Another Jetstar complaint

[JohnK]

I cannot see how anyone can take the side of the gate agent in this story? Anyway as long as he keeps working for Jetstar....

 

[bambbbam2]

I suppose I have sympathy for the agent/Jet* because of two main issues:

1. The passenger somehow blames Jestar because she lost/forget some "essential" medication. How on earth is that jestars fault?

2. She openly admits verbally abusing the agent. This is just not the done thing.. if unhappy you ask for a supervisor, and if you still don't get a satisfactory outcome you complain in writing

It also sounds to me like a cultural issue.. I know some people think of customer service staff as 'beneath them" and I get these kind of vibes from this person.

 

[moa999]

Gets better.

SMH now has a 4.5min audio clip of the complainant calling a radio station.

Clip titled: Jetstar worker "rude and angry"
Video - Needles found in Brazilian boy - The Sydney Morning Herald

 

[mannej]

Gets better.

SMH now has a 4.5min audio clip of the complainant calling a radio station.

Clip titled: Jetstar worker "rude and angry"
Video - Needles found in Brazilian boy - The Sydney Morning Herald

Her interview is basically word for word as her complaint.

There is no need to mention a few of those things such as the GA slamming the phone down, or the size of his belly. Totally unrelated. She also mentions the bag did fit into the size checker, but nothing about weight.

I think if she stayed away from mentioning a few of these "extras", you would see her receiving more support, but because she has tried elevating her self-importance, a lot of people are like here is another case of DYKWIA.

She probably did cop the rough end of a stick, but didn't do herself any favours in the manner she described the events.

 

[drron]

What she doesnt say is what was said just after she put her bag into the sizer-yet she remembers other things with great detail.If that is when she used the expletive then possibly that is why the whole thing escalated.
So she really isnt giving anyone the full story,we probably wont hear the JQs staffers story so any thoughts we have are purely speculation.
In my incident it certainly started off a bit like she describes it but apart from saying-yes the bag does look bigger than it really is when I put it in the sizer I decided to keep quiet.Methinks she should have done the same.

 

[medhead]

The JQ staff member said “she's got no boarding pass!” - what makes her think she has a right to board an aircraft without a boarding pass?

She had no boarding pass because the staff member snatched it from her.

She mentions a phone call allegedly made, "The male staff member loudly and dramatically yelled “49! Hello. Helloooooo, Helloooooo!”, into the phone,"- The relevance of this is?

This demonstrates a partern of behaviour on the part of the staff member. That is probably why she put it in. (but I agree it is a bit much)

She knew her daughter "witnessing these verbal attacks, upon us would upset her..." yet she continued to escalate the situation by stating "Oh, f--- off, I said dismissively"

indeed, she did herself no favours. But then she is not being paid to control herself and she is not the being paid not to respond to provocation. Unlike the staff member.

"The woman in front of me had bundles of items including her computer and was red eyed and close to tears" Hearsay
"The woman next to me leaned towards me and said, “That was outrageous, you should complain". Hearsay
What the flight attendant, police & a man in the front row said is all hearsay too.

Neither of these situations represent hearsay. both of this things describe what the person observed directly. That is not hearsay. hearsay is something that one has not observed. e.g. if my brother told me that his wife said our mum was stupid and I then said to my mum that daughter in law said your stupid. That is hearsay, as I did not know if she said that or not.

“Look here!, on your contract”, he stabbed his finger into the page repeatedly, “it says so here in your contract…I control who and what goes onto this plane!” All the while underlining and circling a paragraph on my boarding papers dramatically. This appears to be the correct thing to do... When someone doesn't understand something, it is good to show it to them in writing.

Now there is a prime example of DYKWIA.

 

[yo yo ma]

She had no boarding pass because the staff member snatched it from her.

Still doesn't give her the right to board though.

Neither of these situations represent hearsay. both of this things describe what the person observed directly. That is not hearsay. hearsay is something that one has not observed.

Respectfully disagree; according to Judge Judy (where I get all my legal information:mrgreen, she defines every time someone tells her what someone else said, as hearsay.

"Where is the person? Not here? Well I don't want to know what they said, that's hearsay."

Hearsay
n. 1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

hearsay - definition of hearsay by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



The JQ staff member is not totally blameless & could have handled things differently. From the lady's direct account, she must take the great majority of the blame.

 

[medhead]

Respectfully disagree; according to Judge Judy (where I get all my legal information:mrgreen, she defines every time someone tells her what someone else said, as hearsay.

"Where is the person? Not here? Well I don't want to know what they said, that's hearsay."

hearsay - definition of hearsay by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Well, I think I'll stick with the training provided by a government lawyer over judge judy any day

Dare I say you should review your own definition:

Hearsay
n. 1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony

The lady reporting this is a witness to the incident. Her report is based on personal knowledge. The information was not heard or recieved from another. It was received and heard by her.

It is clearly not hearsay.

btw the only JJ situations where JJ claims hearsay, that I've heard, has been "X told me that Y said this". Where the person talking is neither X or Y. That is hearsay, as per the example I gave.

 

[yo yo ma]

Respectfully agree to disagree

 

[djfuzz]

OT

Agree with medhead - statements attributing words to someone else are admissible in the legal context insofar as the witness heard that person say those words. On the other hand, they are not so useful in relation to the veracity of the situation described by those words (If I heard someone say 'I saw John kill David', my testimony says nothing about whether John actually did kill David, just that I heard someone else say it) or the reliability of the witness (Did I really hear those words? Am I perjuring myself?) - which is the reason you'd need that person to be present and testify to that effect.

I don't get the hating on hearsay outside of the legal context - I say we don't have enough of it.

/OT

 

[medhead]

Not sure how you can disagree. Certainly not on the basis of Judge judy

I dare say you should re-read you definition a few times, it will come to you eventually. How about some examples:

I was talking to my boss today he told me that the temperature is 35. - not hearsay, I'm a direct witness to this conversation.

I emailed my mate and told him that my boss said it was 35. Again this is not hearsay - I'm recounting something that I was a direct witness to.

My mate emailed Judge Judy and said that Medhead said that his boss said it was 35. That is hearsay, my mate was not a direct witness to the conversation between me and my boss. However, if I told judge judy what my boss said it would not be hearsay.

It is a basic legal principle, only people who directly witnessed events are capable of saying what happened. It is called being a witness.

In this case, the artist is a witness. The whole point of a witness is to get up and tell the court what they saw and heard. Yet according to you that is hearsay, which means no court case could ever finish because no witness could give evidence.

Still don't understand lets go back to judge judy. Think of the standard JJ case - a dispute over rent or paying for a car. In most case, one side will say something like "I went to the other person and said you owe me money. They said I'll pay you next monday". Judge Judy always accepts that evidence and never calls it hearsay. Why, because it is direct, first hand evidence from a person who witnessed the events and is therefore legally allowed to say what the other person said. Still disagree, then go watch JJ more closely.

 

[djfuzz]

I was talking to my boss today he told me that the temperature is 35. - not hearsay, I'm a direct witness to this conversation.

To be fair, it is hearsay as to the fact that the temperature actually was 35 - you didn't directly witness the measurement of the temperature, your boss (or someone else) did. That's only admissible to the extent that you heard your boss tell you that it was 35.

But yeah, I'm with you otherwise.

 

[medhead]

OT
(If I heard someone say 'I saw John kill David', my testimony says nothing about whether John actually did kill David, just that I heard someone else say it) or the reliability of the witness (Did I really hear those words? Am I perjuring myself?) - which is the reason you'd need that person to be present and testify to that effect.
/OT

A very good example, as you note just on the fact of what you heard someone say it is admissible. (assuming that we agree your a relible witness) But it also borders on heresay, if we are relying on what you heard to prove that "john killed david" as you didn't witness the event just a person saying the event happened.

To be fair, it is hearsay as to the fact that the temperature actually was 35 - you didn't directly witness the measurement of the temperature, your boss (or someone else) did.

True but note that the example is only about passing on what the boss said, not to say that the temperature actually was 35. But your right, how about my boss said you are (I am) an annoying, pedantic, AHole medhead.

 

[markis10]

Looks like all the publicity has achieved the desired results:

http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/jetstarletter.pdf

Jetstar goes into reverse thrust over gate fracas

 

[Mrmaxwell]

Looks like all the publicity has achieved the desired results:

http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/jetstarletter.pdf

Jetstar goes into reverse thrust over gate fracas

What else could JQ do?

Regardless who was at fault 99% of people just see a headline and assume JQ are at fault and need to reconcile with the passenger...and ensure the proper press are aware the apology has been made.

But this quote "I can't say I'm happy with the whole thing but I think their assurance that he's no longer going to be in a position where he can victimise members of the public is good," she said.

I get victimised everyday by surly customer service staff who hate their jobs but I don't tell them to 'cough* off'.

Mmmmm...

 

[countach]

While this woman made a few technical blunders in her reaction to this situation, its not the role of passengers to be reacting perfectly to unexpected silliness. Employees are supposed to be trained to deal with common issues in a restrained and sensible manner. Passengers have their minds on other things and don't expect and are not prepared for these things. Gate attendants, if they are going to be disputing about bags ought to be trained to, and in a position to deal thoughtfully with any disputes.

It doesn't matter whether you like the sound of this woman, or if she made mistakes in this incident. It's still an epic fail for Jetstar and this employee if they can't deal with a simple question about a carry on bag without calling in the police and it getting all over the newspapers. You can't blame the woman for that. This employee ought to be fired, and frankly I don't think I'm going to fly Jetstar until I hear that he is fired.

 

[markis10]

This employee ought to be fired, and frankly I don't think I'm going to fly Jetstar until I hear that he is fired.

Welcome to AFF, while I dont generally fly JQ for other reasons, I would not be using this one sided case to make any future decisions either, at the end of the day we have the word of one person, no witnesses or a detailed account from JQ have come to light, our judicial system would not pass judgement on this basis.

If we had 10 or 20 such similar accounts then maybe we have a problem, as it stands I see two people having a bad day and crossing boundries they should not have crossed, to me its hardly news let alone a reason to blackban a company.

 

[dajop]

While this woman made a few technical blunders in her reaction to this situation, its not the role of passengers to be reacting perfectly to unexpected silliness. Employees are supposed to be trained to deal with common issues in a restrained and sensible manner. Passengers have their minds on other things and don't expect and are not prepared for these things. Gate attendants, if they are going to be disputing about bags ought to be trained to, and in a position to deal thoughtfully with any disputes.

I guess we've all been there. Had a dispute over something we've been able to do in the past, the airline employee says no - 99% of us accept it grudgingly. We do not generally (or I have not) tell them to "f.. off" and then proceed to disobey their instructions, and board anyway despite being told not to.

Rules should be enforced to be fair to all passengers, when someone breaks the rules like this, Jetstar should have procedures to deal with it (via Captain? call in the police??) , and obviously having the gate agent running down the airbridge physically prevent boarding is not one of those. I'm not sure if Jetstar don't have training covering this, or if the agent ignored that, but that's for Jetstar to sort out.

One can only speculate what might have ensued had this little fracas happened in the LOTFAP, but I suspect a passenger ignoring airline staff instructions not to board an aircraft may end up with more problems than just a battered ego and a missed flight.

 

[countach]

It doesn't sound to me like an issue of someone deliberately disobeying the gate attendant. It sounds to me like the gate attendant wanted to check her bag, but did it rudely. Approved it. Got ruder. Changed his mind and then didn't want to approve the bag. But by this time the issue was no longer about the bag, it was about the rudeness of the gate attendant, and as far as the passenger was concerned, the bag was approved, and the ongoing fracas was about the rudeness, which they just didn't want to deal with, and thus she got on the plane. If the attendant had simply made a simple statement at the beginning: no the bag is too big, or yes the bag is ok, and made the appropriate request, I'm sure she would have complied. Once the whole thing got personal, it was too late, and no employee worth a damn should have ever let it get personal.

 

[harvyk]

It doesn't matter whether you like the sound of this woman, or if she made mistakes in this incident. It's still an epic fail for Jetstar and this employee if they can't deal with a simple question about a carry on bag without calling in the police and it getting all over the newspapers. You can't blame the woman for that. This employee ought to be fired, and frankly I don't think I'm going to fly Jetstar until I hear that he is fired.

And here is the problem with the media vs airlines. You've heard a one sided story, which was designed to put this woman in positive light, regardless of who is at fault, and your now saying your not going to fly with JQ because of an event which you had no part, and did not affect you in the slighest, and is the not normal customer experience. (no I'm not having a go at you countach, this is more directed at medhead who seems to like reporting of facts and yet misses the context part of an article)

There is usually 3 sides to any story, their side, your side and the truth. No matter what the event is each party can make a story which places them in positive light. The problem is that when the media makes a story from a certain point of view and whilst completely factual, it can sometimes place the subject of that story in an unfair light, which will inturn influence peoples decisions to use that company.