Article: Qantas Bans Filming People On Flights Without Consent

[TheInsider]

Well.... Australian airport security in Melbourne recently had a diabetic child remove their insulin pump for their security screening. Despite the vast bulk of medical documentation and airline regulations being presented.

Whilst I agree with your logic. Think about how dumb some people can be. Corporately, people can be even dumber. QANTAS isn't exactly know to be doing the smart thing lately. What, with selling cancelled flights and all.

I'm not commenting on the merits of this policy, just the struggle of diabetics and those with medical conditions in airports.

What terminal may help. Different companies operate T1 compared to T2-4.

 

[Bolt]

What terminal may help. Different companies operate T1 compared to T2-4.

Not sure. It was covered in the news just 3 weeks ago.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Well.... Australian airport security in Melbourne recently had a diabetic child remove their insulin pump for their security screening. Despite the vast bulk of medical documentation and airline regulations being presented.

Whilst I agree with your logic. Think about how dumb some people can be. Corporately, people can be even dumber. QANTAS isn't exactly know to be doing the smart thing lately. What, with selling cancelled flights and all.

I'm not commenting on the merits of this policy, just the struggle of diabetics and those with medical conditions in airports.

I am aware of that case. Removal for security screening which is equally as ludicrous is not the same as QF staff onboard not allowing a medical device as a breach of privacy protections.
The thread is about filming of pax and staff, neither of which can be done by an insulin pump.

 

[MarkMelbourne61]

Even before YouTube existed, I have heard QF cabin managers asking pax not to take photos of staff or other passengers without their permission.

Arguably the VA condition is more restrictive - you could still film a QF flight for commercial reasons (eg youtuber) as long as you don't show other pax or staff. The VA condition would not permit this at all.

There's so many people trying to make a living out of YouTube airline reviews, I imagine it's becoming a problem for a lot of airlines and pax.

It makes sense to enforce rules & regulations obviously, especially in this current climate, where alot of people think they have the right to film/photograph others without expressed consent. The flight crew particually have the right to anonymity, without photos of them being posted on various sites to feed the photographers need to put them on parade for the world to see. Having said all of that, if there was an 'incident' on board, the filming of such incident could prove beneficial, as evidence, should it involve an assault or similar, causing harm to a person or damage to property. This is just the way I see it.

 

[Bolt]

What do you mean by right to anonymity? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think we have that right in Australia. Although, I like the idea of it.

 

[pkr]

Airplane is not a public place. It is a transportation vehicle where passengers should have full right to privacy although this place is shared by many passengers.
Although the QF wording may not be the best, I am fully supporting QF restrictions for filming and taking pictures of other passengers without permission.
Hope, that all others would support this.
Finally, if you disagree with me, I am asking you if you would like be filmed and later be shown in media to be
I suspect that you might not be very happy

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, plenty of of occupations out there that put up with being filmed daily why should air hosties get special treatment from everyone else?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, plenty of of occupations out there that put up with being filmed daily why should air hosties get special treatment from everyone else?

Because they can!

An airline can set the rules, and they have done so here. Not just for flight attendants. but for all passengers and crew on board.

None of us need to be in a confined space for hours on end with someone poking a camera around.

Other professions are not relevant. They could implement a similar restriction if they wanted to,

And welcome to AFF

 

[Quickstatus]

Ive got a few colleagues who turned down appearances on the "RPAH" show some years ago. The potential celebrity status meant nothing. Most medicos don't want to be on any videos.

Being videoed in the workplace is distracting and for certain professions introduces potential for errors - bad in the hospital environment.

So no, I would say most people don't want to be on a video and they don't want to have to opt out, nor do they appreciate having to respond to a request to be videoed.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Well.... Australian airport security in Melbourne recently had a diabetic child remove their insulin pump for their security screening. Despite the vast bulk of medical documentation and airline regulations being presented.

Whilst I agree with your logic. Think about how dumb some people can be. Corporately, people can be even dumber. QANTAS isn't exactly know to be doing the smart thing lately. What, with selling cancelled flights and all.

Australian airport security can be a pain in general. Whereas I can leave everything on and head through security stateside, the rules vary from airport to airport and even from terminal to terminal. Some terminals require you to remove all items from your bag, others you can keep everything in. Some have X-rays whereas others have those god awful ancient full body scanners from 2003 (i.e. Sydney domestic terminal 3). The number of times I have been caught out at that terminal with that body scanner is too many. The first time this happened they had me go to a private room to inspect. The second time it happened I lifted my shirt and lowered my pant and told them to have a look. I'm not gonna waste 15 minutes in a private room because their ancient scanners cannot figure out that someone with Crohn's disease has a protrusion in the belly area. If it was me, I would have been on the phone with AFP to get this escalated.

To bring this discussion back to the relevancy for this thread, the story does beg a question. At what point does Qantas' filming policy kick in? Does it occur the moment you set foot on the plane? What about at the boarding area? What about at the security check-point? I have been told verbally by a Qantas lounge employee that I'm not allowed to take pictures of my food in the lounge. So presumably the policy kicks in for the QF lounge.

I'm not commenting on the merits of this policy, just the struggle of diabetics and those with medical conditions in airports.

Depends on the airport. What is humorous is that the Department of Home Affairs has to be consulted. For what? There is no reason so far as I can tell. Airport security should be able to figure this out on their own, or worse case contact the station manager of the Department of Homeland Security for their region. Now granted, this isn't the US where they have the whole security apparatus figure out... but still! I will point out that to my knowledge Australia has no laws protecting the rights of the disabled when they travel. If there was, one could simply point to those laws (i.e. like the Americans with Disabilities Act in the US) and get through.

Having said all of that, if there was an 'incident' on board, the filming of such incident could prove beneficial, as evidence, should it involve an assault or similar, causing harm to a person or damage to property. This is just the way I see it.

That is what I would argue is an important exception to the rule. Look, no one wants a phone or GoPro pointed at their face for hours on end. I think most reasonable people would agree to that, and I think it's well justified in the contract of carriage. But there are well-defined moments where the use of cameras could be beneficial, such as violent outbursts onboard a plane. In-flight emergencies I'm less sure about. On the one hand, I suspect investigators would love to have that footage to review why an air emergency occurred. However, in an in-flight emergency the passenger's attention should be focused on listening to the crew and carefully following their instructions rather than ensuring they get good footage of what's going wrong.

An airline can set the rules, and they have done so here. Not just for flight attendants. but for all passengers and crew on board.

They can set the rules so long as the rules don't infringe on other needs that are protected by legislation. Much like how a company could specify a fixed warranty period of 1 year. They can set the term, but the Australian Consumer Guarantee often trumps that expressed warranty period.

 

[Lynda2475]

others have those god awful ancient full body scanners from 2003 (i.e. Sydney domestic terminal 3).

The full body scanners at SYD T3 are no where near that old, in fact were installed within the last 18 months.

They are IME a vast improvement over the metal detector type which are so easily set off by a bra underwire or the metal in shoe heels. The full scanners do not require you to remove watch or jewelery or shoes, easily accommodate those with knee/hip replacements.

And I'm sure you know you know from the premium line you can choose the body scanner (my preference) or older metal detector next to it.

 

[justinbrett]

Australian airport security can be a pain in general. Whereas I can leave everything on and head through security stateside

If you have TSA precheck.

For us mere mortals, this is never an option. So not really a fair comparison. Quite the contrary, as a regular traveller, Australian airport security is by far more relaxed for regular travellers - to the point that we don't need a precheck program, nobody would pay for it.

The full body scanners at SYD T3 are no where near that old, in fact were installed within the last 18 months.

I think he must mean BNE T3 OP often gets them mixed up.

 

[RooFlyer]

At what point does Qantas' filming policy kick in?

it kicks in at the point that Qantas want to rely on it to deal with someone. Like many of these rules I think it’s there now so they can kick it in to control some particular situation.

Now granted, this isn't the US

Correct, it isn’t so, how about giving us a rest from it.

 

[RichardMEL]

Australian airport security can be a pain in general. Whereas I can leave everything on and head through security stateside, the rules vary from airport to airport and even from terminal to terminal. Some terminals require you to remove all items from your bag, others you can keep everything in. Some have X-rays whereas others have those god awful ancient full body scanners from 2003 (i.e. Sydney domestic terminal 3). The number of times I have been caught out at that terminal with that body scanner is too many. The first time this happened they had me go to a private room to inspect. The second time it happened I lifted my shirt and lowered my pant and told them to have a look. I'm not gonna waste 15 minutes in a private room because their ancient scanners cannot figure out that someone with Crohn's disease has a protrusion in the belly area. If it was me, I would have been on the phone with AFP to get this escalated.

I would have loved to see the AFP response to your attitude to airport security processes. In fact, please try it next time.... I do not think they will escort you to the nearest lounge shower suite. For extra bonus points - please repeat the stunt with pulling down your pants and ask them to look.

However, your comments about US security are pertinent to you, but not the majority of members of this forum who do NOT have Global Entry or TSE Pre - because we can't. So your comments are not terribly helpful.

As a non TSA Pre user, everything you describe about hating in Australia over the past twelve months within the US has happened to me at airports all over the country. In fact in the last 10 or so days I've flown through DFW twice and out of ATL. As usual, different policies have applied. One wanted laptops/tablets out, one did not. One wanted jackets off, the other shrugged when I asked, so I woe mine and was fine. And of course, the shoe thing - which has NEVER been a thing in Australia.

Indeed at MEL T2 (int) departures security, they wanted NOTHING out - no liquids, no tablets (and of course no shoe theatre)... so ironically to your comment above - i find Oz an absolute breeze - specially domestic (because there's no limit on Liquids etc)

Horses for courses really. You have advantage in one area, yet seemingly have a problem with following whatever the procedure du jour at terminal X is. It's pretty easy even with the differing policies - because you know, they actually tell you at the check point before going through the scanner - or you can ask (like I do in the US if it's not clear from ll the shouting at peons ). And if you have a concern with the body scanner regarding specific personal or medical requirement, one can ask to be personally wanded and go through the metal detector if need be.

 

[Mattg]

I flew with KLM today and at the start of the safety briefing, the purser made the following announcement: "Out of respect for the privacy of your fellow passengers and crew, you must get permission before taking photographs or videos."

This was also mentioned in the back of the in-flight magazine:

 

[Beano]

I would have loved to see the AFP response to your attitude to airport security processes. In fact, please try it next time.... I do not think they will escort you to the nearest lounge shower suite. For extra bonus points - please repeat the stunt with pulling down your pants and ask them to look.

However, your comments about US security are pertinent to you, but not the majority of members of this forum who do NOT have Global Entry or TSE Pre - because we can't. So your comments are not terribly helpful.

As a non TSA Pre user, everything you describe about hating in Australia over the past twelve months within the US has happened to me at airports all over the country. In fact in the last 10 or so days I've flown through DFW twice and out of ATL. As usual, different policies have applied. One wanted laptops/tablets out, one did not. One wanted jackets off, the other shrugged when I asked, so I woe mine and was fine. And of course, the shoe thing - which has NEVER been a thing in Australia.

Indeed at MEL T2 (int) departures security, they wanted NOTHING out - no liquids, no tablets (and of course no shoe theatre)... so ironically to your comment above - i find Oz an absolute breeze - specially domestic (because there's no limit on Liquids etc)

Horses for courses really. You have advantage in one area, yet seemingly have a problem with following whatever the procedure du jour at terminal X is. It's pretty easy even with the differing policies - because you know, they actually tell you at the check point before going through the scanner - or you can ask (like I do in the US if it's not clear from ll the shouting at peons ). And if you have a concern with the body scanner regarding specific personal or medical requirement, one can ask to be personally wanded and go through the metal detector if need be.

I think kangarooflyer88 makes some valid points. There are at least four types of body scanners (some security have two) and two x- ray machines for luggage, so it can be confusing. I have a metal knee and wear steel toecap shoes. (You wouldn't think they were as they look like ordinary business shoes, apart from the Bluntstone on the side. I have had interesting conversations with security staff when i take them off).
So, in the oldest systems it's laptop and liquids out, coats and shoes off, not the belt. In the more modern systems its belt and coat (I have a load of metal junk in it) off. In Wlg INT i have to go through two, and usually breeze through. No shoes or belt off. BNE QF priority, only one body scanner belt off (not shoes off), breeze through. MEL QF DOM has the oldest system. It's shoes, belt, jacket off, laptop out and personal attention with a hand held scanner. Also rucked clothing can show on the newer scanners, so tyck it in.

This is all included in the joys of travelling, so enjoy! But I really dont like MEL security.

 

[Beano]

It makes sense to enforce rules & regulations obviously, especially in this current climate, where alot of people think they have the right to film/photograph others without expressed consent. The flight crew particually have the right to anonymity, without photos of them being posted on various sites to feed the photographers need to put them on parade for the world to see. Having said all of that, if there was an 'incident' on board, the filming of such incident could prove beneficial, as evidence, should it involve an assault or similar, causing harm to a person or damage to property. This is just the way I see it.

I've seen these videos on the telly. They dont tell the whole storey and often dont start until any ruckuss begins, so may not be all the evidence.

 

[JW]

I flew with KLM today and at the start of the safety briefing, the purser made the following announcement: "Out of respect for the privacy of your fellow passengers and crew, you must get permission before taking photographs or videos."

This was also mentioned in the back of the in-flight magazine:

View attachment 370544

Yes, KLM has been doing this for ages. They take privacy a tad more seriously in europe it appears after gdpr. This is not universal of course.