Passenger offloaded from Air NZ flight for ignoring safety briefing

[Uplinker]

Originally Posted by Planemike

You seem to start off from the premise, the passenger is in the wrong and has to be dealt with a severe manner. To mind referring to the passenger as "a prat" is indicative of a certain mind set. You seem to feel it is the right of the crew to shout "jump" and the passenger should respond "how high, sir !!". At the end of the day the people you have on board are "customers" i.e. they have paid for a service. Would you accept that sort of treatment if you were in a shop?? No you would not. Why should passengers on an aircraft be treated differently? It is not unknown for those who don a uniform and are given some authority to embark on an ego trip.

""It becomes a battle of wills and if you lose authority of that cabin then in an emergency you are toast."" This again, to my shows a poor attitude towards passengers. You have to have authority over them.....really? These people are handing over their money to fly on your airline. They are not being paid to be there as would be service personnel who obviously can be given orders.

Noxegon.......Agree with much of what you say.. One has the feeling there are some on here who would be very happy for many airline staff to be issued with cattle prods to help manage the SLF. Give them a quick prod if they are not paying close enough attention to the safety briefing or the sales pitch for the duty free..!!

(my bold)

Try thinking this through. Yes, the crew do need to have authority over the passengers in an airplane - for very good safety reasons. The uniform is primarily there to pick out cabin crew and pilots so the passengers know who to listen to and who are authorised - by the CAA - to issue safety instructions and, yes, orders if need be.

One only has to observe passenger’s behaviour to see that they do not realise the importance of airline safety procedures, and you are obviously of a similar mindset. An airplane is not a bus - you can’t break the window and step out onto the hard shoulder. Situations can quickly get seriously dangerous unless correct action is taken. Just think for a moment how quickly fires take hold of an aircraft - this is why there is a requirement for aircraft to be evacuated within 90 seconds. We (pilots and crew) review our safety procedures before every flight. Cabin crew are asked medical and procedural questions during their daily pre-flight briefing such as what are the actions in the event of a passenger not breathing, choking, heart attack, use of the defibrillator. They are trained in - and practise - crowd control techniques. If they cannot answer their questions, they do not fly and are sent home.

Passengers are told that in the event of an emergency evacuation they must leave all personal belongings behind, yet again and again we see evacuations compromised because passengers are pausing to bring their bags, putting others’ lives in danger - in some cases condemning them to death.. Time after time, day after day, one sees passengers ignoring the safety briefing, reading their newspaper, talking, listening to music, playing with their phones. Crews practise procedures in cabin trainers that fill with smoke, and I can tell you that when you cannot see further than 6 inches in front of your face, it is extremely difficult to find the exits because you cannot see them from a distance so the situation becomes extremely serious.

Next time you are seated in an aircraft cabin, ask yourself how you and your family would fare if the cabin filled with smoke and flames now. Would you and your family be able to get out? Where is the nearest exit? Is it in front or behind you? How many seat rows are there between you and the exit?. When you can only see 6 inches ahead you can just about see the seats and you have to count them off to find the exit. Where is the next nearest exit if that one is blocked? Did you read the safety card?

Have you considered that you might have to climb over the seats while choking on smoke to get out because your fellow passengers are dawdling and collecting their cases?

Have a word with yourself. Please.

[.Scott]

Originally Posted by PastTense

The passenger has probably heard airline safety instructions dozens of time before. Is there that much difference between them? Frankly it surprised me that the crew made a big deal about this situation.

It's not enough that she has heard the instructions before. It is also necessary that the flight crew know that she is willing and able to operate the exit door. The easiest way to accomplish that is by having the passenger listen to the instructions and then indicate that they are able to carry out those instructions.
This is one of the airplane systems that must be checked before the flight begins. In the same way you would not depart without knowing that there is sufficient fuel on the plane, you also don't depart without knowing that the exit row is operational.
And I would say that in this case, that procedure certainly worked - in that they discovered that the passenger was not willing and able to even listen to instructions.
Certainly at that point, the passenger needed to be relocated. I'm not sure what some of the people who defend this passenger think the FA should have done, but clearly just telling the passenger to move wasn't going to work. Perhaps the FA could escalate things a bit by tapping the pax on the shoulder to attempt to get her attention - but the pax had already indicated that she was deliberately ignoring the FA. Given the situation, what would you have the FA do? Wait it out? He or she has to call in the police.

The police are there because it has been decided that some sort of physical confrontation cannot be avoided. The police are primarily interested in performing the operation in a way that minimizes risk to themselves and others. Their mission is not to resolve the dispute, it is to remove a passenger in the most controlled way possible.

Now, as to those safety messages - I suppose one can never see how to fasten a seat belt too many times. But I've been swapped to the seat next to the exit door a couple of times (because the original pax was unable to work the door) and have found the instructions to be a bit on the light side. When told that I would be opening the door in cases when the FA was not able to, I asked when should I open the door. Response: "You'll know". OK. I later heard that you keep the doors shut when there is "water or fire" on the other side. So, yeah, I get the idea. If evacuation is needed (or announced), and the door leads to a potential escape route without creating a bigger problem, then open it.

[.Scott]

From https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/trave...w-instructions

They didn't seem to care that they'd delayed the plane for other passengers by 25 minutes, she said.

"You'd think they'd be embarrassed or mortified, but they seemed quite chuffed about the whole thing."

When they were told that police were waiting for them, the woman pulled out her phone and loudly tried to make a booking with Jetstar, she said.

Air New Zealand did really well in how they handled the situation, she said.

[Gauges and Dials]

Originally Posted by Planemike

You write like a lawyer...

Well of course, writing like a lawyer is entirely appropriate when discussing a legal matter. Would you rather have him or her writing like a surgeon, a chef, or a painter?

[Gauges and Dials]

Originally Posted by Noxegon

Do we really, in this day and age, need to explain to passengers how to buckle and unbuckle a seat belt?.

I suspect that particular bit of the briefing is there based on having observed real world behavior in real emergencies and training simulations. Most passengers use an automobile seat belt every single day, and an aircraft seatbelt a couple of times a year at most. Automobile seatbelts are standardized one way: to release, feel for the inboard end and push the button. Airplane seatbelts are standardized a different way: to release, feel for the center buckle and lift up on the flap. I suspect that in the dark, in the smoke, in a panic, large numbers of people on an aircraft are going to waste precious seconds with their hands down by their hips feeling around for an automobile-style belt release button that isn't there. The fact that we all remember "lift up on the flap" even though we don't happen to be seated in an aircraft at the moment is testament to repeated (ad nauseam) briefings leading to good recall.

[Euclideanplane]

I am genuinely scared by people like that. Sitting in my XXA seat, it is quickly
clear that it will be a struggle to get out in case of an emergency. It usually is
fine in domestic and intercontinental East Asia flights, which I do the most, and
also in Asia-Europe flight. Intercontinental Europe flights however can be very
straining. Fold tables are out with laptops on them soon after the FA have sat
down before TO, as seats are reclined and huge pieces of luggage get taken
out from below seats and positioned in the aisle. If you can sympathize with
the "snow flake" who missed to have a life west under her seat on a Ryanair
flight, then you might agree in that case that the state of the cabin is enough
to scare you witless at the thought of a serious incident. The point being that
maybe an ordinary SLF might appreciate it when something gets done about
the very much less safety minded individuals.

[IcePack]

Had a decompression some years ago. Cabin Crew reported quite a few pax put the masks over their ears. Obviously they had paid great attention to the safety briefing. Not

[.Scott]

When I last posted (this morning), I didn't realize that my comments had bearing on a new thread - passengers "evacuating" when they should have "quickly disembarked". As I said, the instructions for the exit row people should be a bit more thorough.

[Planemike]

Yes, I have read the replies. I do fully understand the situation re. emergency rows, been sat in one on more than one flight.
No problems as far as I was concerned, fortunately did not have to become part of the the evacuation team!! Just another couple of thoughts to leave with you. One, in most cases (dependent on a/c) there will be more than one seat in the aforesaid row so another person can help if/when required.
Two, the uncooperative person featured in this scenario could easily have reacted in a much more positive or even heroic way should the worst have happened. I know you don't want to give her the benefit of the doubt !! I would have said it was more important to ensure the row was occupied by able bodied folk rather than very young children, the very aged, sick or infirm.

There still seem to be those on here who have a confusion in their minds between paying passengers sat on airliner and troops sat in a C130 (other military aircraft available !!). Yes, of course you can kid yourself you "have authority over the passengers". Yes, you can have cabin crew or even air crew bark orders at them: some will be compliant and shout "how high??), others will be much less willing to accept this treatment. Again I suspect there will be different reactions when we a "playing" with drills and a real genuine emergency.

I come back to the point that I uncomfortable with those feel it is acceptable to treat their paying customers as cattle to be unloaded if they are "non compliant". I am not talking about those who actively wish us harm or those who over imbibe. I am talking about folk who sit there minding there own business.

I fully understand why crew wear uniforms and for the most part it works fine. However there is a small minority who embark on an ego trip when in uniform.

[givemewings]

"Minding their own business" isn't a problem, refusing to participate in a Non-Optional briefing IS.

like it or not, it's Air NZs plane and their procedure is the ooax must listen to, agree with and show understanding of the exit row requirements. I'm not sure where you're from but it's not just a "are you ok to help us" by rote- it's an actual.interactive briefing with responses required on most carriers D&G...

The other thing you're not seeing is it doesn't matter if there's other pax in that row- every pax must be briefed as though they will be the only one left standing in the worst case. Best case they'll all help each other but that's not as likely given statistics. Half of them may be dead in a serious accident.

again, sitting in the exit isn't the same as being responsible for it. Take it from those of us who do this for a living 😉

and fyi, I am never anything but polite when delivering a briefing and requesting their undivided attention while I do so. I'll smile, but I'll wait as long as it takes for them to put down the phone rather than half ass an important safety briefing

[Planemike]

givemewings..... Interesting to hear it from the point of view one who is "at the sharp end" and I don't mean in the cockpit...You seem to come at this from the point of view of a military officer rather than someone who is dealing with passengers who happen to be customers. You see the briefing as "non-optional": to you it is part of your job. You cannot force the pax to participate; they can only be encouraged to participate. As I have said I am just not comfortable with passengers being thrown off a/c when they pose no threat or are not actively hostile. I am even less happy trying to ban them from further flying. The aircraft is operated by an airline to provide a public service for all who can afford to buy a ticket. This is in contrast to a privately owned aircraft where the owner can say who comes on board.

I am sure you are polite, friendly and generally pleasant when "in work mode". I am sure too you have come across those who can be surly, supercilious and generally feel they are superior to those in their care. As to where I am from: Bolton England. Have travelled by air for both business and pleasure since 1952..... First flt: Airwork Viking, Blackbushe to Nairobi. Can fairly say I have seen a few changes along the way!! Some I like, many I don't...!!!

[Gauges and Dials]

A perfect microcosm for larger industry issues

This comments thread is a perfect microcosm for a larger set of issues in the airline industry. From the way CEOs talk to the investment community, to the way front-line staff interact with customers, there are, on the one hand, those who think they are in the transportation business and that their primary job is to move airplanes around the globe, and, on the other hand, there are those who realize they are in the hospitality business and that their primary job is to provide a set of services and experiences that attract and delight customers. The traveling public and Wall Street are paying attention. LUV and JBLU both trade at 12.5 times earnings, UAL trades at 8.5 times earning and AAL trades at under 8. If you refer to passengers as "SLF", you may be part of the problem.

[Council Van]

Planemike

Just imagine what you would think of this lady passenger if her failure to pay attention to the safety briefing had been overlooked and she was not able to open the emergency exit leading to the unnecessary death of a close relative of yours such as your Wife, Son, Daughter, Sister, Husband, Mother, Father etc

It is less than a week since those people in Moscow burned to death, think how terrible it must be to be stuck in an aircraft that is on fire and not be able to get off, how tragic would it be if you were stuck because some one would not spare a couple of minutes of their time to pay attention to a safety briefing?

[FrequentSLF]

Stop making passengers responsible for the emergency exit, get rid of those rows and have a jump seat in their place, costs will increase.
However crew is trained for emergency evacuation, pax cannot be trained with a short briefing that lasts not longer than 2 minutes.

[Water pilot]

The aircraft is operated by an airline to provide a public service for all who can afford to buy a ticket. This is in contrast to a privately owned aircraft where the owner can say who comes on board.

That might be the nub of the issue. In fact, in most cases aircraft are privately owned and the owner can indeed say who comes on board (as long as they are not violating the discrimination laws in their country.) I live on an island served by a ferry and one of the harshest punishments you can get is to be banned by the ferry system; if you board, the police will remove you for trespassing. Works like a treat sometimes...

[Bend alot]

Planemike, I encourage you to make your opinion clear to the cabin crew on your next flight.

FrequentSLF, there was a suggestion at the start of the thread to allow some members of the public do the training course and then be allocated emergency exit seats.

Here is another suggestion give the seats to aviation people, aircraft engineers and pilots. In the last couple of years I would have opened 30-40 emergency exits (and refitted them).

I must say I give some attention to the safety briefs but do not bother much with the seat belt or oxygen demo's. During this I generally give the safety card a quick look over, mostly again I regularly inspect and test seat belts and oxygen masks. When in an emergency exit, it is the full drill including giving the correct responses.

[FlightlessParrot]

I knew it was a bad sign when airlines started addressing passengers as "Customers." When I book a flight, I might well be regarded as a customer, but when I'm in the aeroplane, about to embark on an expedition into a hostile environment, I want to be a passenger, engaged in a net of reciprocal obligations centred on safety of flight. If it's just a financial transaction, another part of the hospitality industry, then the managers will start trading off safety vs profits, and calculating how many accidents a decade they can tolerate before it impacts the bottom line (to some extent, of course, this happens already, but it's kept to acceptable proportions by the professionalism of the operators).

In practical terms, this means a crew will go around rather than attempt a landing they can probably get away with, even though that will increase costs. It means the manufacturer will get the aeroplane right, rather than kludging it up with something that will get it through certification and be OK because it'll never be used.

For my part, it means that I accept that I have a responsibility to cabin crew to listen to their announcements, follow their directions, and not ask for something when they're busy with essential tasks. This sort of sense of shared responsibility is not compatible with conceiving the relationship as one of supplier and customer.

[treadigraph]

Planemike, as a passenger I have sat in an overwing exit row: the cabin crew spoke to me about responsibilities should exit via that route be necessary and it was a pleasant conversation. I may be a customer but as a long time construction industry employee, I understand safety and defer to those responsible for my safe conveyance be it by aeroplane, train or bus - and in the case of an emergency will assist them as best I can. Those who feel that to do so in someway undermines their standing in life are sad individuals.

[Gauges and Dials]

Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot

I knew it was a bad sign when airlines started addressing passengers as "Customers."

Wow.

then the managers will start trading off safety vs profits, and calculating how many accidents a decade they can tolerate before it impacts the bottom line

It's always the case that one could spend incremental money and achieve incremental safety. Third crewmember in the cockpit? Go from triple redundant hydraulics to quadruple redundant? Go from one minute spacing on arrivals to 2 minute spacing? pull out two more rows of seats and add an additional exit? There's always more that can be done. How else, other than hard-nosed quantitative analysis, would you propose that airline operators calculate whether or not to undertake any given safety improvement?

For my part, it means that I accept that I have a responsibility to cabin crew to listen to their announcements, follow their directions, and not ask for something when they're busy with essential tasks. This sort of sense of shared responsibility is not compatible with conceiving the relationship as one of supplier and customer.

I don't see why. There's nothing particularly unique about air transport in this regard.

[sixchannel]

Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot

I knew it was a bad sign when airlines started addressing passengers as "Customers." When I book a flight, I might well be regarded as a customer, but when I'm in the aeroplane, about to embark on an expedition into a hostile environment, I want to be a passenger, engaged in a net of reciprocal obligations centred on safety of flight. If it's just a financial transaction, another part of the hospitality industry, then the managers will start trading off safety vs profits, and calculating how many accidents a decade they can tolerate before it impacts the bottom line (to some extent, of course, this happens already, but it's kept to acceptable proportions by the professionalism of the operators).

In practical terms, this means a crew will go around rather than attempt a landing they can probably get away with, even though that will increase costs. It means the manufacturer will get the aeroplane right, rather than kludging it up with something that will get it through certification and be OK because it'll never be used.

For my part, it means that I accept that I have a responsibility to cabin crew to listen to their announcements, follow their directions, and not ask for something when they're busy with essential tasks. This sort of sense of shared responsibility is not compatible with conceiving the relationship as one of supplier and customer.

​"managers will start trading off safety vs profits, and calculating how many accidents a decade they can tolerate before it impacts the bottom line "
Think Boeing 737 MAX.