Jetstar in-air fight

[esseeeayeenn]

i must admit, my suggestion of banning alcohol completely on all aircraft is a tad extreme and unfair on those good folk who do the right thing - these good folk far outweigh the wrongdoers in numbers. it should/could be a LAST resort.

as someone else here said, maybe banning the consumption to DF alcohol and enforcing this ban would be fairly effective.

you could also do the old Services alcohol serving thing - two cans, per man, PERHAPS. But on a plane, maybe two drinks per hour -

Two drinks per hour would be 10 drinks on a BNE-PER flight which at high altitude and reduced cabin pressure would render most pax severely intoxicated.
Even if they hadn't preloaded in the lounge or elsewhere.

 

[Flying Fox]

How about -

1. Recover all costs of diversion

2. 10 yr or life ban from QF and/or JQ

3. Mandatory body cavity search & breath test at all airports

I know, my wife tells me all the time that I'm mean spirited.

 

[Guvner]

I wonder if crew could be armed with a bit of pepper spray or a taser for physical altercations?

A taser on an aircraft. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[mannej]

A taser on an aircraft. What could possibly go wrong?

Same goes for the pepper spray...

 

[juddles]

.....These guys are no different from people misbehaving at clubs or restaurants or footy games, some people are always going to act like cough*wits ...

Exactly. The problem is not alcohol. It is people. Individuals.

And drawing a curious and twisted long bow, this is a bit like terrorism - isolated events SHOULD NOT impact of the day to day quality of life and enjoyment of the vast majority.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Putting it into perspective, I recently read some research which indicated that the factors which correlated most closely with in-flight violence and aggresion were:
(1) whether the aircraft had a first and/or business class cabin; and
(2) whether economy pax were forced to walk through the premium cabin(s) while boarding.

 

[Mattg]

Putting it into perspective, I recently read some research which indicated that the factors which correlated most closely with in-flight violence and aggresion were:
(1) whether the aircraft had a first and/or business class cabin; and
(2) whether economy pax were forced to walk through the premium cabin(s) while boarding.

What study was this, out of interest?

 

[juddles]

Putting it into perspective, I recently read some research which indicated that the factors which correlated most closely with in-flight violence and aggresion were:
(1) whether the aircraft had a first and/or business class cabin; and
(2) whether economy pax were forced to walk through the premium cabin(s) while boarding.

So, some genius worked the stats to correlate the existence of a premium cabin and boarding of Y through same with incidents of violence?

Without having to indulge in 2 minutes thought, nor use up X dollars funding, I can hearby predict (as almost all flights fit this scenario) that lo and behold, there are more disturbances on planes with higher classes.

You may as well say that there is a higher incidence of aggression where planes had wings

 

[Hvr]

What study was this, out of interest?

A reference is made in the link below:
How First Class Passengers Are Ruining Air Travel | Motherboard

 

[esseeeayeenn]

So, some genius worked the stats to correlate the existence of a premium cabin and boarding of Y through same with incidents of violence?

Without having to indulge in 2 minutes thought, nor use up X dollars funding, I can hearby predict (as almost all flights fit this scenario) that lo and behold, there are more disturbances on planes with higher classes.

You may as well say that there is a higher incidence of aggression where planes had wings

Actually a lot of aircraft are economy only.
However I am not arguing the research is conclusive.
I merely observed that I had read it, and that it provided some perspective.

 

[juddles]

Great link - especially the last part - where someone ridicules it.

 

[juddles]

....I merely observed that I had read it, and that it provided some perspective....

Come off it esseeeeayeenn, you are an intelligent person! It was not "research" - it was fluff!!

 

[straitman]

These guys are no different from people misbehaving at clubs or restaurants or footy games, some people are always going to act like cough*wits when they are out and supposedly having a good time because they always need booze to have a good time. Says a lot about their personality in general.

Exactly. The problem is not alcohol. It is people. Individuals.

And drawing a curious and twisted long bow, this is a bit like terrorism - isolated events SHOULD NOT impact of the day to day quality of life and enjoyment of the vast majority.

The issue though is a bit like a risk analysis scenario where the possible outcomes of an inflight disturbance are unacceptable.

 

[medhead]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

My ADF Qantas Club membership first cost me about $100 for a 5 year membership - $20 per year. Joining fee was also charged. The next renewal was about $125 to $150, and the final renewal was $100 per year for a maximum of 4 years. Never got it for free.

Ok it's 1988 Regs not 1998 - makes a difference On a skim-read I couldn't find a regulation imposing any such obligation on JQ. It's not 'sort of like using a seatbelt in a car' because it's an obvious question of fact whether someone is using a seat belt or not. It is extremely difficult, next to impossible, to prove intoxication just by someone's appearance. "They looked drunk" or "they acted like they were drunk" or even "I saw them drink 20 shots" doesn't prove that they were drunk. So imposing a legal obligation on an airline not to let someone in a state of intoxication on an aircraft is only going to work if that airline is going to test everyone somehow, and there's a clear definition of intoxication in the regs. "Please blow into this" at the gate is just not going to happen

Sorry but I don't see how this is legally anything like someone jumping off a cliff? What case are you talking about?

I highly doubt these pax are going to be able to reduce the amount of costs they are up for by arguing "we were so drunk JQ should never have let us on board". Just wouldn't work, even if we were talking about negligence, which we aren't because them having to pay costs is not going to be through a negligence action against them.

what is the definition of intoxication?
I'm sick to death of all these opinions that we all need to be legally sober enough to drive a car. Do the people saying 0.05 even have a clue about what that means? It is only a restriction on being able to drive a private car. IF we take another law, like taxi drivers having to be 0, does that mean that everyone getting on a plane has to be ZERO bac? I can only condemn in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that 0.05% bac has any relevance to people getting on planes or to RSA.

 

[NZflygirl]

A taser on an aircraft. What could possibly go wrong?

Same goes for the pepper spray...

If I was a FA and the job description said I had to go sort the situation there is no way I would go despite the job description (of course you nod your head in the interview because you know the odds of it occurring would be low) but if I had some sort of back up I'd be happier. Other pax could be cleared to the back or front but there's just no way I'd go near the situation. If only trading words ok but if it's escalated to physical violence? Nope never.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If I was a FA and the job description said I had to go sort the situation there is no way I would go despite the job description (of course you nod your head in the interview because you know the odds of it occurring would be low) but if I had some sort of back up I'd be happier. Other pax could be cleared to the back or front but there's just no way I'd go near the situation. If only trading words ok but if it's escalated to physical violence? Nope never.

That's why flight attendants are trained professionals - to manage these situations and a range of other safety related situations.

Flight attendants aren't hired and then put on planes the next day. Each step of the training process requires them to be assessed for aptitude and that they pass relevant requirements.

 

[anat0l]

A taser on an aircraft. What could possibly go wrong?

Same goes for the pepper spray...

Police officers can barely use these said items correctly and you want to give them to FAs to use, even with training?

It's different when private citizens have these items as the disposition of the private citizen is to incapacitate (read: hurt) their target; they don't necessarily have to do (or rather, they think about) the whole "warning" process etc. etc.. Mind, I wonder how many citizens know how to use a taser.

what is the definition of intoxication?
I'm sick to death of all these opinions that we all need to be legal sober enough to drive a car. Do the people saying 0.05 even have a clue about what that means? It is only a restriction on being able to drive a private car. IF we take another law, like taxi drivers having to be 0, does that mean that everyone getting on a plane has to be ZERO bac? I can only condemn in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that 0.05% bac has any relevance to people getting on planes or to RSA.

I'm sure we could look up where the origin of the 0.05 level came from; I'm assuming it was a figure arrived at through physiological studies of BAC on bodily / cognitive function.

Whether it can be used as a basis of judging who is intoxicated or not is different, and it's easy to see why it's also dubious.

People want more solid measures of what counts as intoxicated, either for the purposes of (a) disallowing someone to board an aircraft, and/or (b) not serving them another drink.

I'm sure that there would be people out there who would support a zero BAC to board. It wouldn't mean that people with a higher BAC than zero are actually intoxicated, but - assuming no alcohol is served on board either - it would completely eliminate the possibility of violence due to intoxication. Of course, we may not rule out then that someone may be violent due to drugs, or some other kind of mental condition or phobia. Should we have drug tests, or psychological tests, or.......

That's why flight attendants are trained professionals - to manage these situations and a range of other safety related situations.

Flight attendants aren't hired and then put on planes the next day. Each step of the training process requires them to be assessed for aptitude and that they pass relevant requirements.

I wonder to what degree FAs are trained to handle a situation where there is possible physical violence involved. I'm not sure how they are trained; are they supposed to physically intervene? What does their training say if they somehow get caught / have a high risk of being caught in the physical cross fire?

A FA who cannot stop a fight from happening does not mean they are a bad FA or a poorly trained one. Ambulance officers - bless their souls - are trained to make sure they avoid being hurt (e.g. avoidance training), but plenty still are badly assaulted every year. That doesn't make them bad officers, or poorly trained ones.

I know that CX at some time were floating the idea of teaching FAs a course of martial arts.

On a more rounded note, it's refreshing to note - assuming you are being earnest - that FAs are trained professionals, i.e. we should respect them for what they are there to do, and they're not just "trolley dollies".

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I wonder to what degree FAs are trained to handle a situation where there is possible physical violence involved. I'm not sure how they are trained; are they supposed to physically intervene? What does their training say if they somehow get caught / have a high risk of being caught in the physical cross fire?

A FA who cannot stop a fight from happening does not mean they are a bad FA or a poorly trained one. Ambulance officers - bless their souls - are trained to make sure they avoid being hurt (e.g. avoidance training), but plenty still are badly assaulted every year. That doesn't make them bad officers, or poorly trained ones.

I know that CX at some time were floating the idea of teaching FAs a course of martial arts.

On a more rounded note, it's refreshing to note - assuming you are being earnest - that FAs are trained professionals, i.e. we should respect them for what they are there to do, and they're not just "trolley dollies".

I'm not sure the exact training crews receive is something of a public nature. Relevant sections of the IATA Guidance on this subject are redacted: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety...ger-Prevention-And-Management-1st-Edition.pdf

But there is a lot of theory that goes into the prevention, potential escalation and subsequent handling of incidents on board. This is one example: https://www.researchgate.net/public...assenger_behavior_A_cause_for_tourism_concern

FAs are indeed trained professionals. The days of considering them 'trolley dollies' should be long past. But a few airlines still like to promote that idea.

 

[medhead]

I'm sure we could look up where the origin of the 0.05 level came from; I'm assuming it was a figure arrived at through physiological studies of BAC on bodily / cognitive function.

Whether it can be used as a basis of judging who is intoxicated or not is different, and it's easy to see why it's also dubious.

People want more solid measures of what counts as intoxicated, either for the purposes of (a) disallowing someone to board an aircraft, and/or (b) not serving them another drink.

I'm sure that there would be people out there who would support a zero BAC to board. It wouldn't mean that people with a higher BAC than zero are actually intoxicated, but - assuming no alcohol is served on board either - it would completely eliminate the possibility of violence due to intoxication. Of course, we may not rule out then that someone may be violent due to drugs, or some other kind of mental condition or phobia. Should we have drug tests, or psychological tests, or.......

0.05 would've come from the physiological assessment of ability to drive a car, since that is the only reference to 0.05 in any laws. It was originally 0.08, back when they had those little crystal things to blow into - I've even blown into a crystal breatho. My assumption is that the crystals had an MDL of 0.08, and that the advent of electronic testing let them get down to 0.05.

I'm sorry but I see little reason for relating violence due to alcohol, or any other substance, to this incident. It's is a strange connection to make. They knew each other. I'll bet there is underlying animosities that surfaced due to lowered inhibitions. Any violence was due to pre-existing conditions with alcohol little more than a catalyst. Having people at zero sure ain't going to stop violence.

 

[Major]

I'm not sure the exact training crews receive is something of a public nature. Relevant sections of the IATA Guidance on this subject are redacted: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety...ger-Prevention-And-Management-1st-Edition.pdf

But there is a lot of theory that goes into the prevention, potential escalation and subsequent handling of incidents on board. This is one example: https://www.researchgate.net/public...assenger_behavior_A_cause_for_tourism_concern

FAs are indeed trained professionals. The days of considering them 'trolley dollies' should be long past. But a few airlines still like to promote that idea.

I asked about FA training and milehighclub was good enough to provide an answer

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ing-chicken-or-beef-31399-11.html#post1484937