I wasn't there..........!!! However it seems totally over the top...... You cannot "make" people do things. You can quest them to do things, often works better.

A classic example of people dying because they did not read/listen to the safety briefing was the ditching of the hijacked Ethiopian B767 when passengers inflated their life jackets BEFORE they exited the aircraft and then got trapped inside the inverted fuselage and could not escape and drowned!

It's neither a privilege nor a right. It is a contract between the passenger and the airline. Read the provisions of carriage from any airline. Most of them have them posted on their website. One of the many provisions is to cooperate with the flight crew and follow safety instructions.

You write like a lawyer..... I was just responding to AD's msg . Just seemed an over reaction i.e. off loading a legitimate passenger. There is no requirement to pay any attention to the safety briefing. Some people choose to, up to them of course.... How can the cabin crew decide if you are "paying attention"?? Just seems a very arbitrary decision. If the pax was using a cellphone that would be a little easier to define.

Not sure I've seen that rather broad clause on say, the BA CoC.

Well BA certainly do have the sort of clause aterpster has mentioned.

Take a look at ba.com, General Conditions of Carriage, it comes up in section 7 ( "Our right to refuse to carry you or ban you from travel")


and again in section 11 about behaviour onboard a BA flight:


There then follows several other "no no's," such as being drunk on board, then the list of sanctions, up to and including handing over to local authorities on arrival...

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...ns-of-carriage

I'll put money on many/most/all (?) other airlines having similar clauses ticked away in their Conditions of Carriage, I suspect some people who "know their rights" might be in for a rude awakening if they insist pushing the boundaries, especially if they decide to turn doing so into some form of performance....TBH I really really don't see the difficulty in quietly appearing to pay attention to a yet another safety briefing....
..

It may not be a requirement to listen to the safety briefing, BUT..if you are sitting in an EMERGENCY EXIT, then my take is that you have a DUTY to understand what you may be required to do. Alternatively, if you wish, get off the aeroplane.

Wiggy - refusing to read the safety card or look/listen to the briefing is not a breach of contract or a criminal offence. Refusing to follow the instructions contained in the briefing or on the card when being required to do so by a member of the crew, is a breach.

If the former were true, there would be lines of people being led of aircraft around the world everyday.

Our numpty couple were dealt with because they broke the law regarding use of mobile phones while being instructed not to.

If it is not a requirement to listen the safety briefing why make an issue out of it when a passenger chooses not to. All seems very heavy handed. It would appear the passenger was causing no problems to anyone. Just allow the flight to proceed normally. I am surprised at Air New Zealand.

Airlines seem to think it is acceptable to treat passengers in any way they deem fit. Brings back memories of an even more extreme situation in the US where police were brought in to drag a passenger off an aircraft. If the passenger is sat there minding their own business leave them alone. If the passenger is causing the problem, drunk etc then it is different matter.

clareprop, Planemike, ever heard of the Tokyo convention? You may want to read up on that. It governs the authority of the Captain. Although you can chose to NOT listen to the safety briefing, you have to follow the orders by the Captain of the aircraft when it is in flight.

The Captain may delegate this to other members of the crew (i.e. cabin crew). So if the Cabin crew give you an order to familiarise yourself with the safety requirements of an emergency exit and you chose to stick your fingers in your ears, the Captain has the power (among other things) to remove you from the flight.

I'd happily take that case to court if I were the Captain of said flight.

KingAir Again you write as lawyer but in fact you are an Air Captain. If the passenger is sitting there minding their own business and causing no trouble to either crew or fellow passenger let them be. Some here seem to feel you can brow beat passengers into paying attention to safety briefings or read safety cards. Best option is to try and engage their attention but in the end if you can't the passenger will go on reading the paper or looking out of the window.You seem to want to treat crew and passengers in the same way. Yes, you can give an order to a member of your crew and expect them to follow it. If you give an order to a passenger they can CHOOSE if they wish to comply with your order. You may not like the fact they have a choice but they have that choice and have the right to exercise it.

I would just caution that having been a witness in a court case, it is not much fun. You have to give a deposition (under the penalty of perjury of course), go to pre-trial conferences with the prosecutor, submit what seems like endless documentation which gets lost and has to be resubmitted, and finally go to trial on a date convenient for the judges and lawyers (which gets rescheduled on a whim it seems like, but if you don't show up you are the one going to jail!) Then you get to joust in front of a jury with a guy whose whole expertise is in making people look like a fool.

Kick them off, ban them, forget about it. Don't go the lawyer route.

Edit: it is amazing how frightening the experience is for someone like me who is not used to giving testimony. There is always that fear that you will make a mistake describing events that occurred years ago and will get indicted for perjury. Even if you tell yourself that it is not a rational fear, it is there. My wife pretty much had a breakdown after her testimony. She was convinced irrationally that some articles presented as evidence were not in fact the articles that we said they were and that the police had for some reason substituted them. Even showing her original pictures of the articles (which had not been substituted) did not help. We got over it but it took awhile.

Firstly if reports were correct and the pax was sat an an exit row then her not listening to the brief potentially could have caused major problems for quiet a few people...the offloaded passenger was not the only person on that aircraft that had rights.....

Secondly if individuals really feel they need to exercise " their right" to ignore safety briefings brief, in total, then just perhaps they should consider booking a window seat away from an exit row.

That way everybodies rights are respected.

wiggy........... I do understand the situation re. exit rows. Have sat in them in my time. My point is the crew/airline need to engage with the passenger not apply heavy handed remedies. Diplomacy wins (nearly!!) every time. .Off loading just seems over the top. Ask her to move ??!! As I said I was not there.

We weren't there.

That would of course have required that she take her fingers out of her ears first.

Respectfully, sitting in the exit row and being responsible for the correct oversight of the exit row are two very different things. If the crewmember is later found lacking or negligent in failing to have removed a pax from the row ho should not have been there, that can be their job done with.

Yes, you were not there as you correctly state. Therefore its safe to presume that the crew action was proportionate to the pax behaviour. I don't doubt that 'sticking her fingers in her ears' was only the start. Once they start behaving like that, 'diplomacy' rarely works. It becomes a battle of wills and if you lose authority of that cabin then in an emergency you are toast.

You'll find for many airlines, it IS a requirement to pay attention to briefing if seated at the exit.

it's been some time, but I believe the Qantas exit row cards start with the phrase: "It is a requirement that..." Anyone unwilling/unable to comply was to be moved if possible, and if not, offloaded. It's possible there were no empty seats available and/or willing swap-ees to trade places.

Or, she was being such a prat that offload was the sensible choice to prevent further issues or delay down the track.

I was educated as an accountant and worked in the profession before I got hired by my airline. Public accountants need to know a lot about contract law.

I dunno, eye contact is a pretty good start... *shrug*

I think that part of the problem that we have these days is that air travel for a SLF has become a fairly miserable experience where passengers are generally treated like infants. The PA system is massively overused for things irrelevant to the flight (credit card offers, lottery tickets, et al) and as a result people tune out.

It's not helped by the fact that some of the safety demo content is particularly patronizing. Do we really, in this day and age, need to explain to passengers how to buckle and unbuckle a seat belt? Furthermore, is there really a value in trying to force a frequent flyer to listen to the same demo for the thirtieth time in two months?

On a flight not too long ago, while seated in an exit row, I was asked if I was over fourteen years old by a crew member. I look about fifty. The very fact that the question was asked is (IMHO) a symptom of what air travel has become.

Were it up to me, I'd have passengers watch the safety demo online at home before ever getting to the airport. They would then need to complete a multiple choice test on what they'd seen, and anything less than a 100% result would mean no boarding pass without watching the video again and retesting. Frequent flyers with a given airline could be exempted from watching the video and directed directly to the test, with the same 100% pass mark.

I'd also have an extra test for exit row seating with no retest ability – that is, you fail, you're not in an exit row and that's it.

Lovely thread.
Is there such a thing as a No Fly list and a Life Ban.
Except for terrorists?

Yes. Create a sufficient issue on the airplane and you could be added to the list. Usually something serious enough to get arrested and convicted.

Fogliner
 

I see some airlines have tried alternate approaches to getting the SLF's attention for announcements.
A little humor turns a boring announcement into a performance.
Just add the www.
JMHO.

msn.com/en-ca/video/watch/jamaican-flight-attendants-safety-announcement-goes-viral/vi-BBVx24J

Regards
Fog

I've seen some recent airlines announce they are banning folks for less than arrest-worthy stuff. Whether they will enforce, don't know.

I'd be very surprised if there is a universal No Fly list that is shared across all airlines. Who administers it ?

Beats me. TSA in the U.S., perhaps.

David
 

There is of-course no such thing.
It is just a thing some will threaten with.

And with regards to lifetime ban, that is just ridicules primitive reaction.
You can do some serious crime , and once term served , You are free.

Considering how we treat Pax these days , I am surprised we do not have more problems.

My post #25. Last two sentences.

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..!!

Had the experience on an Ansett flight PER - MEL many years ago where passenger in front of me was asked more than once to a) get off the phone and b) pay attention.
Her reply - "I have a human heart in this Igloo. I need to communicate with the crew in Melbourne".

CC reply - "We will assist in very way with your communication once the safety briefing is over. But right now, unless you are prepared to shut off your phone and pay attention, you and your human heart will be getting off the plane."

Phone down and off. Grudging attention paid.
After departure the woman was taken to flight deck, presumably to enable required communication (this was early 90's).

IATA ? .....

Mike, I never said assume pax are all.in the wrong.

but sh3s gotten to the point where she is being childish enough to 1) refuse to receive thebovereing exit briefing (which in Aus/NZ is a separate individual briefing
and 2) *sticking her fingers in her ears* then yes in this context pax is in the wrong and should be removed from said seat, if not the aircraft if behaviour warrants

as for my comment re "wills" I am referring to after 'diplomacy' has failed- some pax are determined to win/get their way just to "show who's boss" and once you get that it undermines the crew's authority of the cabin.

yes thry have paid to fly, they have not paid to abuse the crew or inconvenience or endanger their fellow pax.

You may wish to educate yourself on the powers of crew members, cabin crew are responsible to the pilot in command for observance.

CAR 309 Powers of pilot in command
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft, with such assistance as is necessary and reasonable, may:
(a) take such action, including the removal of a person from the aircraft or the placing of a person under restraint or in custody, by force, as the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft; and
(b) detain the passengers, crew and cargo for such period as the pilot considers reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the Act or these Regulations in or in relation to the aircraft.
(2) A person who, on an aircraft in flight, whether within or outside Australian territory, is found committing, or is reasonably suspected of having committed, or having attempted to commit, or of being about to commit, an offence against the Act or these Regulations may be arrested without warrant by a member of the crew of the aircraft in the same manner as a person who is found committing a felony may, at common law, be arrested by a constable and shall be dealt with in the same manner as a person so arrested by a constable
309A Instructions about activities on board aircraft
(1) Subject to subregulation (2), the operator, or pilot in command, of an Australian aircraft may give an instruction, either orally or in writing, prohibiting or limiting the doing of an act on board the aircraft during flight time in the aircraft.They really do, and I might be so bold as to suggest you seem to be an exemplar of why.

Yes indeed. Muster drills are mandatory on cruise ships. During an emergency at sea, passengers must muster to their assigned muster station, unless you have a good excuse, such as you are dead. The Captain is the authority on the ship, not the passengers, regardless of the class of their ticket.

@Planemike, as has been pointed out before, it was NOT just a question of attending to the safety briefing. Passenger was seated in an exit row, where there is a very specific request to find out if they are willing to cooperate actively with an evacuation. Passenger, like the unspeakable Jones before her, thought that the exit row just meant extra leg room and refused to cooperate with entirely reasonable requests.

Plane I think you are missing the point they were in exit row. sitting elsewhere not worth taking grief. Sitting in exit row very different. If you do not want to be co-operative for the sake of peoples lives you should leave exit row. Move co-operatively doubt there is an issue, escalate your pigheadedness/aggression, as it appears here, you are off the plane.