On my recent Jetstar flights, the crew have been very clear with announcements before take off that seat swapping was not to be done. At least not without the crew's approval or direction. And that, AFAIK, the restriction applied throughout the whole flight.
Jetstar sells services, including seats (certain rows cost more etc) and delivers pre-purchased meals etc to certain seats from a printed list.
So moving seats, without crew permission, can upset both Jetstar's business model and their in-flight service delivery system.
But I've seen seat swaps on Jetstar done WITH crew permission.
From what I can gather from the reports, that permission was not sought? Or was not allowed?
I would hope the crew would have arranged a suitable seat swap, if possible, after take-off.
IMHO, it doesn't matter if the FA demand was petty ... Just accept it and move on, until the seat belt sign is switched off. As the crew get busy with their routine, the probably won't notice (I'm sure they are trained to notice, but won't give 2 cents about it, in most cases)
Correct. There is a lot of things FAs do on my flights that I disagree with but it doesn't matter. It's their rules, you follow them. If you don't like it, drive to where you're going.
Another point to note is what is not mentioned (or I did not read properly) in the news article is if any of the seats were emergency or extra leg room seats. If it was an extra leg room seat, the FA might have taken it upon themselves to enforce no-swap due to the $ paid for the seat, which IMO is not the job of the FA, unless of course some $ paid pax complains about it.
Perhaps these are foreigners who don't realize that Australia is a police state and you follow the orders provided by an officer or else. To this day, as a Canadian I'm surprised by the amount of police presence here compared to back home. Still, when in Rome...
Technically JQ doesn't sell seats. I have yet to be on a single flight where a passenger took a seat with them afterwards!
Joking aside, yes they do sell seat assignment, but often if you check in at the last minute you can get extra leg room seating for free since JQ would have already assigned all the crummy middle seats to all the cheapos checking in early and those are all the seats that remain.
I've seen that and have requested that before without issue. Now the fact I was on a MAX fare probably helped in them granting me permission to move seats, but I was told to only do so after departure - fair dinkum!
Perhaps these are foreigners who don't realize that Australia is a police state and you follow the orders provided by an officer or else. To this day, as a Canadian I'm surprised by the amount of police presence here compared to back home. Still, when in Rome...
Protesters finally retreated as the country’s largest police operation ended the three-week demonstrations against Covid-19 restrictions with nearly 200 arrested, weapons seized, trucks towed away.
www.scmp.com
Yes. You have to comply with police orders. That applies in every country.
Is Tasering included in the Max bundle these days? Missed that PR announcement.
Sponsored Post
Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?
Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.
Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.
Protesters finally retreated as the country’s largest police operation ended the three-week demonstrations against Covid-19 restrictions with nearly 200 arrested, weapons seized, trucks towed away.
www.scmp.com
Yes. You have to comply with police orders. That applies in every country.
This is after a group of nut jobs occupied our nation's capital for several weeks honking their horn at all hours of the day including at night, preventing people from entering their work, shutting down several US borders, etc. Had this happened in Canberra, I can assure you this wouldn't have lasted more than a couple of hours with many of them facing serious charges.
It does not appear they bought a seat for the 1yo. So the child was always going to be on the lap of one parent, in this case the mother.
Another case of people too cheap to pay to book seats together then expecting others to move to accommodate them, then causing a commotion which delayed departure.
Spend the $7 upfront for seat selection and avoid all this nonsense, if you cant bare to be seated away form your partner for a couple of hours.
This is after a group of nut jobs occupied our nation's capital for several weeks honking their horn at all hours of the day including at night, preventing people from entering their work, shutting down several US borders, etc. Had this happened in Canberra, I can assure you this wouldn't have lasted more than a couple of hours with many of them facing serious charges.
You're absolutely right. Where I do see a difference though is policing tends to be more aggressive even when there is no reason to do so. I can't tell you the number of times I've been searched here just walking around parks and what not. Compare that to the 30+ years I lived in Canada where that happened a grand total of 0 times.
Could the crew has de-escalated? Absolutely. What is unclear is how the passenger was conducting themselves on the plane. If they were being a real pain that couldn't be reasoned with and was holding up a flight, that's one thing. If it was simply a request and the FA went on a power trip that's a whole other.
You and I know darn well that it's more than $7 for an up-front seat on a long haul regional route like Melbourne to Perth. Whether it makes sense to spend the extra $$ is really up to one's taste. Frankly I wouldn't spend that money on principle.
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.
You're absolutely right. Where I do see a difference though is policing tends to be more aggressive even when there is no reason to do so. I can't tell you the number of times I've been searched here just walking around parks and what not. Compare that to the 30+ years I lived in Canada where that happened a grand total of 0 times.
Could the crew has de-escalated? Absolutely. What is unclear is how the passenger was conducting themselves on the plane. If they were being a real pain that couldn't be reasoned with and was holding up a flight, that's one thing. If it was simply a request and the FA went on a power trip that's a whole other.
Post automatically merged:
You and I know darn well that it's more than $7 for an up-front seat on a long haul regional route like Melbourne to Perth. Whether it makes sense to spend the extra $$ is really up to one's taste. Frankly I wouldn't spend that money on principle.
Could the crew has de-escalated? Absolutely. What is unclear is how the passenger was conducting themselves on the plane. If they were being a real pain that couldn't be reasoned with and was holding up a flight, that's one thing. If it was simply a request and the FA went on a power trip that's a whole other.
We've probably all seen or encountered times where airline or airport staff have fallen back on saying, "It's because of security/safety/regulations", as a way of avoiding dealing with something that's actually a customer service issue.
Perhaps these are foreigners who don't realize that Australia is a police state and you follow the orders provided by an officer or else. To this day, as a Canadian I'm surprised by the amount of police presence here compared to back home. Still, when in Rome...
I can't tell you the number of times I've been searched here just walking around parks and what not. Compare that to the 30+ years I lived in Canada where that happened a grand total of 0 times.
Searched??? Well, living here over 60 years I've never been so much as looked at sideways by a walloper in any situation (OK, there have been a couple of speeding tickets), yet the couple of years I lived in Canada, I was yelled at several times by the RCMP for their quaint enforcement of 'jaywalking' (as in, crossing a completely deserted road in a blizzard but not using a crossing because, like, it was freezing!).
We've probably all seen or encountered times where airline or airport staff have fallen back on saying, "It's because of security/safety/regulations", as a way of avoiding dealing with something that's actually a customer service issue.
Nevertheless, wouldn't you move if asked?
The evictee is quoted as saying he didn't know Jetstar's policies and would have moved if he was told the policy. So FA should have added "because that is our policy" when asking him to move. Seriously.
I see what you mean ... although, we don't have full information on what had happened before the video started.
1. Assuming that the pax was being reasonable, then the only wrongdoing, so to speak, on the pax behalf, is non-compliance. Now, is tasering the right/appropriate action to non-compliance? Depends ... depends where the incident occurs, what's the impact etc. The incident happened in an aircraft. AFP had entered the aircraft because JQ FA called for assistance. AFP is now entering the scene with some sort of background information on what the issue was and could have discussed beforehand what the course of action would be. Now this background information is supplied by JQ FA and the pax, at the point AFP encountered them, has not had a chance to explain his issue/situation etc. What we don't know is if, the pax had sufficient time to explain what's bothering him. However, given that this is an aircraft, the AFP might have, in the interest of time, welfare of other pax, decided to remove the pax ASAP. This could one of the reasons why AFPs action seemed aggressive
2. On the flip side, assuming the pax was very aggressive before the video recording started - then AFPs tasering action seems, may not entirely appropriate, but more warranted to subdue to pax in question and escort him off the plane.
We really can't say that the action of AFP was indeed aggressive or not, without more information on how things started.
One thing I have noticed is, law enforcement tend to give airline staff more benefit of the doubt in such situations and go with what the staff provided as fact, rather than ask the pax what's happening. They do ask the pax "Is everything ok here, is something the issue etc". But in the end, the pax will be given the boot if the airline doesn't wanna fly with the pax that day. Which is why it is always better to accept what the FA says and move on.
For instance, we once had a drunken customer in the store, we called AFP and they immediately escorted him off the premises. He was taken to a far away gate, questioned, ID'ed etc and we were told that AFP will take this over from there. Now, in this example. the pax was clearly inebriated so needless of what the staff had to say, AFP knew that the pax was unstable-on-his-feet-drunk and had to be removed immediately.
3. Could this also because, in the video, we are seeing a young-ish family with a 1 yo kid and the father is getting tasered in front of the whole plane and his family, which will not be a pleasant thing to go through for him or the family or a pleasant thing to watch without feeling bad for the human being being tasered. I mean it is an emotional rollercoaster for the parties involved.
The evictee is quoted as saying he didn't know Jetstar's policies and would have moved if he was told the policy. So FA should have added "because that is our policy" when asking him to move. Seriously.
I may have missed this bit where the pax claimed not knowing JQ's policies. Seems reasonable to me ... Going off of my friend's group as sample, no one knows any airline policies. So I'm willing to give the pax the benefit of doubt.
Agree with you on the point that the FA should have added "because this is our policy" bit - assuming that the FA had not done that already or was missed in the discussion/argument/tension of the moment etc ...
As a note - I have travelled once in JQ this year and there was no announcement around the policy restriction on swapping/changing seats. NEver heard of it this year.
If I might say so, this line may not work with everyone - not because they choose not to care, but more because they don't understand what it means.
Noting that the pax may or may not be a frequent traveller - non-frequent travellers like my mates, don't really think before doing things on a plane. They usually swap seats right from the get-go. I usually ask them stay put until the seat belt sign is switched off. Especially my friends who are couples, but not always book/block/pay for seats next to each other - want to, desperately, sit next to their partner, at that very moment and cannot be separated even for a single second I usually make fun of them.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, people will response more to "it is policy" than "security/safety/etc".
I may have missed this bit where the pax claimed not knowing JQ's policies. Seems reasonable to me ... Going off of my friend's group as sample, no one knows any airline policies. So I'm willing to give the pax the benefit of doubt.
Agree with you on the point that the FA should have added "because this is our policy" bit - assuming that the FA had not done that already or was missed in the discussion/argument/tension of the moment etc ...
As a note - I have travelled once in JQ this year and there was no announcement around the policy restriction on swapping/changing seats. NEver heard of it this year.
A lot of the story is now based on an interview with the man post incident.
I have no idea what happened. But based on the video only, the FA is telling him to move. The FA wouldn't know he was in the wrong seat before take off. I suspect the other party wasn't happy with the move and complained. I don't know how else it would get the FA's attention.
But again, I have no idea, there's so many inconsistencies between the video, the initial report and subsequent interviews.
All I know is the AFP don't taser in front of 180 witnesses for no reason.
The FA wouldn't know he was in the wrong seat before take off. I suspect the other party wasn't happy with the move and complained. I don't know how else it would get the FA's attention.
Actually, I was being sarcastic. I don't think the FA needs to say that. He is arguing with her about moving as asked. You don't win in that situation.
The police asked him to leave, he refused. They don't have to listen to his point of view because if the airline refuses to take you, then bad luck. The police won't be telling the airline to change their mind (and taking responsibility for the passenger being on board). Perhaps they could have humoured him but nothing would have changed the outcome.
The tasering was unfortunate but the video was edited, so we don’t know how many warnings he received.
I may have missed this bit where the pax claimed not knowing JQ's policies. Seems reasonable to me ... Going off of my friend's group as sample, no one knows any airline policies. So I'm willing to give the pax the benefit of doubt.
Agree with you on the point that the FA should have added "because this is our policy" bit - assuming that the FA had not done that already or was missed in the discussion/argument/tension of the moment etc ...
As a note - I have travelled once in JQ this year and there was no announcement around the policy restriction on swapping/changing seats. NEver heard of it this year.
With respect, I don't think it matters whether or not it was policy, or if the FA said it was policy, or not. An FA asks a pax to do something, you do it. If they direct a pax to do something, do it pronto.
If the AFP ask or direct you to do something - well, it always has the potential to end badly if one doesn't.
The individual concerned in the later interview is obviously quite articulate and comfortable in English. I can't see any room for a 'misunderstanding' construction. I think a classic case of an escalation where the individual for whatever reason goes beyond what is sensible, or what they may ordinarily do, and has borne the consequences.
They don't have to. But saying so will alleviate the focus from the FA making the statement to the policy. A diffusion tactic. The pax then, in theory, have nothing against the FA who is simply enforcing the policy on which the FA had no bearing. I do this with my staff or even irate/angry customers to shift the discussion into the direction of arriving at the solution that I want.
Agreed. However, if the pax had been heard, he might have calmed down and it might have been easy to escort him off the plane without having to taser.
The above is from personal experience of handling illogical/irate/angry/disgruntled customers & staff and may not be directly relevant or applicable to the case on hand.
From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)
I usually make fun of them.
