Pax kicked off Air NZ flight for ignoring safety briefing

[Bellthorpe]

discriminate against me because of age and I will sue your pants off..

And fail.

The person who denied you such seating need only say "In my opinion the passenger would have been unable to perform the required emergency duties".

 

[Popeye]

Pity about the delay, but good on the airline!!

Are you kidding , I blame the airline, this has to be the most mind numbing air safety video I have ever seen and in some parts the critical elements that you would think need to be communicated , get lost. Clearly people who arent in the hip hop /rap demograpphic obviously switch off and in this case some did it openly and got themselves punted. From a communications perspective unless you are flying 15-23 year olds around exclusively you are going to miss gettiing your message across to a lot of people.. The other reason its dumb is that non english speakers, arecunlikelyvto understandcthe the imagery in the video as they are not showing the aircraft environment and therefore wouldnt help them to understand

 

[tdimdad]

...critical elements that you would think need to be communicated , get lost...
From a communications perspective ... you are going to miss gettiing your message across
...non english speakers, arecunlikelyvto understandcthe the imagery... therefore wouldnt help them to understand

My goodness me, don't you bring the human element to this! The videos are meant for marketing, not for human consumption, especially in relation to steering human behaviour in out-of-normal situations. You personally might think the contrary, but...

BTW, the CASA animation posted by Quickstatus was the first that played with what actually could happen: the plane plummeting into water. May not calm the nerves of the nervous but does show of the severity of the message.

 

[suze2000]

Casa has done some interesting safety videos themselves/

Haha that made me laugh, and made some good points.

 

[equus]

I often wonder, when seated at the exit row on a long haul flight, drink after drink after drink after drink.... I wonder how serious they are about the whole emergency thing.

Some exit rows on long haul are very different to the sort of exit we are talking about here - I believe an over-wing on a 737. Many of the long-haul "exit-row" seats have no requirements at all for pax seating - they are crew attended and operated. Not all exit row seats are equal.

 

[grozzy]

I've had an idea in the back of my head for a while now. Invite some FFs to do a safety course with practical demonstrations. Complete the course and you get priority and free access to exit seats.
I'm sure everyone would be happy knowing the exit row passenger has some training and accepts the responsibilities.

 

[suze2000]

And to be honest, there are some of us who are much more capable while three sheets to the wind than others. I know that it's subjective when you are the drunk one, but I do know a few people I'd trust to be more capable and logical while drunk than - well, some other people I know while sober.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Some exit rows on long haul are very different to the sort of exit we are talking about here - I believe an over-wing on a 737. Many of the long-haul "exit-row" seats have no requirements at all for pax seating - they are crew attended and operated. Not all exit row seats are equal.

My understanding is that all exit doors, regardless of whether they are also attended by crew, have the same requirements. This is because passengers at main exit doors may be required to assist the crew during an emergency. Things like holding passenger back while the slide inflates, and once they have exited the aircraft, assisting those coming after them down the slide. There may even be circumstances where the crew cannot operate the door and passeners would have to step in either by themselves, or to assist the crew (for example if a power assist wasn't working).

 

[Rnwillia]

I fully agree with the need to be refreshed on aircraft safety no matter how many times you fly and I always stop and pay 100% attention for the briefing each time I fly - BUT REALLY, the Air NZ video is a can of over-the-top talk-dance-song which I detest watching or listening to. Why can't they be like Qantas and have a simple safety message that is clear and concise. I don't think I will fly Air NZ in preference to Qantas.

 

[BenSQ380]

Thirdly, and the most important point....it is about the ability to make a rational decision, with minimal information, whilst under a lot of stress.

But, how do you select for that?

When their boarding pass is scanned, tell the pax they've been bumped from the exit row. That would be a nice test to see if they can act rationally to a 'stressful' situation.

 

[equus]

My understanding is that all exit doors, regardless of whether they are also attended by crew, have the same requirements

I put quotes around "exit row" for long haul because seats in rows adjacent to exit doors may not technically be designated as "Exit-rows" in accordance with the CASA 20.16.3 requirements, which refers to "exit rows" but does not define them. Most of the over-wing exits in single aisle aircraft are subject to particular regulations made for specific carriers - even down to the order in which seats must be assigned if there aren't enough able bodied passengers.

20.6.3 requires that all disabled pax must be seated so that they don't obstruct access to exit doors - which automatically covers off those over wing exits. On large dual aisle aircraft, those seats behind the vast gathering places around some exit doors, may not be classified as "Exit rows", despite offering excellent leg room (and amply opportunity to be trampled by congregating pax, white socks or not).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I put quotes around "exit row" for long haul because seats in rows adjacent to exit doors may not technically be designated as "Exit-rows" in accordance with the CASA 20.16.3 requirements, which refers to "exit rows" but does not define them. Most of the over-wing exits in single aisle aircraft are subject to particular regulations made for specific carriers - even down to the order in which seats must be assigned if there aren't enough able bodied passengers.

20.6.3 requires that all disabled pax must be seated so that they don't obstruct access to exit doors - which automatically covers off those over wing exits. On large dual aisle aircraft, those seats behind the vast gathering places around some exit doors, may not be classified as "Exit rows", despite offering excellent leg room (and amply opportunity to be trampled by congregating pax, white socks or not).

CASA does provide an indirect definition of an 'exit seat' as 'exit seat means a seat that is in a row of seats adjoining an exit'. Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3 - Air service operations - Carriage of persons (02/12/2004) @ 13.2(5)

This would likely cover any row of seats that has unobstructed access to an exit (for example, one that doesn not have a bulkhead inbetween the row of seats and the door).

 

[eastwest101]

What about the numerous times where I see narrowbody VA and QF B738s depart almost chock a block full with empty overwing exit rows? At what point is it a requirement for ground crew or airline crew to (re) allocate at least 1 person to the exit row ? Or is it legal to fill a B739 or A320 except for the 12 exit row seats? Have noticed this lately with airlines attempting to monetize exit row seating and it looks like there is considerable consumer resistance to this.

 

[dajop]

What about the numerous times where I see narrowbody VA and QF B738s depart almost chock a block full with empty overwing exit rows? At what point is it a requirement for ground crew or airline crew to (re) allocate at least 1 person to the exit row ?

The only airline I've seen do this on a regular basis is Silkair. If the exit rows are empty there will be at least one - if not 2 - crew allocated to sit there for takeoff and landing. (and FWIW on a recent flight I took back from China they chased away two interlopers who moved themselves from the row behind - presumably because they hadn't paid for the seats and lacked English skills - a requirement).

 

[williamsj]

I

Pity about the delay, but good on the airline!!

was told by our airline only those people under 50 years of age allowed to book exit rows as those people are supposed to be able to help crew etc . Our flights Sydney to cairns and return 5 times a year have a high percentage of Chinese/Japanese travellers who cannot speak English why are the safety talks in just English should be in their language too. we have flown on foreign airlines when safety talk is in the airlines language and subtitled in English. all people should shut up when safety talks are on or be off loaded YES!!!!!!!!!

 

[docjames]

It was, perhaps, a better hand grenade than I expected.

From my point of view, this is the only thing I really want..
Thirdly, and the most important point....it is about the ability to make a rational decision, with minimal information, whilst under a lot of stress.

But, how do you select for that?

There are a number of professions where that’s both a common scenario and “staying calm under stress” is an asset (cough) but to “screen” for it would be problematic (and unworkable) as there will
always be some within said profession(s) where the characteristic don’t apply.

I liked the grenade though - some good comments.

And that of course is the million dollar question, and furthers my point that the whole thing is silly and probably just a couple of SJWs feeling "good" about wielding power over others.

I often wonder, when seated at the exit row on a long haul flight, drink after drink after drink after drink.... I wonder how serious they are about the whole emergency thing. Exit row seats are the most prized seats on the aircraft - even in business class on the upper deck of a 747, for example. They never would restrict alcohol to those seats, and if they did, no one would sit there. If being sober was actually a "real" thing to operate an exit, it would be enforced and enshrined in law. The fact that it isn't speaks volumes. As most of us know, all this safety stuff is mainly theatre, as the chances of surviving a real crash are so slim.

I have been on QF seated in exit row where the QF FA removed another passenger from the overwing exits (13/14 on 737) as he was a) drunk and b) non English speaking and unable to follow instructions in English (mix of language and alcohol). He was trying to order a wine whilst still on the ground......

I’ve also been on plenty of flights where I was dubious about the ability of some exit row pax to actually operate the door. But then I was sitting there and would not have hesitated to reach over them to open it (or indeed stop them if that was necessary).

I’ve also seen FAs actually check what the pix have taken in (“what would you do if”.... etc). Should be more of it rather than the abbreviated process it’s become.



I think the only workable solution really is for the FAs to exercise their professional judgement when doing the exit row briefing regarding suitability and be backed up by CSM/captain/airline if they make the call to move someone.

 

[docjames]

As most of us know, all this safety stuff is mainly theatre, as the chances of surviving a real crash are so slim.

On top of the extremely low likelihood of being involved in a crash in the first place, the NTSB estimates your chance of surviving if the plane does crash is around 95%, the ETSC similarly estimates it’s over 90%.

 

[AviatorInsight]

What about the numerous times where I see narrowbody VA and QF B738s depart almost chock a block full with empty overwing exit rows? At what point is it a requirement for ground crew or airline crew to (re) allocate at least 1 person to the exit row ? Or is it legal to fill a B739 or A320 except for the 12 exit row seats? Have noticed this lately with airlines attempting to monetize exit row seating and it looks like there is considerable consumer resistance to this.

A B737-700 or B737-800 with ≤144pax there is no requirement.
B737-800 with > 144 pax needs to have 2 able bodied persons (ABPs) in each row of 3 seats at the overwings.