This doesn't surprise me - Qantas kick off The Veronicas

[drron]

Friend of mine was on that flight, just 3 rows behind (unlike the reported business class passenger that couldn't have heard a thing and just made an opinion about it)

The girls didn't raise their voice and weren't belligerent. when asked if they could move their luggage asked if I the FA could do it instead. Man helped them move their luggage.
Then the FA came back with another one, and asked one of the girl to stop filming, which she refused.

Then federal police got called. Plane got delayed 45 minutes. Of course other passengers got annoyed,

Total abuse of power by the FA who couldn't be bothered to help.

And if people read the link in the OP then it seems other pax who were close by also said they were not belligerent.On top of that another pax had already turned their bag around before the FA returned with the supervisor.So why was it escalated then?According to those witnesses it was because they were filming the incident which is not illegal in Australia.You are allowed to film police as long as you don't obstruct them doing their job.

Is It Legal To Film In Public Places? (2024 Update) - Lawpath

Filming in public places might seem perfectly legal, but there are circumstances where this could get you into trouble. Find out more here.

lawpath.com.au

 

[Quickstatus]

Reduce the carryon allowance

People too easily offended these days over trivial issues.

 

[Beano]

Whilst I sympathise with the Veronicas, who I think have been shoddily treated, Qantas says on its website that passengers should be able to lift their own bags into the lockers. Since Qantas increased the carry on allowance, there have been numerous posts on other bulletin boards that say Qantas have advised staff not to assist passengers. Notwithstanding that I have seen FAs move bags around the lockers. And if anyone thinks Qantas service is bad, they should travel around Europe where even mainline airlines act as budget airlines and charge for everything.

 

[Hvr]

According to those witnesses it was because they were filming the incident which is not illegal in Australia.

The link talks about filming in public places. An airport/plane is not a public place. It is private property where the public are allowed to enter provided they obey the rules of the owner.

I doubt that Qantas, or any other airline allows filming of staff on their property including planes.

It may well be illegal to film on the plane, especially the staff. Removing the alleged offending passengers is a way to defuse the situation and explain the law to them.

 

[p--and--t]

The link talks about filming in public places. An airport/plane is not a public place. It is private property where the public are allowed to enter provided they obey the rules of the owner.

I doubt that Qantas, or any other airline allows filming of staff on their property including planes.

It may well be illegal to film on the plane, especially the staff. Removing the alleged offending passengers is a way to defuse the situation and explain the law to them.

Correct.

The plane was the private property of QF. It is not a public space.

Under Australian law the owners of private property can set and enforce their own rules as to if you can film, when you can film, what you can film.

I have not seen anything published (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist) that requires the prior advice by the owner of the property of the rules they may impose.

As indicated in the link provided by ddron, lawpath advises you seek permission before attempting filming on private property.

 

[DC3]

Maybe they can try Jetstar or Tiger next time. Try their luck. Another clip for their reality TV show that's coming up.

 

[dajop]

I fly SQ, economy, a lot. Seen crew climbing up using footholds to reorganise baggage a fair bit, although they usually don’t lift , just reorganise what’s up there. Efficient and quick, vastly quicker than having to ask each passenger to do it.

I’ve also seen passengers, moreso the DYKWIA’s in business class treat the crew with complete disdain and zero manners. Never booted off. But oh, it’s fun to watch the signs of passive aggressiveness by the crew, still polite but. the offending pax don’t get drink refills, get the trays cleared last etc etc ... far more amusing to watch it play out over some hours and share some knowing eye rolls with the crew than the aggressive-aggressiveness of this incident.

 

[Dennis Colquitt]

FA to tall male Pax, Can I help you Sir? Pax to FA, I'll settle for a cold tube of Fosters and a quick nauty in the dunny
after take off. ( the adventures of Barry McKenzie) lol

 

[Deleted member]

I saw them once at a free concert with Mrs GPH , I’m so pleased I didn’t pay to get in (the rest of the line up wasn’t much better either)

 

[Deleted member]

Yes, but the video was released whereas Lisa and Jessica don't want to do that it seems.

And, for those wanting to see their next performance, get to the Caloundra Music Festival on the first weekend in October.

I’m washing the car that weekend

 

[Quickstatus]

I’d imagine there was some Veronica’s passive aggressiveness in this matter

It’s not just their backs. In fact rotator cuff injuries far more common in these instances

I actually want less carry on luggage on airplanes for various reasons. This is one

 

[drron]

Correct.

The plane was the private property of QF. It is not a public space.

Under Australian law the owners of private property can set and enforce their own rules as to if you can film, when you can film, what you can film.

I have not seen anything published (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist) that requires the prior advice by the owner of the property of the rules they may impose.

As indicated in the link provided by ddron, lawpath advises you seek permission before attempting filming on private property.

Qantas is a common carrier.So private property rules don't apply.
Searching the QF website doesn't bring up anything on the subject of videoing.
Search of the VA website brings up this.

Hearing aids Medical implants Electronic watches GPS receivers Video and still cameras Calculators Electric shavers

May be used at anytime onboard the aircraft.​

So it appears people can use their video recorder.

And from another news item.
In a lengthy statement made on a plane passenger's Instagram account, the official Instagram account for The Veronicas commented: 'We actually already had our bag up in the overhead. The female flight attendant wanted Lisa's bag spun around.


'Lisa asked the attendant if she could help assist her, because she couldn't reach it (we're only 5'1). The attendant said it was against company policy. And a lovely man behind us helped instead.

'Then right before take off, the flight attendant bought over the manger and pointed us out. He proceeded to lecture us about company policy.

'We listened and asked for their names. At that point they refused to give us their names, and announced they were going to call security on us. We had no idea why. That's when we started filming!

'We are still in shock and so upset!' The Veronicas' Jessica and Lisa Origliasso marched off Qantas plane by Australian Federal Police after dispute over baggage causes flight delay

So it is a she said v she said matter and as no one here has said they were on the plane none of us know who is closest to the truth.

 

[Quickstatus]

It’s not just who said what. It’s also the way it was said. That we will never know

But as soon as they got onto the Project, I went over to the QF camp

 

[Max Samuels]

The link talks about filming in public places. An airport/plane is not a public place. It is private property where the public are allowed to enter provided they obey the rules of the owner.

I doubt that Qantas, or any other airline allows filming of staff on their property including planes.

It may well be illegal to film on the plane, especially the staff. Removing the alleged offending passengers is a way to defuse the situation and explain the law to them.

Actually I think it is even vaguer than that.... permission is needed for commercial filming. But generally, you are allowed to record vision where there would be no "reasonable right to privacy", and I think that inside an aircraft with other people is not a private space. If Qantas had signs and announcements saying "NO CAMERAS" that would be different, but they don't...

Interestingly, recording sound is a completely different thing.....

 

[Vic]

Correct.

The plane was the private property of QF. It is not a public space.

Under Australian law the owners of private property can set and enforce their own rules as to if you can film, when you can film, what you can film.

I have not seen anything published (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist) that requires the prior advice by the owner of the property of the rules they may impose.

As indicated in the link provided by ddron, lawpath advises you seek permission before attempting filming on private property.

Sorry to bust your bubble, any place that the public is permitted to access (whether by payment or otherwise) is a public place.
The public can access a qantas plane by paying Qantas. It is public transport after all.

 

[Borisdog]

A couple of celebrities and someone in a uniform who can abuse their “Power” with no immediate ramifications for themselves.

Who would’ve thought that’d end badly for someone?

 

[kevrosmith]

The reason I vaguely care about an incident like this is not because I have any view or opinion about the Veronicas or what level of celebrity they are, but because too often (though, really it's probably more from time-to-time, or rarely) you run into an FA who's having an off day or decided it's their way or the highway, when clearly there are inconsistencies and confusion about supposed "rules" and "policy", which FA's themselves don't help by creating more confusion by being inconsistent. And then they pull the "you have to follow every direction on-board" card when they feel like it, and make you feel like a criminal for having a differing perspective on trivial matters.

For example, on so many flights on QF sitting in row 4 with IFE system in arm rest, FA's consistently allowed me to have the screen out until the seat-belt sign went on. Then one day an FA decided that the rule was actually to put it away as soon as the prepare-cabin-for-landing announcement was made. Well, even after politely indicating that the seat belt sign was not on yet, was I the worst person ever for suggesting that on every other flight I'd been allowed to keep the screen up until then, and it's a wonder the AFP wasn't called on me, or even worse, thrown off the plane mid-flight! I don't think it helped that a CSM was paxing in seat 4B (me in 4A), so I feel like the FA felt they had to "enforce" the stricter version of the rules in front of them. That CSM did actually explain to me the rules are that they are meant to be stowed as soon as the announcement is made (who'd have known!) but agreed generally FA's allow them to remain up until the seat belt sign was off.

It's easy to imagine that the ladies with short stature could've easily lifted their bag (there's no qualification of how large or heavy it was.. so I don't know why people are harping on that as though this is a discussion again about large or heavy carry on...) and prop it on the edge and then push it in. The issue at hand is that they mistakenly put it in wheels facing out, and the FA wanted it turned around. Perhaps the ladies already knew they would require assistance to retrieve the bag at the end of the flight, and had fortunately been rendered such polite assistance in the past (thank God that not everyone in the world is a rude impolite un-assisting a**eh**e, like so many make people out to be...).

For the FA to turn this into a "you have to obey every instruction on-board or else you're going to get thrown off the plane" is, imo, ridiculous. Even more so from some of the reports that the people in this instance were not belligerent. Regardless, I've seen FA's get into a tizz even if the pax is not rude, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same in this case. Though of course, I wasn't there.

 

[Quickstatus]

If there are to be rules, they should be strictly enforced otherwise any “easing” will be interpreted as subject to intepretation.

 

[Borisdog]

We’ve all been pushed by self important tossers, so I reckon there’ll be plenty from both sides here.

Some of us do have a real problem being treated like dirt, unprovoked, by anything in a uniform. I sure do and it’s a key reason why I won’t set foot in fundamentalist, or totalitarian countries or LOTFAP. I know how I react and I know I’d get myself into trouble, regardless.

That said, there’s 3 sides to every story. In this case the FA’s, the twins and the truth.

 

[vetrade]

Search of the VA website brings up this.

Hearing aids Medical implants Electronic watches GPS receivers Video and still cameras Calculators Electric shavers

May be used at anytime onboard the aircraft.​

So it appears people can use their video recorder.

FWIW, during a departure delay I was in 1C and took advantage of an open coughpit door to take a pic out through the front of the plane. From memory, it was a QF MEL - SYD flight. Won't do that again - FA took exception citing "coughpit security" and insited I delete the pic on the spot. Have done exactly the same thing on a couple of other flights in Europe (on IB and BA) in full view of staff and nobody cared.