|
Originally Posted by Planemike
(Post 10467625)
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..!! 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. |
Originally Posted by PastTense
(Post 10466356)
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.
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Planemike
(Post 10467199)
You write like a lawyer...
|
Originally Posted by Noxegon
(Post 10467336)
Do we really, in this day and age, need to explain to passengers how to buckle and unbuckle a seat belt?.
|
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. |
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 |
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.
|
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. |
"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 |
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...!!! |
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.
|
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? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot
(Post 10468555)
I knew it was a bad sign when airlines started addressing passengers as "Customers."
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 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. |
Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot
(Post 10468555)
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. Think Boeing 737 MAX. |
"They're not overly long if they're entertaining. I found BA's recent star-studded safety video (the one hosted by Chabuddy G) quite good actually."
Star-studded? Who TF is Chubby G? |
Originally Posted by Planemike
(Post 10468350)
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.
99.0075% of passengers are quite happy to follow instructions. However if a passenger refuses to then they must be offloaded because they could become a safety risk to themselves, other passengers or the aircraft itself. I don’t know the full details in the case of this thread - I wasn’t there - but if a passenger in an emergency exit row refuses to listen and agree to follow safety instructions, then they must be moved from that exit row seat. If there were no alternative seats available and no other passenger was prepared to swap with them, then the original uncooperative passenger would have to be offloaded; we cannot have passengers who pose a safety risk. If they refuse to follow safety instructions, will they also smoke in the toilets for example? A discarded lit cigarette in the waste bin can cause a fire, and fire in an airplane is extremely dangerous and serious. Every other year on average I have to call police to meet the aircraft on landing to deal with an unruly passenger who refused to follow safety instructions or is acting in a dangerous manner. One charming fellow who refused to fit his seatbelt before landing and was abusive to the cabin crew was last seen on the airbridge shouting at the Spanish police to “speak fxxxxxg English” as he was led away. Just last week while over the Atlantic the toilet smoke warning suddenly went off. I am sure you can appreciate the seriousness of a fire in the cabin at 37,000’ over the ocean, an hour and a half flying time away from any airport. This despite the safety briefing stating that smoking was not allowed. So unfortunately, passengers do have to be instructed. We cannot rely on them behaving safely voluntarily - most do, but we can not assume it. You find the manner occasionally too bossy, but perhaps your attitude or behaviour is borderline non compliant or difficult? There simply isn’t time to negotiate safety procedures with every passenger. They are simply trying to maximise your safety. Just relax. |
Uplinker, shame there is no like button on this site.
The bossy lady member of platform staff at Clapham Junction station who recently shouted at me to get behind the yellow line was thinking of my safety and got a smile and a thank you in return. |
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10468808)
I know you find this uncomfortable, but passengers - whether they have paid for a ticket or not is irrelevant to safety - MUST obey safety instructions on an aircraft. This is the law, it is not optional. Would you argue with or ignore the instructions/orders from a fireman in a department store, telling you to leave the building? Or instructions from a ship’s Captain telling you to don your life jacket and proceed to lifeboat stations? 99.0075% of passengers are quite happy to follow instructions. However if a passenger refuses to then they must be offloaded because they could become a safety risk to themselves, other passengers or the aircraft itself. I don’t know the full details in the case of this thread - I wasn’t there - but if a passenger in an emergency exit row refuses to listen and agree to follow safety instructions, then they must be moved from that exit row seat. If there were no alternative seats available and no other passenger was prepared to swap with them, then the original uncooperative passenger would have to be offloaded; we cannot have passengers who pose a safety risk. If they refuse to follow safety instructions, will they also smoke in the toilets for example? A discarded lit cigarette in the waste bin can cause a fire, and fire in an airplane is extremely dangerous and serious. Every other year on average I have to call police to meet the aircraft on landing to deal with an unruly passenger who refused to follow safety instructions or is acting in a dangerous manner. One charming fellow who refused to fit his seatbelt before landing and was abusive to the cabin crew was last seen on the airbridge shouting at the Spanish police to “speak fxxxxxg English” as he was led away. Just last week while over the Atlantic the toilet smoke warning suddenly went off. I am sure you can appreciate the seriousness of a fire in the cabin at 37,000’ over the ocean, an hour and a half flying time away from any airport. This despite the safety briefing stating that smoking was not allowed. So unfortunately, passengers do have to be instructed. We cannot rely on them behaving safely voluntarily - most do, but we can not assume it. You find the manner occasionally too bossy, but perhaps your attitude or behaviour is borderline non compliant or difficult? There simply isn’t time to negotiate safety procedures with every passenger. They are simply trying to maximise your safety. Just relax. My thoughts are set out in several messages on this thread, not necessary to repeat. I am in no way defending those passengers who are "actively unruly" mostly fuelled by alcohol, I am sure you will confirm. As an aside here, have to wonder why alcohol is made so readily available airside in terminals, but of course they would need to forego some revenue if the obvious decision were to be taken. Your "modus operandi" works fine with troops on a C130. In my view you close your eyes to the fact passengers are there voluntarily. Very many will play along with you and shout "how high". You have problems with the ones who choose to ignore you or shout back " don't feel like jumping ". You will not agree, I am sure but SOME safety procedures have become rituals and the observance of them as a ritual has become more important that any safety advantage they may confer. As always an interesting debate..... |
Planemike. Perhaps you should refrain from posting on this thread. As I recall, the British Air Navigation Order (and I would think most of the world is similar), gave me COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY for the safety of the flight. By logical extension it also gave me COMPLETE AUTHORITY. That was delegated to the cabin crew. If the crew feel a passenger should be offloaded, then they are offloaded. I've done it several times, and each time I was exercising my RESPONSIBILITY.
|
Last from me to Planemike while I wait for my lawnmower battery to recharge......
Originally Posted by Planemike
(Post 10468902)
Uplifter........
Your "modus operandi" ....... ..............works fine with troops on a C130. In my view you close your eyes to the fact passengers are there voluntarily. Very many will play along with you and shout "how high". You have problems with the ones who choose to ignore you or shout back " don't feel like jumping ". You will not agree, I am sure but SOME safety procedures have become rituals and the observance of them as a ritual has become more important that any safety advantage they may confer. As always an interesting debate..... Wearing seat belts when we say, stowing baggage correctly, putting tray tables away, putting seats backs upright, opening window blinds, not getting drunk, not smoking, dimming cabin lights before night landings, getting you to sit down when we say; all these and more are done purely for reasons of safety. Passengers are allowed to visit the cockpit on the ground while the aircraft engines are not running, (as long as we are not too busy). Why not ask if you can next time you are on an aircraft? Happy flying :ok: |
Herod & uplinker............ Hi guys, take a look at your pms !!! PM
|
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10469101)
Wearing seat belts when we say, stowing baggage correctly, putting tray tables away, putting seats backs upright, opening window blinds, not getting drunk, not smoking, dimming cabin lights before night landings, getting you to sit down when we say; all these and more are done purely for reasons of safety. On a UA flight last week I was quite surprised when the window blinds were left down for landing. I was in an aisle seat and had no advance warning of the touchdown. I’ve also been told to stow my laptop for landing while overhead Amsterdam on an EK flight to Dublin. |
Originally Posted by Tailspinace
(Post 10467175)
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!
|
Originally Posted by PastTense
(Post 10466356)
The URL:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tructions-card The passenger 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. BUT - nobody touches bloody duty time regulations for pilots(and our collegues in the cabin) in a proper way(except making them "better" and better for airlines, of course). Tired pilots, fine. No problem. Or pilots that get called to Dublin for being sick to often, "encouraging" them to fly as well when they do not feel really that well(otherwise your free plane ride, DO NOT MISS the saftety then , free hotel and "nice" chat including warning letter is waiting up there on the green island). BUT not watching always that same safety demo is a saftey concern - right :E Fantastic new world of aviation. And by that I mean it made very WELL sense to have that safety demo in place a long while ago when aviation still was something nice and enjoyable. Not so many people(which was a good thing) fly, making it necessary to explain that uncommon mean of transport. "Thanks" to RYR and co this is not an issue anymore. Time to change some laws. And I am not talking about safety demos only here. Now I know "ANZAC" aviation quiet a bit, have been a skipper down under before Sept 11 with Ansett. I know HOW they sometimes behaved towards passengers and I very often did not agree with cabin crew behaviour towards paying customers. Filed as well sometimes a report if deemed necessary(hell, sometimes they even behaved VERY blunt towards us pilots being on a deadhead and I was a very quiet fella - even nowadays if morons in the head office do not step on my toes to much). Well, Ansett went under, Air NZ did not(as partner of Ansett). It seems crew attitude did not changed so much over the last 18 years down there.... |
Originally Posted by Herod
(Post 10469064)
Planemike. Perhaps you should refrain from posting on this thread. As I recall, the British Air Navigation Order (and I would think most of the world is similar), gave me COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY for the safety of the flight. By logical extension it also gave me COMPLETE AUTHORITY. That was delegated to the cabin crew. If the crew feel a passenger should be offloaded, then they are offloaded. I've done it several times, and each time I was exercising my RESPONSIBILITY.
|
Originally Posted by etrang
(Post 10469199)
I think planemike is plain wrong in this case and the pax in question were quite rightly off loaded. But what ever authority you may have on a plane I don't think it carries over to the internet in general or this thread in particular. I disagree with planemike but I do think he has every right to express his opinion here.
|
Originally Posted by sixchannel
(Post 10468690)
"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. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it will always be possible to spend more money on safety and get a safer aircraft or safer operational procedures. The opportunity is open-ended, literally infinite. People use the phrase "putting a price on human life" as though that were an evil thing, but until you do that, you can't sanely answer questions like, "Is it worth it to spend an extra 50 million dollars per aircraft to cut the accident rate by ten percent?" or "Would you pay an extra $50 per flight to reduce your chance of being in a fatal crash by a quarter?" |
Planemike.
You sent me a pm asking why I made my last post. I'll make my reply publicly. You say you do not support disruptive passengers. However, your posts carry that line. You seem to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the safety brief is something that is of no importance, even the briefing at the emergency exit. Remember that the general public and the press venture onto Pprune, and you are giving the wrong idea. Perhaps you wouldn't be troubled with being in a burning aircraft, waiting for someone to open the exit; someone who has no idea how to do so. Personally I, and I suspect most members of the public, would be. Continue to play Devil's Advocate, and I will continue to read your posts with interest. As for me, I will not be posting further on this thread. |
Didn't anyone else see the pictures a little while ago of passengers (lots of them) with the oxygen mask over their mouths only, rather than the nose & mouth. Two different incidents if I remember correctly. So much for 'we've seen this dozens of times & know what to do.' And if you think they can read the card or the signs & work out what to do, I've lost count of the number of passengers I have observed who couldn't figure out where the toilet is & have even seen a few who couldn't undo their seatbelt.
|
Originally Posted by Herod
(Post 10469254)
Planemike.
You sent me a pm asking why I made my last post. I'll make my reply publicly. You say you do not support disruptive passengers. However, your posts carry that line. You seem to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the safety brief is something that is of no importance, even the briefing at the emergency exit. Remember that the general public and the press venture onto Pprune, and you are giving the wrong idea. Perhaps you wouldn't be troubled with being in a burning aircraft, waiting for someone to open the exit; someone who has no idea how to do so. Personally I, and I suspect most members of the public, would be. Continue to play Devil's Advocate, and I will continue to read your posts with interest. As for me, I will not be posting further on this thread. However, your posts carry that line. Lest there be any doubt in your mind or any one elses, I repeat: I DO NOT SUPPORT DISRUPTIVE PASSENGERS. Au revoir Herod !! |
Originally Posted by Oakape
(Post 10469443)
Didn't anyone else see the pictures a little while ago of passengers (lots of them) with the oxygen mask over their mouths only, rather than the nose & mouth. Two different incidents if I remember correctly. So much for 'we've seen this dozens of times & know what to do.' And if you think they can read the card or the signs & work out what to do, I've lost count of the number of passengers I have observed who couldn't figure out where the toilet is & have even seen a few who couldn't undo their seatbelt.
|
One of the problems with Air New Zealand PA's is that they have appointed themselves as cultural headmistresses.
Consequently the first thirty seconds is in the indigenous language, at which point you've lost the attention of the less politically correct. Air New Zealand have never grasped the concept that less can be actually be more. Thirty seconds of my time is all they need to keep me safe. |
You may not agree
NZ citizen with a number of Air NZ flights taken.
The Air NZ safety announcements can be tedious. If they cut them back to only what is really necessary, ie safety rather than entertainment it would be fine by me. I do, of course, pay attention as on any other airline. |
Originally Posted by Planemike
(Post 10469448)
I DO NOT SUPPORT DISRUPTIVE PASSENGERS.
You questioned the actions of the crew in offloading said passengers. So I would like to ask how would you handle the situation. You have asked them politely multiple times, and the only reaction you received was the other person putting her fingers in her ears (my ten-year-old child was shocked when he heard this). This action could be reasonable for anyone older than eight years old if the flight attendant was yelling or screaming (no report of that) or if the aircraft was making a harsh, annoying sound (also no report of that). Would you just leave the couple there and do nothing? If so, how would you handle a "non-disruptive" passenger who refused to put on their seat belt? If they do not put up a fight, but simply ignore requests to do so, what would you do? They are not disruptive passengers by your definition if they are not loud or aggressive or drunk, right? How about someone who leaves the tray down and use their laptop while the plane is preparing to take off? I am fairly sure there are not laws saying that a passenger MUST wear their seat belts or put away their tray tables during take-off . Those are proabbly covered under the same "obeying lawful instructions of the flight crew" regulations. Also, with regards to your earlier question " Would you accept that sort of treatment if you were in a shop?? ", the answer is "yes, if you do not want to break the law and be reported to Police". Here in Australia, disobeying emergency officers (such as a building warden) performing their duties can get you in trouble with the law. This is true even if there is not an real emergency happening (such as a fire drill). If the warden asks you to throw away that cup of hot coffee you are carrying during an evacuation drill and you refuse to comply, guess what happens. [And there are good reasons for not carrying food and drinks during evacution. At my workplace, someone was badly scalded during a fire drill when the person behind her spilt freshly made hot coffee down her back, not to mention how spllages make the stairs more slippery.] |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.