Article: Qantas Bans Filming People On Flights Without Consent

[Brucetiki]

I thought this was always the case.

I was on the farewell 747-400 flight from ADL in 2019 (not officially a farewell flight but it was the last QF 747 flights from ADL), and the cabin manager repeatedly acknowledged that there was a high number of av geeks on board while reminding passengers not to film people without consent.

 

[Lynda2475]

As someone who travels with their GoPro I do find this change concerning as I tend to mount the GoPro to the window when flying to capture some nice plane cough for my trip reports. Will this not be allowed?

Did you even read the article? Absolutely no issue with filming out the window, filming your meal, your J/F seat or even yourself provided you do not include other people in your footage without their permission.

is Qantas really allowed to force a type 1 diabetic to switch off their insulin pump during a flight?

Medical aids such as these would not be restricted, as they do not interfere with safe flight operation nor the comfort of other passengers or detract from safety announcements. They are talking about phones not in airplane mode, large tablets and laptops.

 

[RooFlyer]

I also question how enforceable these rules are. For instance their limitation on the use of electronic devices does not exclude critical medical devices from the regulation. Is Qantas really allowed to force a type 1 diabetic to switch off their insulin pump during a flight? Seems unconstitutional (supposing Australia has one)

I know you like to bait here, and I really shouldn't bite (sorry everyone), but that would have to be one of the more bizarre efforts. We are told that Qantas has made certain regulations about not filming people. From there you leap to the turning off of medical devices. But since you've gone there, a better question would have been if it means that Qantas will force people to turn off their pacemakers. What about it, Vanessa?

I think you also missed the implications for claiming on EU261.

 

[Bad Seed]

Someone in my husband's circle was telling the story of the dreaded flying with a crying baby a couple of months ago. He and his partner were doing all the right things -walking up and down the aisles, trying to settle their little one but nothing was working, we've all been there. But then he noticed the young bloke in the row behind him who had been doing the sighing/ groaning etc thing etc, covertly (obviously not very well) take a photo of him and his baby while they were doing a lap. He was incensed and called him on it and demanded that the photo be deleted. If I am remembering the story correctly, I think a flight attendant was also involved.

 

[RichardMEL]

I wonder how many of these vloggers/youtubers actually ask for consent. Not many I think.

Probably not. Some clearly do and/or organise to board early to get cabin views before pax board etc. I suspect some of the longer time ones (I watch a few I admit) and more experienced do this. While I personally think there's now too many doing the same thing and it's getting same same. I mean it's like they all tend to show up doing the same things - SQ F suites tick, LH F tick, A380 something something tick, Caviar services tick, lounge hopping tick.. I actually watched one last week of one of the better known ones just doing a week of flying in F products to every continent. Now I actually got bored and didn't really care (and entitlement factor was up there too, but that's just another issue). Like great. cool. you did that. good for you. (the amount of editing and trying to come up with creative ways to say "I drank more Krug and had caviar and my bed was made up" is a lot!) but I also DO most definitely feel there is a place for product review. It can be very helpful to scope YT or other sites about a particular airline's product and service levels - specially in a premium cabin - and being able to "see" the latest stuff out there can be helpful - specially if trying to make a decision. I personally prefer those that are less about entitlement and more about just presenting what it is. There are many different levels to this.

More generally I do understand many consider a lounge or aircraft cabin to be a "public" place and come under that notion that it's OK to film (in most countries of course) and people shouldn't have an expectation of privacy. I get that, but if *I* was filming things (and sure, I take the odd pic of meals - mostly to post here or to send to my friend the chef to get her to guess what cough went into it)... I would ONLY take a picture of anyone I was with and do my best to NOT include working staff members or people I don't know. I would consider that inappropriate.

I have no problem with this stated policy change to make it clear. As with anything the need to even do this kind of thing is likely due to problems with idiots (not specifically the well known youtubers) causing this to be a thing.

 

[oz_mark]

I thought this was always the case.

I was on the farewell 747-400 flight from ADL in 2019 (not officially a farewell flight but it was the last QF 747 flights from ADL), and the cabin manager repeatedly acknowledged that there was a high number of av geeks on board while reminding passengers not to film people without consent.

It probably was, but these days you'll get someone that says 'where does it say that?'. No they have somewhere to point to, and it is probably more enforceable for the airline.

 

[Laptop Jockey]

While I'm happy with the restriction, especially after being stuck next to some wannabe "influencer" on a flight once, where they spent half the flight talking into the camera (and with multiple 'takes' for just about every idiotic comment and "spontaneous" action and thought)

The part that piqued my interest though was:
"...in the case of any failure to comply with the direction we may retain the device"

This is both vague, poorly worded, and loaded with unstated implication.
By "retain the device" that is clearly implying seizing the device.
By what authority would they do that? And by what means will they enforce it?
What if the passenger refuses a request to hand over a phone or camera, especially if done so politely?
Are they going to divert a flight to have police detain the passenger?
And what do they mean by "retain"? That carries the more direct implication that they may hold the device indefinitely; after the flight.

This is incredibly poorly worded and is going to cause then a bunch of headaches. It is hard to believe any organisation with access to the legal resources of QF would put out something so liable to cause problems as this.

 

[RooFlyer]

This is incredibly poorly worded and is going to cause then a bunch of headaches. It is hard to believe any organisation with access to the legal resources of QF would put out something so liable to cause problems as this.

Qantas has a very long record of poorly or ambiguously worded T&Cs and the like.

 

[Laptop Jockey]

Qantas has a very long record of poorly or ambiguously worded T&Cs and the like.

True...

 

[Cessna 180]

Someone in my husband's circle was telling the story of the dreaded flying with a crying baby a couple of months ago. He and his partner were doing all the right things -walking up and down the aisles, trying to settle their little one but nothing was working, we've all been there. But then he noticed the young bloke in the row behind him who had been doing the sighing/ groaning etc thing etc, covertly (obviously not very well) take a photo of him and his baby while they were doing a lap. He was incensed and called him on it and demanded that the photo be deleted. If I am remembering the story correctly, I think a flight attendant was also involved.

This is the kind of thing I am talking a bout.

I can kind of understand the young bloke being annoyed, but then that is life traveling in the air in a tube with hundreds of others.

I can also feel for the people with the baby too, doing the best they could. Pretty sure they were stressed and annoyed as well.

So it is what it is. We all need to try and get along.
But then this plonker decides to film it?? What is he hoping to achieve?
Good on the Dad for calling him out on it. We all need to stand up for this poor behavior more.

Perhaps they should go back to banning phones all together. That would soon sort everyone out.

 

[Princess Fiona]

As someone who travels with their GoPro I do find this change concerning as I tend to mount the GoPro to the window when flying to capture some nice plane cough for my trip reports. Will this not be allowed?

I also question how enforceable these rules are. For instance their limitation on the use of electronic devices does not exclude critical medical devices from the regulation. Is Qantas really allowed to force a type 1 diabetic to switch off their insulin pump during a flight? Seems unconstitutional (supposing Australia has one)

-RooFlyer88

QF would have no idea that someone is using an insulin pump, nor would they care.
It would be good to keep the thread on topic and leave aside far fetched interpretations.

And I am sure that as a resident here you should be well aware that Australia does indeed have a constitution.

 

[p--and--t]

As someone who travels with their GoPro I do find this change concerning as I tend to mount the GoPro to the window when flying to capture some nice plane cough for my trip reports. Will this not be allowed?

I also question how enforceable these rules are. For instance their limitation on the use of electronic devices does not exclude critical medical devices from the regulation. Is Qantas really allowed to force a type 1 diabetic to switch off their insulin pump during a flight? Seems unconstitutional (supposing Australia has one)

-RooFlyer88

What an idiotic off topic post

 

[Vic]

Qantas are such a joke. They've given themselves the perfect out.

11.6. Taking photographs and filming on board is only permitted when the rights of the people photographed – in particular their privacy rights – can be safeguarded and ensured. Taking photographs and filming on board may be prohibited by the crew at any time.

Well in Australia there is no right to privacy, especially in a public place. It's an unenforceable condition. Also important to note that "retaining" the property of someone else against their wishes does have recognised tort.

There is no absolute right to privacy in Australian law and there is no clearly recognised tort of invasion of privacy or similar remedy available to people who feel their privacy has been violated. Privacy is, however, affected and protected in limited ways by common law in Australia and a range of federal, state and territorial laws, as well as administrative arrangements.[1]

Privacy in Australian law - Wikipedia

I know the chattering masses will jump on this with their bush lawyer opinions. So I'm leaving you with wikipedia (yep I'm lazy) and 13 references for you to read yourself.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Qantas are such a joke. They've given themselves the perfect out.


Well in Australia there is no right to privacy, especially in a public place. It's an unenforceable condition. Also important to note that "retaining" the property of someone else against their wishes does have recognised tort.


Privacy in Australian law - Wikipedia

I know the chattering masses will jump on this with their bush lawyer opinions. So I'm leaving you with wikipedia (yep I'm lazy) and 13 references for you to read yourself.

Yes that was my opinion. One can photograph anything and anyone in a public place irrespective of any posted T&Cs. But, it depends if the aircraft cabin is legally defined as a public place. I don’t know the answer. If it’s a private place then conditions can apply.

 

[latawiec]

Yes that was my opinion. One can photograph anything and anyone in a public place irrespective of any posted T&Cs. But, it depends if the aircraft cabin is legally defined as a public place. I don’t know the answer. If it’s a private place then conditions can apply.

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

 

[justinbrett]

While I'm happy with the restriction, especially after being stuck next to some wannabe "influencer" on a flight once, where they spent half the flight talking into the camera (and with multiple 'takes' for just about every idiotic comment and "spontaneous" action and thought)

The part that piqued my interest though was:
"...in the case of any failure to comply with the direction we may retain the device"

This is both vague, poorly worded, and loaded with unstated implication.
By "retain the device" that is clearly implying seizing the device.
By what authority would they do that? And by what means will they enforce it?
What if the passenger refuses a request to hand over a phone or camera, especially if done so politely?
Are they going to divert a flight to have police detain the passenger?
And what do they mean by "retain"? That carries the more direct implication that they may hold the device indefinitely; after the flight.

This is incredibly poorly worded and is going to cause then a bunch of headaches. It is hard to believe any organisation with access to the legal resources of QF would put out something so liable to cause problems as this.

It's their property, they can set the rules.

It really doesn't matter why they want you to turn the device off, if they ask you, you have to comply. They may have reason to believe it might cause disruption to the aircraft (whether true or not) and you don't get a vote on that. It specifically says retain until the end of the flight, so not sure why you think it would be indefinite.

As always any diversion would not be due to a device, it would be from a disruptive passenger who is refusing crew directions. None of that paragraph will get you into trouble (or even get your device confiscated) if you follow crew directions. Politely refusing crew directions doesn't make it any less of an offense.

I don't get what's poorly worded at all, "if we tell you to turn it off, turn it off - otherwise we'll take it from you". Simples.

 

[justinbrett]

Qantas are such a joke. They've given themselves the perfect out.


Well in Australia there is no right to privacy, especially in a public place. It's an unenforceable condition. Also important to note that "retaining" the property of someone else against their wishes does have recognised tort.


Privacy in Australian law - Wikipedia

I know the chattering masses will jump on this with their bush lawyer opinions. So I'm leaving you with wikipedia (yep I'm lazy) and 13 references for you to read yourself.

You are aware you are quoting Lufthansa's policy, not Qantas's right?

The QF policy is pretty straightforward

12.1 (l) seek consent before filming or photographing Qantas Group staff, contractors or other customers

 

[KSC]

One big reason this rule is made is to protect the Qantas company. Imagine videos of rude staff going viral right now. Not a good time for that.

Also without a recording, if you had a claim of a Qantas staff performing an act of misconduct (I’m not saying this happens frequently), it does take away a large piece of substantial evidence. Thus giving a leg up to Qantas.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I’m not sure it’s anything nefarious.

I wouldn’t want some random filming me while I’m at work… or in fact anywhere.

QF and other airline crew are no different. Why should they be subjected to a camera in their face? They have a right to a safe workplace, and one where they feel comfortable.

 

[Quickstatus]

also question how enforceable these rules are. For instance their limitation on the use of electronic devices does not exclude critical medical devices from the regulation

Yes they do:
They specifically exclude hearing aids and pacemakers. While they don't specifically mention insulin pump, a reasonable person would include insulin pump and for that matter a cochlear implant and other medical devices in the list of electronic devices not subject to cabin crew control. Even a CPAP machine is allowed.

Medical aids such as these would not be restricted,

Clearly: