Life Silver Recognition? Nope accused of made up crime and threatened with arrest..

[TheRealTMA]

I've had similar at the Qantas Club in MEL before too. I got yelled at in front of everyone for taking a couple of photos of the planes parked at the B gates in front of us that weren't even going anywhere until the next day because it was a "security issue" despite the fact that if you look it up it actually isn't prohibited except for media companies unless they have prior permission from Melbourne Airport for filming people in the terminals. Apparently the fact that I'm a student pilot and hold an ASIC etc. isn't enough to stop me from being a security risk smh...... Needless to say next time I see that disgraceful, ill mannered oaf she'll be getting the verbal cough-whooping of her life in front of all the other guests.

It’s a public place so you are free to take photos. However you are not free to “cough-whoop” anyone. That’s actually a criminal offence in a public place. You can object but not violently.

 

[Flying mermaid]

It’s a public place so you are free to take photos. However you are not free to “cough-whoop” anyone. That’s actually a criminal offence in a public place. You can object but not violently.

well public place is open to definition. A street is a public place, but the Qantas Club, an airport and a plane are not. Just because there are a lot of people there doesn’t make it “public” - it is owned or leased by someone.

Mr FM does a lot of street photography and that is fine to take photos of anyone. He still runs into problems, where he and a friend were taking photos and someone complained to a policeman and he tried to stop them, until they explained the law to them.....

There are also lots of caveats - e.g. the Darling Harbour precinct in Sydney has a ban on photography without prior permission. Now realistically no one stops a tourist taking photos, but they certainly invoked the rule near the convention centre. Security guards were quite aggressive at stopping photographs in the public areas at quite a distance away, even though people were asking to have their photos taken. Cosplayers love having photos. The majority of the photographers are like Mr FM - they don’t charge to take photos and provide free copies, even ones that have had a lot of work done on them to photoshop in appropriate backgrounds. It’s a hobby, they are not professionals, the security guards still refused to allow it, because of the Darling Harbour rule! Caused quite a fuss

 

[TheRealTMA]

well public place is open to definition. A street is a public place, but the Qantas Club, an airport and a plane are not. Just because there are a lot of people there doesn’t make it “public” - it is owned or leased by someone.

Mr FM does a lot of street photography and that is fine to take photos of anyone. He still runs into problems, where he and a friend were taking photos and someone complained to a policeman and he tried to stop them, until they explained the law to them.....

There are also lots of caveats - e.g. the Darling Harbour precinct in Sydney has a ban on photography without prior permission. Now realistically no one stops a tourist taking photos, but they certainly invoked the rule near the convention centre. Security guards were quite aggressive at stopping photographs in the public areas at quite a distance away, even though people were asking to have their photos taken. Cosplayers love having photos. The majority of the photographers are like Mr FM - they don’t charge to take photos and provide free copies, even ones that have had a lot of work done on them to photoshop in appropriate backgrounds. It’s a hobby, they are not professionals, the security guards still refused to allow it, because of the Darling Harbour rule! Caused quite a fuss

Whether a lounge is a public place may have limits. IMHO legally it is public transport by definition so it is a public place. Australian law does not restrict photos of public places for “security reasons”. Just an overzealous attendant who does not know the law.

Yes I’m aware of the DH security. But it’s not legal. There’s been lots of discussion on this. It’s a public place.

Taking photos of people is problematic but essentially if it’s in a public place then the photographer has full permission to take the photo. What is done with the photo can be limited.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Whether a lounge is a public place may have limits. IMHO legally it is public transport by definition so it is a public place. Australian law does not restrict photos of public places for “security reasons”. Just an overzealous attendant who does not know the law.

Yes I’m aware of the DH security. But it’s not legal. There’s been lots of discussion on this. It’s a public place.

Taking photos of people is problematic but essentially if it’s in a public place then the photographer has full permission to take the photo. What is done with the photo can be limited.

what can be done with the photo is definitely limited, but I think you are wrong about restrictions, A municipality has the right to make bylaws which as I understand it is what has happened in Darling Harbour. A place that is leased or owned has the right to make regulations.

Arts Law : Information Sheet : Street photographer’s rights

Have a look at the section on photographs on private land - a shopping mall and sports arena is considered private property, Given Vic Rail is considered private property because it is privatised, I can’t see how an airport or a plane is not.

 

[RichardMEL]

On the "don't touch the sleeve" issue, I did it without thinking on an AY overnight and there were no repercussions - just a broad smile and "How can I help you sir". It was over a very serious issue - they had not placed any cutlery on my meal tray!!

There is a context though.

One.. a clear matter of "exuse me?" and clearly not intended as anything more.

The other, as part of a robust discussion over an issue is something else totally.

common sense rules apply.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

View from the Wing's daily roundup has linked to this thread with the description "Passenger threatened with arrest for filming the safety video (which the airline itself posts on YouTube, natch)".

 

[Hvr]

It’s a public place so you are free to take photos.

Most private places where you are allowed to enter at will, e.g. an airport are private property and the owner or their representative can ask you to leave or cease a specific behaviour. Photography would come under that authority.

I've taken photos in lounges of planes and food without an issue. I was discreet and studiously avoided people. But if asked to cease or leave I would cease. If you refuse to leave when ask then I'm sure that the relevant authorities would 'assist' you to leave and I doubt you'd fly that day.

 

[rikkitikkitavi]

View from the Wing's daily roundup has linked to this thread with the description "Passenger threatened with arrest for filming the safety video (which the airline itself posts on YouTube, natch)".

'... for allegedly filming safety demo.'

 

[Strategic Aviation]

But you were threatened with arrest for filming, not threatened with arrest for allegedly filming

 

[BD1959]

But you were threatened with arrest for filming, not threatened with arrest for allegedly filming

No, rikkitikkitavi alleges they were threatened with arrest for alleged filming ...

Regards,

BD

 

[straitman]

As I said, I am in the customer service business and I am a qualified Sales trainer and I know a gross over reaction when I see one. Had I have been aggressive or curt then that would have different. I also waited until he was by the galley at the head of the cabin section and while he was (like all of us) just waiting for the luggage to be unloaded (the ill PAX had been evacuated by then). He was not in the thick of a crisis at that moment...far from it. You are right though he reacted like someone who was threatened ...but without due cause. If this guy lost his cool and over reacted to a passenger calmly asking a legitimate question he has no right to be in a job that requires ice water running through your veins in an emergency. If it was company policy to treat PAX like that I think I would have encountered it many times in the past. ...and yes I know you were not there but this was so poor its enough to make me question 35+ years of loyalty to the flying kangaroo!

I’m not commenting on the specific situation other than to say we all have better and worse days.

You clearly have no understanding of a FA or other crew member rolls.

Ice through the veins etc is just silly stuff. Crew will react to the situations as they occur and in accordance with the trained procedures. Things always happen in degrees and that’s how they are reacted to. There is no magical switch from one to the other.

For ‘normal’ operations the bulk of their attention is on customer service. For emergency situations it’s all about following the emergency procedures. Customer service literally goes out the window and is replaced by passenger safety. Many/most abnormal situations are somewhere in the middle.

I would suggest that had there been an emergency situation there the FA’s training would have stood them in good stead.

 

[rikkitikkitavi]

No, rikkitikkitavi alleges they were threatened with arrest for alleged filming ...

Regards,

BD

Exactly, there are no agreed facts between myself and Qantas yet.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I would suggest that had there been an emergency situation there the FA’s training would have stood them in good stead.

Even this I'm unsure about these days

If cabin crew have a bad attitude towards the passengers - which really is a bad attitude towards the job - who knows what attitude they bring to their [relatively] infrequent refresher courses. We don't have to look far - flight crew get it right most of the time, but also get it wrong. And that's with training solely dedicated to flying and safety - no customer service element at all.

 

[straitman]

And that's with training solely dedicated to flying and safety - no customer service element at all.

Is that an assumption or have things changed that I’m unaware of?

I’ll stand by what I said and can give examples. One that comes to mind is PER-SIN last year. One FA had a bad attitude (IMHO) and took it out on several pax. An incident occurred with a pax collapsing on leaving the toilet. She went from being the Ogre to running the full length of the a/c and doing a great job of reviving him.

I actually sent in a complaint and compliment in the same letter.

 

[Flying_man]

Maybe it time for FA job to be split into 2 different position. 1 is responsible for safety and enforcing rules. The other is just a waiter.

They can wear different uniform from each other so people can tell the difference.

 

[mannej]

Maybe it time for FA job to be split into 2 different position. 1 is responsible for safety and enforcing rules. The other is just a waiter.

They can wear different uniform from each other so people can tell the difference.

Yeah no - what if the Safety FA becomes incapacitated?

 

[Flying_man]

Yeah no - what if the Safety FA becomes incapacitated?

Have more than one, enough to be adequate for emergency.
But they don’t provide “customer service”, so they have full respect of passenger for their authority.

 

[mannej]

Have more than one, enough to be adequate for emergency.
But they don’t provide “customer service”, so they have full respect of passenger for their authority.

It is still a yeah no from me.

 

[straitman]

Have more than one, enough to be adequate for emergency.
But they don’t provide “customer service”, so they have full respect of passenger for their authority.

A B738 has five flight attendants all of whom have rolls to play in a major emergency and all of whom have a job in normal operations.

By splitting the roles you will five extra cabin crew. Are you really suggesting the airlines give up five pax seats for people to loaf in until or if needed.

 

[Pushka]

I think in an emergency they would all just click into their training rote regardless of anything that had happened previously with passengers.