In-flight experience - Should Etihad compensate me?

[PaulST]

The smoking really shook me, I honestly felt it was a safety risk to everybody on board and I was probably shaking for an hour afterwards. All I was offered was an ice cream and the seat move was to sit in a spare seat in economy beside other people. It was a move down from my three seater.

Why? Planes used to be full of smoke and they weren't falling from the sky. I'm in China at the moment and other than making everything smell terrible, they're reasonably harmless (minus the obvious health issues).

Send the airline an email but I don't like your chances. Unfortunately there's unpleasant people out there and I guess all you can hope for was that they had a terrible hangover.

 

[BAM1748]

As other have said, let the airline know you what you think and that you had a poor experience once this passenger was seated nearby and if they offer something consider it a bonus.

Matt

 

[aaflyer]

Without going into details, I had a very bizzare situation on Qantas one flight. It involved a potentially drunk rather abusive traveller who had been accusing the crew of being racist and denying him beverages based on that (he was either very intoxicated, or just a tool). He was seated in the row in front of me.

Once everything had settled, I went and spoke to the crew just mentioning to them that if they needed a witness I was happy to provide assistance stating they had not been racist and had been nothing but professional. The Customer Service Supervisor thanked me, and appologised that she could not really move me anywhere as the flight was full.

Upon the return flight, I was told at checkin 'I'm sorry Mr aaflyer but we don't have a business class seat for you on leg B, but check with the lounge when you arrive there and see if they can clear you'. I was a little taken back as I was in Economy (the lounge at port A actually then paged me and provided me a new boarding pass to my end destination).

I can only assume the purser on the flight had put some kind of service recovery note in to upgrade my return flight. That's when airlines get things right.

For what it's worth, I had zero expectation of compensation from Qantas, nor did I want any. The upgrade cost them very little, and retained my loyalty.

 

[PaulST]

I wonder at what stage it can become a police issues? I must admit that you'd get a nice feeling watching an obnoxious, well-dressed, bad behaving person being escorted off the plane by police. They're being 'drunk and disorderly' aren't they? But I guess the issue may be that the crimes were not committed in Australian territory?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I wonder at what stage it can become a police issues? I must admit that you'd get a nice feeling watching an obnoxious, well-dressed, bad behaving person being escorted off the plane by police. They're being 'drunk and disorderly' aren't they? But I guess the issue may be that the crimes were not committed in Australian territory?

There is applicable law at all times on board an aircraft. The police at the landing point will be able to take action (unless you arrive at a 'lawless state').

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Once everything had settled, I went and spoke to the crew just mentioning to them that if they needed a witness I was happy to provide assistance stating they had not been racist and had been nothing but professional. The Customer Service Supervisor thanked me, and appologised that she could not really move me anywhere as the flight was full.

Are you the same race as the passenger that made the accusation?

 

[Spongbob]

I wonder at what stage it can become a police issues? I must admit that you'd get a nice feeling watching an obnoxious, well-dressed, bad behaving person being escorted off the plane by police. They're being 'drunk and disorderly' aren't they? But I guess the issue may be that the crimes were not committed in Australian territory?

I am mostly likely wrong, but isn't the legal jurisdiction of an aircraft the country of registration once the doors are closed (and the country on the ground when the doors are open)?

 

[Rebekkap]

Why ban the carriage of cigarettes on board? They're not an inherent safety risk. Only when the passenger decides to light up can there be a potential problem.

Why ban the carriage of guns on board? They're not an inherent safety risk. Only when the passenger decides to shoot them can there be a potential problem.

I don't see why they can't insist on cigarettes going in checked luggage rather than being in the cabin. Would solve the "potential" problem of people lighting up in the aircraft toilets and causing a fire in the rubbish bin.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Why ban the carriage of guns on board? They're not an inherent safety risk. Only when the passenger decides to shoot them can there be a potential problem.

I don't see why they can't insist on cigarettes going in checked luggage rather than being in the cabin. Would solve the "potential" problem of people lighting up in the aircraft toilets and causing a fire in the rubbish bin.

i don't know if you're a smoker or not... but it is somewhat impractical to get everyone to check all their cigarettes. People smoke in airports (before departure, and during transit), and they buy duty free cigarettes.

you can ban the lighter/matches if you really want. But cigarettes?

Re guns? I haven't heard of a hijacking by someone using a cigarette pointed at the head of a crew member.

 

[Rebekkap]

i don't know if you're a smoker or not... but it is somewhat impractical to get everyone to check all their cigarettes. People smoke in airports (before departure, and during transit), and they buy duty free cigarettes.

you can ban the lighter/matches if you really want. But cigarettes?

Far more people get drunk and obnoxious on aircraft than light up. Ban alcohol? Far more passengers of size cause inconvenience than light up. Ban passengers of size?

Re guns? I haven't heard of a hijacking by someone using a cigarette pointed at the head of a crew member.

I wasn't actually arguing they were equivalent - I was pointing out the absurdity of arguing that something's only a "potential" problem so it shouldn't be banned. Waste bins have indeed been set on fire by improperly extinguished cigarettes.

Nothing worse than sitting on a plane next to someone who's just been chain smoking in the airport - the stench can be enough to set off my asthma and mean I need to use my puffer. So I'm all for people not being able to do it. If they're that much of a desperate addict that they can't function for however many hours without a smoke, they can wear a nicotine patch.

 

[medhead]

Why? Planes used to be full of smoke and they weren't falling from the sky. I'm in China at the moment and other than making everything smell terrible, they're reasonably harmless (minus the obvious health issues).

Since the obvious health issue is that they kill people and are one of the very small number of known/proven carcinogens, I'm not sure reasonably harmless is the correct term.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I wasn't actually arguing they were equivalent - I was pointing out the absurdity of arguing that something's only a "potential" problem so it shouldn't be banned. Waste bins have indeed been set on fire by improperly extinguished cigarettes.

Nothing worse than sitting on a plane next to someone who's just been chain smoking in the airport - the stench can be enough to set off my asthma and mean I need to use my puffer. So I'm all for people not being able to do it. If they're that much of a desperate addict that they can't function for however many hours without a smoke, they can wear a nicotine patch.

And I guess most smokers do cope with patches or gum or whatever.

it would be interesting to see the correlation between consumption of alcohol and lighting a cigarette on board. How many of those attempting to smoke are also under the influence? We might also need to ban alcohol, if it shows that in .0001% of passengers it can lead to someone smoking.

I disagree regarding gun vs cigarettes. Someone seeing a packet of cigarettes on board an aircraft isn't going to suffer any injury. Someone seeing a gun will most likely experience fear or panic.

 

[aaflyer]

Are you the same race as the passenger that made the accusation?

I'm not sure how that makes much of a difference to be honest. I don't know what race the flight attendant was, or the capitain the passenger was abusing. I know what race the person who was ranting purported to be, but that really is not the issue. The passenger was the one yelling, at the top of his voice, what he said his nationality was after the FA had denied him a beverage. It was very clear why the FA's had not allowed him a drink. It also turns out that he had been detained by the AFP the previous day in the starting port for drunk and disorderly in the terminal and had been denied boarding the previous day.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm not sure how that makes much of a difference to be honest. I don't know what race the flight attendant was, or the capitain the passenger was abusing. I know what race the person who was ranting purported to be, but that really is not the issue. The passenger was the one yelling, at the top of his voice, what he said his nationality was after the FA had denied him a beverage. It was very clear why the FA's had not allowed him a drink. It also turns out that he had been detained by the AFP the previous day in the starting port for drunk and disorderly in the terminal and had been denied boarding the previous day.

My point was that unless you were the same race as the person making the accusation, how would you know there was no racism? Racism can be very subtle.

However - given the additional facts, it seems likely that was not the case.

 

[Rebekkap]

And I guess most smokers do cope with patches or gum or whatever.

it would be interesting to see the correlation between consumption of alcohol and lighting a cigarette on board. How many of those attempting to smoke are also under the influence? We might also need to ban alcohol, if it shows that in .0001% of passengers it can lead to someone smoking.

But if people weren't allowed to have cigarettes on board, you wouldn't need to ban alcohol for fear of it leading to smoking.

I disagree regarding gun vs cigarettes. Someone seeing a packet of cigarettes on board an aircraft isn't going to suffer any injury. Someone seeing a gun will most likely experience fear or panic.

See my previous comment - I was not actually arguing these things were equivalent. I was pointing out the absurdity of the original argument.

 

[aaflyer]

My point was that unless you were the same race as the person making the accusation, how would you know there was no racism? Racism can be very subtle.

However - given the additional facts, it seems likely that was not the case.

He was using 'F' and 'C' words, loudly, directing them at the crew and captain. He was also met by police on the transit stop and escorted off the a/c. He was not on the following leg.

I can appreciate that racism can be very subtle, but this guy was clearly being a tool/intoxicated, and RSA was more than enough of a reason to cut him off.

 

[PaulST]

Since the obvious health issue is that they kill people and are one of the very small number of known/proven carcinogens, I'm not sure reasonably harmless is the correct term.

My point was that they're reasonably harmless in the short term (ie. a 15hr flight). Obviously, long term exposure is going to cactus your lungs, blood vessels and bladder. The OP was quite distressed believing that the single person smoking was putting the aircraft at risk, and I was disagreeing with that. Blowing a door or engine is something to worry about, a single person lighting a cigarette is not. Unpleasant, no doubt, but it's not going to bring down a modern jet liner.

 

[Rebekkap]

My point was that they're reasonably harmless in the short term (ie. a 15hr flight). Obviously, long term exposure is going to cactus your lungs, blood vessels and bladder. The OP was quite distressed believing that the single person smoking was putting the aircraft at risk, and I was disagreeing with that. Blowing a door or engine is something to worry about, a single person lighting a cigarette is not. Unpleasant, no doubt, but it's not going to bring down a modern jet liner.

Except if it does Varig Flight 820 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But if people weren't allowed to have cigarettes on board, you wouldn't need to ban alcohol for fear of it leading to smoking.



See my previous comment - I was not actually arguing these things were equivalent. I was pointing out the absurdity of the original argument.

But I'd still have to ban alcohol for those that get obnoxious, try to open exits, or assault crew and fellow pax.

I see your argument - maybe I expressed my side badly. But I stand by it that a packet of cigarettes is not inherently dangerous. Someone has to decide to not only light it, but also throw it into a waste container without extinguishing it.

Simple solution if it is a major problem is to ban the lighting implements. Not the cigarettes, which would cause a disproportionate inconvenience (cost and time wise) to the passengers concerned.

 

[PaulST]

It also turns out that he had been detained by the AFP the previous day in the starting port for drunk and disorderly in the terminal and had been denied boarding the previous day.

I'd hope that he'd have been put on a no-flying list? Considering the financial and time issues associated with landing a modern airliner in the wrong airport simply to offload an unpleasant passenger, they should have little tolerance before banning people.

Off-topic, but do the local airlines (QF, VA) work together and have a share unofficial list of people they'll refuse to fly because of previous bad behaviour?