have been had there been an accident. I would have thought that he could have said fine let him pee, but he can only move around the cabin whilst we're stopped, and let me know when he's sat down so that I can move again. I've spent 1/2 an hour taxiing from gate to runway in the past, and plenty of that time stopped and waiting: the whole aeroplane could have had a pee (and washed their hands) in that time without accident (either liquid type or injury type). The world has gone mad!

:D:D:ok::D

Ps Anyone who was on board prepared to comment ??????

Wholeheartedy agree with all you say Firestorm. The days of personal initiative and sensible discretion have been smothered by the threat of totally absurd lawsuits and/or disciplinary action. And yes, this undoubtedly builds up hostility and aggression in people who I'm sure would not ordinarily be so inclined. The world has indeed gone completely mad.

Firestorm you and I work for the same people I believe so I completely agree with you on what you say about staff being unable to use discrection. Although our training for ground staff and cabin crew is extremely well good and thorough it doesn't allow room for manouvere. It used to, but sadly no longer.

Malc4d asked "Is it just me........or is everyone involved in aviation or airports trying their hardest to pi*s off the paying customer"

As a frequent traveller, who took his first business flights in 1978, I have seen a number of changes in the subsequent 30 years and would like to give my opinion.

The nature of air travel and in particular short haul, has changed significantly and the loco model has been in the ascendancy for the past 10 years or so.

During much of that period, the world has been in growth that means that year on year expansion for airlines has been achievable by the combination of being there to provide a service and being able to do so at a price that is perceived as giving value for money by the punters.

As well as creating a whole new bunch of travellers, who can now afford to take flights or take flights instead of trains (which are becoming very expensive), in effect creating a new market segment, the loco model has also cannibalised the traditional airlines and (lest we forget) the charter operators too.

The traditional airlines reacted to to the loco attack by slashing prices (and service levels) in short haul economy class and it is against this backdrop that many people have entered the aviation business.

They have learned their trade in an environment where (perceived) price was king and the customers were 'units' who are processed with minimum flexibility and occasionally contempt.

Not only the economy pax have suffered, since those of us who take short haul business class have found that the service is now not much better than economy 20 years ago (lounge access being one differentiator that still exists.)

Long haul premium still tends to be a nice experience.

However, the cold winds of recession are starting to blow and I believe that life is about to get much tougher for many airlines.

What financial analysts call a "correction" is highly likely and this innocuous term will be anything but innocuous for those affected.

In short, the leisure traveller is likely to need their money to pay for other things (assuming that they still have a job) and the volume of pax is likely to drop sharply.

Then we will see how robust the loco model is and which airlines survive in the ensuing dog fight to attract the passenger.

In short, many new hires in the airline world (<5-6 years) are about to have a profound learning experience, which may well cause them to view pax in a different light.

To answer the original question, I don't think that many people deliberately try to enrage pax, but they are going to learn the hard way that the customer is king/queen and is worthy of careful treatment.

Final 3 Greens

Well said! :D

Amanda78

I applaud your enthusiasm and pride in what you do. :D

But please trust me on this; the emergency exits are pretty much in the same places on modern aircraft as they were in the 707; upper deck ones do not fall into that category but they are pretty obvious too. What has changed is how they and the slides work, but then the briefing doesn't cover that, does it. I think we can find them if we need to without watching the ritual hand wave again.

What we old farts know as we sit there not paying much attention is that if there is a "survivable" accident that involves severe structural damage we'll be lucky if the seats don't break out of the mountings and smash us to pieces, and very lucky indeed if our bodies are sufficiently unbroken to make it out of the aircraft before it burns.

We also know that if there's a fire with no structural damage, we've got about 2 minutes to fight our way to the nearest exit on our hands and knees in thick, black, toxic, choking smoke, and that there will NOT be a nice orderly British queue to get out. There will be a heaving mass of humanity reverting to the caveman era to get out first. Those who are on their hands and knees will be walked over by others.

Anyone who saw the L1011 in Riyadh with the piles of charred corpses blocking each unopened exit has an unpleasant inkling of what really happens when the situation that the briefing is really about actually happens.

Precautionary evacuations, with no fire burning in the cabin and no real structural damage, are an easy everyday occurrence, pretty much; it's doubtful that they would go any worse without a briefing. If anyone tries to take a bag the other passengers would soon stop that.

So don't take offence, please, about our "lack of respect", as you call it. It's just that we do know quite a lot about the realities, and really do know the brieifng script by heart. All you have to do is give your attention to those who are paying attention.

Amanda78, Capot

Even older here. I enjoyed my first flight as a 6-year old passenger in 1949 on a DH-84 Dragon (The toilet on that particular aircraft was a very public affair) and still travel quite frequently mostly on routes to and in Africa and in the CIS.
Air travel was once a very personal and mostly enjoyable experience and so was the job of stewardess/hostess/flight attendant/cabin crew.
Today however we participate both as service providers and as consumers in a mass-transit system that leaves very little room for individuality.
The ideal passenger, weighing between 60kgs and 80kgs, with a small bag and a switched off cellphone in the overhead luggage compartment, sits, with empty bladder attentively in his seat, backrest upright and window shade open or closed, as the case may be. He /she mentally prepares for a remotely possible aircraft evacuation, deployment of oxygene masks and ascertains the presence of a swim-west or other flotation device and then quietly muses about the time, soon to come, when passengers will be strapped, six at a time onto pallets at check-in. Aircraft turn-around time will be minimised and the suitcases, unlike today will arrive for certain with the passenger because they travel underfloor on the same pallet. That will not only take care of baggage handlers and handling facilities but give the flight crews very accurate take-off weights as each pallet glides across the weighing device and aboard.

Mind you, I distinctly remember the captain who announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, sorry for the delay in getting clearance but we will now roll in about 8 minutes. Those who wish to use the toilet should do now because you should all be safely in your seats before we taxi"

Must have been an old-timer too ;)

UK ANO requires pax to obey lawful commands from the commander.

In a similar vein, I notice many pax ignore FSB signs even during turbulence. On a recent AF flight from Tel Aviv, the crew had to make several PAs to pax assuming the FSB did not apply if they want to use the lavatory

Capot

I agree with every word of your original post on this. You succinctly summed up the real 'attitude' problem currently found throughout aviation.

Indeed if you look at cabin crew forums, you inevitably find much frothing and verbal nonsense decrying every aspect of every paying customer. I cannot think of many other service industries where the employess have such a venomous hatred for any of their paying customers.

Capot,

With one already highlighted exception, I have to say that I agree with everything you say. I am not familiar with the circumstances of the topic incident and am only replying in response to your posting.

To get the one exception out of the way first, and in response to the other comments concerning the safety briefing, I would point out the following.

In a serious emergency and consequential "high stress," one of the common "fight or flight" induced responses of the human brain, is to shut off all the deep reasoning and long term memory functions, leaving the person reliant on their basic instinct and their very short term memory. This is evolutionary and essential to our basic survival. In effect the mind trips all the non vital circuit breakers, then brings back online the essential ones in a priority order over a period of time. If that period of time is short then the most likely ones you will have will be ingrained instinctive behaviour and short term memory. Our ancestors had an ingrained and learned blueprint that the Sabre tooth Tiger was a life threatening danger, and they remembered the esacape route as being the recent way they had arrived at that position.

There is a very high incidence of passengers who delay evacuating an aircraft in a high stress emergency, because they cannot undo their seatbelt. For those who watched and noted that part of the safety briefing it should have rooted in the short term memory. For those who rely on the instinctive response, the likely response is to try and undo the seat belt they undo instinctivly every day of their lives. The one in their car and surprise the mechanism is in a different place.

Given time ( and it varies in person to person) the higher reasoning centres will make sense of the confusion although panic may result if the stress level is maintained or as is often the case, increased.

For this reason it is in your best interests to listen and watch the safety briefing no matter how many times you have heard it before. For much the same reasons it is why the pilots also brief and mentally recap the departure and arrival procedures and recall emergency drills for every takeoff and landing.

If you don't want to listen, then nobody can make you, but it is idiotic behaviour, and certainly you should not give the impression that you might impede anybody elses better chances of possible survival.


That said, you are right about the whole mentality and attitude of behaviour in the air transport industry. From a customer service point of view it is often (not always) dire. Unfortunetaly, commercial aviation is a high profile, undoubtably the highest profiled transport industry in the world. It is very labour intensive, has a high turnover of personell and often attracts relatively young and consequentially inexperienced people into front line customer contact positions. When you add to this the levels of customer stress brought about by the poor environmental and information conditions that are prevalant, then there is inevitably going to be conflict. On top of all of this the reactionary legislation and security responses to the high profile terrorism and violence incidents of recent years has simply put the rancid icing on top of a very stale and rotten cake.

Obviously nobody condones violence or threats of violence against any individual, and it is entirely proper that legislation is enforced to deal swiftly with offenders. Likewise security has to be enforced and at this stage probably in dissproportionate measures, to prevent the global threat that has been demonstrated to exist.

The one thing that often seems to be a victim of all this "Brave new world" is simple old fashioned common sense. Flying as a passenger can often be a very unpleasant experience and it is not beyond the realms of reasonable expectation that sometimes people are going to be angry and frustrated. Sometimes people will have forgotten something, turned up late or made some other mistake. There will be times when there is nothing that can be done, and times when a bit of common sense will resolve and diffuse a situation. Don't misunderstand me, in that I know there are people who regularly apply all these attributes, however they are becoming few and far between, and certainly in so far as the general publics perception is concerned.

Yes there are regulations, conditions of carriage, statutes, the air navigation order and its various amendments. These are all there to fall back on if needed, but they are not a universal substitute for good manners and common sense when the application of the latter would negate the implementation and use of the former. If you are in a customer service position you should not for one minute tolerate abuse or threats, however take a reality check on what that actually means. It is not necessarily someone getting annoyed or agitated. It is not necessarily someone who might swear in frustration. It is not someone who might invade your arbitarily defined "space". Likewise someone who ignores the seatbelt sign in desperation of embarrasing themselves may be compromising their own safety, but there are occassions when that may be accomodated. On some airlines the signs are left on for almost the entire the flight. The arguement then is that the passenger has been warned and a legal defence is established. If you are going to do that, then do a P.A to establish the fact. In fact communication with the customers is the one thing that could be easily enhanced and rarely is. Most people are no less annoyed, but much less frustrated and certainly feel more involved, when they are being told and regularly updated on the reason for a delay, or the need for a course of action. With information, people can plan better and to some extent avoid the need for some of these unnecessary conflicts.

Certainly this needs far better management and organisation than currently exists in specific areas of the industry, as well as much better selection and training of candidates for customer orientated positions. Unfortunetaly I think it will be a long time coming !

3 greens
 

:D:D:D:ok:

Well said and you are quite right.

So what have the airlines had to do to stay afloat? The aircraft that most airlines use are all pretty much the same so cost the same to operate. And do the public really think that they can fly about in a machine that costs several million quid for the ticket price of a pound? :ugh::ugh:

Most airlines have developed various procedures that quite honestly bully their crew into more productivity. This has lead to crew becoming increasingly frightened of the repercussions of using their initiative in situations when deviating from standard operating procedures is actually the right thing to do. I have seen many occasions where the CC have made a decision solely based on what punishment they believed they would get from some manager in an office if they complied with a reasonable request from a passenger.

That said my response to the situation in this thread would of been to call the captain and let him know of the situation and ask him if he felt there would be time to let the pax use the toilet. He/she would then know that there was someone moving around the cabin which would affect how he maneuvered the aircraft until I let him know the pax was secure again.

6

Firestorm - spot on
 

There is a developing culture of "zero tolerance" which results in ridiculous decisions which staff then feel the need to defend. Staff who defend this nonsense will in the end find that their job is harder, customers are more hostile and the atmosphere less pleasant than it needs to be. Bring back to the time when staff were empowered to make decisions based on sound common sense, courtesy and the specific circumstances.

Thankyou 6 chimes, for some understanding, and some calm common sense..
Assuming the cabin crew had already told the captain that they were secure for take off, common sense,(and common courtesy to the capt, and safety of course) would be to inform the capt that "we are now, not secure for take off".. Then the skipper has all relevant info he/she needs. I would not normally expect a reaction of returning to stand to offload the pax.. but there you go.. we don't know the conversation..

I've missed a takeoff slot before, because of a pax in the loo as we were taxiing towards takeoff runway, just delayed us by about 10 mins. But if you miss a slot at LHR, how long will you wait then..??

Why do pax get so defensive when the subject comes up of cabin crew having the cheek to politely point out, just in case the pax had not realised,what they should and should'nt do.. What do you think we're there for.. If we have to stop suddenly on the tarmac, or there's pretty bad turbulence and Joe Bloggs doesn't care about himself, or thinks we're making a mountain of a molehilll, we'd like to try and make sure that Mr Joe Bloggs doesn't cause any injury to anybody else....