Disgusting Jetstar

[tossbag]

No wonder we are the butt of jokes in the international aviation scene, no wonder we have so many rules and regulations governing our lives in this nanny state if this is how people in our society really think things should work.

You know what I found out today, that it's actually law that you can only have a certain number of cattle per acre. How cool is that? One less thing that a farmer needs to make a decision about in their busy day. I'll bet pilots wish they had more rules like this.

I don't care if other countries laugh at us, at least we have governments that care enough about us to free us from personal responsibility and decision making.

[Pinky the pilot]

at least we have governments that care enough about us to free us from personal responsibility and decision making.

I will leave comment to the above quote to others who are far more erudite and intelligent than I.

Tossbag; Please confirm that the above quoted comment was made very much 'tongue in cheek.'

[cLeArIcE]

Honestly if you gave me the choice of sitting through a whole Jetstar flight or being tasered, ****ing myself and being dragged off by the AFP I'm not sure which I'd pick.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Do you believe operational personnel are required to comply with the policy and procedures of their ops manual?

Since it doesn't seem that you can answer a straight question, I'll get yours out of the way. Yes I do. It's a pretty standard workplace requirement. My workplace has policies and procedures I am bound by as well.
Now, what is the wording in the ops manual, this mysterious OM12, that the JQ CC was following to the letter that resulted in this situation? How else can we establish if the operational personnel were in fact complying with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.

[cloudsurfng]

Originally Posted by cLeArIcE

Honestly if you gave me the choice of sitting through a whole Jetstar flight or being tasered, ****ing myself and being dragged off by the AFP I'm not sure which I'd pick.

best post on the entire site 😂

[Icarus2001]

cLeArIcE, a very astute observation. I would like to buy you a beer. Brilliant.

[sideslyp]

Take them to court

Yep, Australia 2023 - I live there...Crew and Police and trained robots, no initiative, no brain, no empathy, total lack of problem solving skills - do it by the book and paragraph. Try talking to jetstar customer service - I'll take my chance with a google AI once it replaces them all.
I hope that this guy takes them to court, the passengers provide sufficient evidence and he gets a couple of millions. Its the only way to change things - hit them where it hurts.

[Lookleft]

Don't worry "that guy" will get his day in court but there won't be any compensation. This is not just a Jetstar problem and if you want to be outraged at the way disruptive passengers are treated then put those words into a search engine. You might want to look at ICAO's take on the problem, for a problem it is. https://www.icao.int/Meetings/LegalS...Passengers.pdf

LB you really are clueless when it comes to jet RPT operations:

So the safety implications of consuming 2 minutes of final reserve when in a private aircraft in sight of the quiet destination aerodrome in G might be different than for an RPT jet inbound to a busy airport? Crikey. And, in contrast to a MAYDAY from the private aircraft, there could be some response by ATC and others to effectively mitigate the risks of the RPT jet’s fuel state? Struth.

I can just imagine Captain LB blithely disregarding his F/O's concern about landing with the FR not being intact and not declaring MAYDAY fuel. I can also well imagine Captain LB trying to bluster his way through the subsequent Flight Ops and CASA interview explaining why the F/O's use of the Emergency Statement was way over the top as Captain LB knew the aircraft and all its occupants were perfectly safe with 28 minutes of FR in the fuel tank.

[Lead Balloon]

I wouldn't do that in those circumstances. That's the point. If you don't get that point - rather than being deliberately obtuse - I genuinely fear for your passengers.

[cloudsurfng]

Originally Posted by sideslyp

Yep, Australia 2023 - I live there...Crew and Police and trained robots, no initiative, no brain, no empathy, total lack of problem solving skills - do it by the book and paragraph. Try talking to jetstar customer service - I'll take my chance with a google AI once it replaces them all.
I hope that this guy takes them to court, the passengers provide sufficient evidence and he gets a couple of millions. Its the only way to change things - hit them where it hurts.

they won’t have any money left after they lose in the high court.

[kitchen bench]

Its the only way to change things - hit them where it hurts.

So, that's what happened to old mate. Can we expect him to change????

[Lookleft]

That's the point. If you don't get that point

You are the lawyer, you get paid more by not getting to the point. No need to worry about my passengers, its yours I fear for with your "I know planes" attitude. More than happy to have one less belligerent passenger who thinks they know better than the crew to not travel on my aircraft.

[Lead Balloon]

I ask you and das a second time:

As a matter of interest, how many different airlines have you flown for, Lookleft? You das? If for more than one, did all their Ops Manuals impose exactly the same obligations on crew about who deals with passengers who refuse to comply with a direction from CC, and in what way?

I also note that TIER’s question to das remains unanswered:

[W]hat is the wording in the ops manual, this mysterious OM12, that the JQ CC was following to the letter that resulted in this situation? How else can we establish if the operational personnel were in fact complying with the policy and procedures of their ops manual.

[oicur12.again]

Blind obedience to irrational rules enforced by a poorly trained 21 year old backed up by the threat of physical violence?

Orwell will be spinning in his grave.

[plainmaker]

When does a Captain's Authority start

My understanding garnered from a few years ago (actually longer than I wish to admit to) was that the 'Authority' of the Captain was only established when the doors were closed.
While the aircraft was at the airbridge, or connected in another way to ground support, then the jurisdiction was still vested in the local plod (or airport authority).
Somewhere in my archaic filing system, I have the precedent authority - originally derived from the Hague Convention.

Now a boarding pass would constitute an 'instruction' but that is issued well before a captain or crew member takes 'command'.

So it begs the question - when does an 'instruction' given by the CC or TC become a 'lawful command'. Same sits with Maritime Law from whence our Aviation Law was derived.

[Lead Balloon]

That’s the question I highlighted earlier, but of course was executed for pointing out the fact that there is a constraint on when a binding safety direction under CASR 91.575 or safety instruction under CASR 91.580 may be given. My underlining added:

91.575

Passengers—compliance with safety directions

(1) A passenger on an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if, during the flight:

(a) a direction mentioned in regulation 91.570 [to fasten seatbelts, set the seat to the upright position etc] is given to the passenger; and

(b) the person does not comply with the direction.

(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

91.580 Passengers—compliance with safety instructions by cabin crew

(1) A cabin crew member of an aircraft may, during a flight, give an instruction to a passenger:

(a) relating to the safety of the aircraft; or

(b) relating to the safety of a person on the aircraft.

(2) A passenger on the aircraft contravenes this subregulation if:

(a) a cabin crew member gives a passenger an instruction under subregulation (1); and

(b) the passenger does not comply with the instruction.

(3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (2).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

The CA Act defines “flight” to mean, in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft:

[T]he operation of the aircraft from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking‑off until the moment at which it comes to rest after being airborne[.]

The following CASR appears not to be constrained to the duration of a flight and instead to any person on an aircraft at any time. But note that an element of the offence is that, as a result of the person’s behaviour, “the safety of the aircraft or persons on the aircraft is endangered”. Doing a seat swap so a bloke can sit next to his wife and child? Yeah nah.

91.525 Offensive or disorderly behaviour on aircraft

(1) A person on an aircraft for a flight contravenes this subregulation if:

(a) the person behaves in an offensive or disorderly manner; and

(b) as a result of that behaviour, the safety of the aircraft or persons on the aircraft is endangered.

(2) The operator or a crew member of an aircraft for a flight may refuse to allow a person to board the aircraft if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is likely to behave in an offensive or disorderly manner that is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft or persons on the aircraft.

(3) Without limiting subregulation (1) or (2), a person is taken to behave in an offensive or disorderly manner if the person:

(a) assaults, intimidates or threatens another person (whether the assault, intimidation or threat is verbal or physical, and whether or not a weapon or object is used); or

(b) intentionally damages or destroys property.

(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

I may be missing something.

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by plainmaker

My understanding garnered from a few years ago (actually longer than I wish to admit to) was that the 'Authority' of the Captain was only established when the doors were closed.
While the aircraft was at the airbridge, or connected in another way to ground support, then the jurisdiction was still vested in the local plod (or airport authority).
Somewhere in my archaic filing system, I have the precedent authority - originally derived from the Hague Convention.

Now a boarding pass would constitute an 'instruction' but that is issued well before a captain or crew member takes 'command'.

So it begs the question - when does an 'instruction' given by the CC or TC become a 'lawful command'. Same sits with Maritime Law from whence our Aviation Law was derived.

ISTR something similar from my reading of the Air Law textbooks a while back... Insofar as the CASR's, there is this...NFI if it is still current with the MOS' and Part 135's and 121's and, and, and Part godknowswhat these days though.

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 91.215
Authority and responsibilities of pilot in command
(1) This regulation applies in relation to the operation of an aircraft during the following period:
(a) from the earlier of:
(i) the time the aircraft's doors are closed before take-off; and
(ii) the time the flight begins;
(b) to the later of:
(i) the time the aircraft's doors are opened after landing; and
(ii) the time the flight ends.
(2) The pilot in command of the aircraft:
(a) has final authority over:
(i) the aircraft; and
(ii) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on the aircraft; and
(b) must ensure:
(i) the safety of persons on the aircraft; and
(ii) the safety of cargo on the aircraft; and
(iii) the safe operation of the aircraft during the flight.

There's a few definitions listed, but the main one, "Flight" only refers to

"flight" means flight in:
(a) an aeroplane; or
(b) a helicopter, other than a tethered helicopter; or
(c) an airship; or
(d) a glider, other than a hang glider, powered hang glider, paraglider or powered paraglider; or
(e) a gyroplane; or
(f) a powered-lift aircraft.

[Lead Balloon]

Yes, and CASR 91.220 gives the operator and PIC, but not CC, powers that apply before and after the "flight" as defined in the CA Act:

91.220 Actions and directions by operator or pilot in command

(1) The operator or pilot in command of an aircraft for a flight may do a thing mentioned in subregulation (2) if the operator or pilot in command believes it is necessary for the safety of:

(a) the aircraft; or

(b) a person on the aircraft; or

(c) a person or property on the ground or water.

(2) The things are as follows:

(a) direct a person to do something while the person is on the aircraft;

(b) direct a person not to do something, or to limit the doing of something, while the person is on the aircraft;

(c) direct a person to leave the aircraft before the flight begins;

(d) with such assistance and by the use of such force as is reasonable and necessary:

(i) remove a person or a thing from the aircraft before the flight begins; or

(ii) restrain a person for the duration of the flight or part of the flight; or

(iii) seize a thing on the aircraft for the duration of the flight or part of the flight; or

(iv) place a person on the aircraft in custody; or

(v) detain a person or a thing, until the person or thing can be released into the control of an appropriate authority.

Note: Under regulation 91.225, crew members of an aircraft have a limited power of arrest.

(3) A person on an aircraft contravenes this subregulation if:

(a) the operator or pilot in command of the aircraft gives the person a direction mentioned in paragraph (2)(a), (b) or (c); and

(b) the person does not comply with the direction.

(4) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (3).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Was making old mate 'unswap' necessary for the safety of the aircraft, a person on the aircraft or a person or property on the ground or water?

[tossbag]

Tossbag; Please confirm that the above quoted comment was made very much 'tongue in cheek.'

Pinkbits, I can 185% confirm that it was a pisstake. I also 185% despair (I don't really, I don't give a ****) at the mindless dickheads that inhabit this earth. Look at covid and how easy it is to manipulate scared, gutless, weak human beings.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So it begs the question - when does an 'instruction' given by the CC or TC become a 'lawful command'

Nowhere in JQ's conditions of carriage (currently dated April 2022 on their website) does it state that a passenger must sit in their assigned seat. The words assign, assigned, or assignment aren't even in it in relation to anything. Seat Allocation is a section heading only followed by fluff.

Now a boarding pass would constitute an 'instruction'..

JQ don't define "Boarding Pass" in their Conditions of Carriage. QF do though and it's the document (in paper or electronic form) that is issued to you as evidence that you have checked-in for a flight. Hardly an instruction. QF also don't mandate sitting in assigned seat which is why JQ's lack of same is understandable. VA do not mandate it either. In fact, almost all references to seat or seating are there for the airlines benefit as to why they don't have to take any notice of any preferences or whether you've paid for a particular seat class or whatever.

I looked up some random airlines. Most had nothing, but I found this in United's Contract of Carriage:
UA also prohibits Passengers from selling their seat assignments at any time and/or exchanging them at the time of boarding without first advising a member of the crew. You could argue this doesn't mean you have to get their permission or approval, you just have to let them know, You'll probably end up riding the lightning arguing the semantics of that though.

While JQ may have an expectation that a passenger will sit in their assigned/allocated whatever seat, they haven't stipulated it as a requirement of carriage to do so.