Lets talk about the 787 windows

[MEL_Traveller]

It becomes a safety issue if a passenger refuses to follow a cabin crew instruction.

I think by definition, an ‘instruction’ must be safety related. These instructions - or failure to comply - are backed by law and criminal penalties. In the US this is usually made clear during the safety demo that ‘passengers must comply with all signs, lighted placards, and crew instructions’.

A passenger not following a crew ‘request’ as outlined in the Conditions of Carriage may attract some sort of response from the airline, such as finding you on the ‘no fly’ list. But, on its own, probably won’t pass the threshold of being met by the police on landing.

Of course the underlying cause of failing to comply with a crew request ‘may’ be a safety issue, if for example the passenger is intoxicated. But you’ll probably then be issued with an instruction.

 

[Mr H]

Of course the underlying cause of failing to comply with a crew request ‘may’ be a safety issue, if for example the passenger is intoxicated. But you’ll probably then be issued with an instruction.

Sadly for those hoping I get my come-uppance, I don’t drink.

 

[jb747]

No it doesn’t

Seriously, you are not the one who gets to decide. But, obviously, you think you do, and I look forward to reading about you, when it eventually turns into a cabin rage event. I would offload you for this. I might land first.

 

[RichardMEL]

I hate to say this but these past few pages are an example of just how things could escalate without anyone meaning or wanting it to.....

 

[dajop]

I might land first.

There's a ex-FA tik-toker/you tuber, Jeenie Weenie, who in multiple of her short videos has just one solution for difficult passengers. That involves throwing them out the exit door. Would be even easier on a Max9.

 

[SYD]

There's a ex-FA tik-toker/you tuber, Jeenie Weenie, who in multiple of her short videos has just one solution for difficult passengers. That involves throwing them out the exit door. Would be even easier on a Max9.

There are some Pam Ann videos with similar but the colourful language precludes me posting links!

 

[justinbrett]

No it doesn’t

Only if the crew members deem it to be a direction. My experience was that when asked directly, crew members decided it wasn’t actually a direction. Presumably because it was nothing to do with safety and would therefore not be deemed a reasonable instruction.

If I understand your reports correctly, this is based on one incident on TK.

I would put money on that situation ending differently on an American or Australian airline.

 

[Quickstatus]

I think by definition, an ‘instruction’ must be safety related

I dont think so, it does not have to be safety related...

Also see: 12.2 (b)


..........

Its a Dictatorship

But, on its own, probably won’t pass the threshold of being met by the police on landing.

Why does police need to be involved for it to be safety related?. Police become involve when they need to be. A recalcitrant passenger might voluntarily deplane.

it was nothing to do with safety and would therefore not be deemed a reasonable instruction

Anything which interferes with the Crew's ability to carry out their duties or anything that another passenger finds reasonably objectionable is a safety issue. Luckily only one person on that aircraft has the final determination - its not a free for all.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I dont think so, it does not have to be safety related...View attachment 377049

Also see: 12.2 (b)
View attachment 377050

..........

Its a Dictatorship


Why does police need to be involved for it to be safety related?. Police become involve when they need to be. A recalcitrant passenger might voluntarily deplane.


Anything which interferes with the Crew's ability to carry out their duties or anything that another passenger finds reasonably objectionable is a safety issue. Luckily only one person on that aircraft has the final determination - its not a free for all.

You have highlighted the distinction between the 'law' - prohibited behaviour backed by criminal penalties, and the conditions of carriage, elements of which are contract law, civil in nature, and not backed by criminal penalties. Although the airline may have its own sanctions it wishes to impose.

Sure the police do not need to actually be involved however there is the potential for them to be involved if the behaviour continues.

Dr Dao's case highlights the distinction. Not all airline or crew requests are going to be backed by criminal penalties. Which actually got me thinking about Pushka's case!!

But on the issue of passengers following instructions, Qantas is the only airline where I have seen cabin crew and force the requirement to have mobile devices switched to airplane mode on pushback and passengers ready to pay attention to the safety demonstration. Passengers who don't comply.

 

[RichardMEL]

Getting way more OT but remember Dr Dao was dragged off that aircraft by Chicago Airport Police, not UA ir UAX employees - after he allegedly refused to deplane.

 

[RichardMEL]

I know this is flaming the fire a bit, but just sat through recorded manual safety demo on QFd flight. Spiel ended with.. "please follow their [crew] instructions."

If there is a "please shut the shade" - is that an "instruction?"

Wannabe lawyers at 20 paces.. go!

 

[Quickstatus]

"instruction?"

No lawyer here, but i refer back to the conditions of carriage

It is not only about safety but "passenger comfort, safety and security

12.1, (n) " do not behave in a manner to which other Passengers may reasonably object; and" (Qantas AU conditions of carriage)

When people try to insert their definitions of what is reasonable and what is passenger comfort, it becomes a free for all.
It is not for the passenger to determine what is reasonable. That is the cabin crew's job. If said passenger does not like it, the aluminium/carbon composite tube is not the forum to argue it out. As I said its a dictatorship.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Getting way more OT but remember Dr Dao was dragged off that aircraft by Chicago Airport Police, not UA ir UAX employees - after he allegedly refused to deplane.

Correct. But the police were called because the airline claimed Dr Dao was not following their instructions to leave.

 

[RichardMEL]

Correct. But the police were called because the airline claimed Dr Dao was not following their instructions to leave.

Well while I was not there, but if he was still in his ex-,seat by the time the cops showed up then sounds like he absolutely wasn't.

Did they ask him before the dragging? No idea, but frankly if I saw the cops show up, I'd know this is not going to go the way I want.

Should they have used the force they did? No, but maybe he was resisting etc. Hindsight is 20/20.

I think the airline were in their rights to call in LE in that situation. His injuries etc.. that's on the way the cops handled it imo.

Anyway, that had nothing to do with windows.

 

[Mr H]

I think the airline were in their rights to call in LE in that situation. His injuries etc.. that's on the way the cops handled it imo.

The airline subsequently decided they had not acted well and paid Dr Dao a very lot of compensation. They lied and said Dr Dao had been aggressive and belligerent whereas his fellow passengers said he had been polite but firm. I would think Dr Dao was a cautionary tale to airlines about overreach of their powers.

 

[RichardMEL]

If he was calm and polite is fine, but he was still disobeying instructions. I get it. He had bought the seat and needed to get to.. CLE? I think that night, while UAX needed the pilot to fly the next flight out (this really belongs in one of those related threads). Clearly though an instruction to get off the aircraft, to me, is a clear one and negotiatable at the gate maybe. While "Posession is 9/10ths of the law" doesn't apply to things like this.

It is not right what happened. I'm not for a moment am I defending the cops, or possibly staff who orepped them to go in expecting an agressive individual, but I also knowvthat Im not goumg to win in this situation - at least not in that way.

My initial point was who deagged him off, but also falls under the crewmember instructions thing.

Again, a digression from window issues, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Quickstatus]

overreach of their powers.

Yes but before ever we get to the "overreac"h , let's just deal with the simple cabin crew request re window shades which is about passenger comfort - not just 1 passenger but everyone else.

 

[Mr H]

If he was calm and polite is fine, but he was still disobeying instructions. I get it. He had bought the seat and needed to get to.. CLE? I think that night, while UAX needed the pilot to fly the next flight out (this really belongs in one of those related threads). Clearly though an instruction to get off the aircraft, to me, is a clear one and negotiatable at the gate maybe. While "Posession is 9/10ths of the law" doesn't apply to things like this.

It is not right what happened. I'm not for a moment am I defending the cops, or possibly staff who orepped them to go in expecting an agressive individual, but I also knowvthat Im not goumg to win in this situation - at least not in that way.

My initial point was who deagged him off, but also falls under the crewmember instructions thing.

Again, a digression from window issues, so I'll leave it there.

If United had been acting within their rights they would not have paid Dr Dao over a million dollars in compensation. It was an expensive lesson to United that it is not enough to claim passengers were not obeying an instruction. The instruction has to be safety related.

 

[equus]

The instruction has to be safety related.

No - the instruction / request only has to be reasonable.

The problem with that, is that reasonable in the circumstances can be a very grey area. Some things are clearly reasonable (especially if safety related) like bring your seatback upright for take off, and all baggage for people in the emergency exit rows must go in overhead lockers.

Some potential instructions would be clearly unreasonable - a demand to hand over all your cash, for example.

Then comes the grey areas in between, with all sorts of nuances. A instruction to move seats because a family wants to sit together, an instruction to move seats because you are male and there is an unaccompanied minor beside you, an instruction to move to economy from business because the airline wants the seat for tech crew they want to move for commercial reasons, an instruction to move to economy from business because a mate of the CSM is flying for leisure purposes, and they feel like upgrading them. Some of these requests are more reasonable than others.

The problem is interpretation, and the place to debate it is not onboard at the time - but there should be consequences arising from unreasonable requests. In the end (if you choose to push it), it is not the you or the airline that will determine whether the request was reasonable - it will be a judge after you actually follow through on your conviction and take the matter to court.

 

[Scozzy]

I've heard its an issue on the LHR-PER 787 where you fly mostly during daylight. The blinds don't get dark enough and you get heat & brightness through the windows especially on the left of the plane. I have only done the direct flight in the opposite direction during northern winter and it was pretty much dark outside the whole way.