Qatar Airways bans Youtuber

[justinbrett]

Yes, a convenient argument for him to put forward.

According to Mr Cahill, rules are rules. They can’t be broken and there are no exceptions (see some of his videos alleging ‘shocking’ safety violations).

That someone else has broken the rules doesn’t indicate they don’t apply.

He failed to get permission, and ultimately people have allegedly lost their jobs. Way to go!

Sounds like you didn’t even watch the video. He had permission from the crew to film, except for one who declined which he blurred.

The conditions of carriage do not explicitly reference filming.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sounds like you didn’t even watch the video. He had permission from the crew to film, except for one who declined which he blurred.

The conditions of carriage do not explicitly reference filming.

Article 12.3 says [other] electronic equipment - other than select medical devices - cannot be used on board except with the permission of Qatar Airways.

A cabin crew member may not be able to override those conditions of carriage. Even if a cabin crew member is able to give consent on behalf of QR, it’s unlikely they would have been fully informed of the ramifications, making their ‘consent’ open to question at the very least.

 

[justinbrett]

Article 12.3 says [other] electronic equipment - other than select medical devices - cannot be used on board except with the permission of Qatar Airways.

A cabin crew member may not be able to override those conditions of carriage. Even if a cabin crew member is able to give consent on behalf of QR, it’s unlikely they would have been fully informed of the ramifications, making their ‘consent’ open to question at the very least.

So you’re saying mobile phones are banned? I don’t think so.

 

[p--and--t]

So you’re saying mobile phones are banned? I don’t think so.

….and laptops and smart watches and iPads and iPods and headphones and and and and……

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So you’re saying mobile phones are banned? I don’t think so.

Mobile phones are subject to a different part of 12.3. QR may forbid or limit their use. Which is pretty standard. They limit them to flight mode prior to takeoff.

Other electronic devices, with the exception of some medical devices, must only be operated with permission.

Just ask permission. It’s not that hard!

 

[p--and--t]

Mobile phones are subject to a different part of 12.3. QR may forbid or limit their use. Which is pretty standard. They limit them to flight mode prior to takeoff.

Other electronic devices, with the exception of some medical devices, must only be operated with permission.

Just ask permission. It’s not that hard!

I’m sure the cabin crew will be delighted to respond to call bells every time someone wants to look at their smart watch, put their headphones on, turn on their iPad to make sure they have “received permission”.

 

[justinbrett]

Mobile phones are subject to a different part of 12.3. QR may forbid or limit their use. Which is pretty standard. They limit them to flight mode prior to takeoff.

Other electronic devices, with the exception of some medical devices, must only be operated with permission.

Just ask permission. It’s not that hard!

He did! If QR has a policy against filming (they don't), or operation of cameras (they don't), that was the time for the FAs to tell him that's not permitted.

I'm not exactly sure what device he used to film, many YouTubers film on iPhones. Do you know what device he filmed on? In any case cameras have been allowed on airlines for my entire life, well before mobile phones were common.

Edit - actually I have just found in the QR FAQ page it specifically says digital cameras are permitted onboard:

https://www.qatarairways.com/en/help/faq.html#1003959-which-peds-are-allowed-to-be-used-on-qatar-airways-flights

 

[Quickstatus]

A few points:

JC should understand that consent can be withdrawn at any time.

JC got verbal consent from 2CC to video. A 3rd did not and he blurred their face.

However, when one of the CC sent him a post facto email to request removal/blurring of their face, JC didnt. From where I stand I understood the CC's email to be a withdrawal of consent

As a matter of proper conduct, all YTubers should blurred the cabin crew faces. JC's should not have shown CC faces in the first place even with consent IMO. Eventually YT made him blur the faces of the CC. It is impossible to know how QR would have reacted if CC faces were blurred

Article 12.3 permitted the use of portable recorders. I understand this to include video recorders. Mobile phones are Ok

 

[MEL_Traveller]

He did! If QR has a policy against filming (they don't), or operation of cameras (they don't), that was the time for the FAs to tell him that's not permitted.

I'm not exactly sure what device he used to film, many YouTubers film on iPhones. Do you know what device he filmed on? In any case cameras have been allowed on airlines for my entire life, well before mobile phones were common.

Edit - actually I have just found in the QR FAQ page it specifically says digital cameras are permitted onboard:

https://www.qatarairways.com/en/help/faq.html#1003959-which-peds-are-allowed-to-be-used-on-qatar-airways-flights

He asked a crew member if they were ok to be filmed. Was the consent or approval fully informed? Did the crew know it was for commercial purposes? And are they able to give consent for those purposes? Unlikely.

Yes, there’s a list of PEDs allowed to be used, but the CoC says conditions on their use may be imposed by QR. which it seems they have actioned. Simple way around that would be to follow the rules and ask permission prior to filming. That’s a risk to your business if you don’t and other airlines decide to also ban you from filming.

 

[justinbrett]

However, when one of the CC sent him a post facto email to request removal/blurring of their face, JC didnt. From where I stand I understood the CC's email to be a withdrawal of consent

The video is unclear on this. He never said he didn't comply. He said he was suspicious as to its authenticity, and when he replied he never received a response, so he sought confirmation elsewhere. He then says QR went to YouTube to try to get the video removed. It's unclear if this was simultaneous or he outright refused for an extended period. That we will probably never know. He blurred the original FA from the outset so I don't see why he would have had a problem with it, if he thought the email was genuine.

As a matter of proper conduct, all YTubers should blurred the cabin crew faces. JC's should not have shown CC faces in the first place even with consent IMO.

Why? If consent is obtained what is the problem?

It is impossible to know how QR would have reacted if CC faces were blurred

QR cares so much for the privacy of its staff that it fires them after this event? That's just ridiculous. It's obvious this has nothing to do with the privacy of the staff.

Article 12.3 permitted the use of portable recorders. I understand this to include video recorders. Mobile phones are Ok

As I posted earlier the FAQs specifically list digital cameras as permitted devices, so there can be no confusion over this.

He asked a crew member if they were ok to be filmed. Was the consent or approval fully informed? Did the crew know it was for commercial purposes? And are they able to give consent for those purposes? Unlikely.

QR doesn't have a policy for filming onboard. You're making up requirements that don't exist. He asked for consent and received it.

Yes, there’s a list of PEDs allowed to be used, but the CoC says conditions on their use may be imposed by QR. which it seems they have actioned. Simple way around that would be to follow the rules and ask permission prior to filming. That’s a risk to your business if you don’t and other airlines decide to also ban you from filming.

That can't be done retrospectively. He asked the crew onboard to film and they permitted him. Sure they could have said no, we don't permit use of cameras in flight. They didn't. They said yes.

As QS pointed out, it mentions portable recorders as permitted devices in the CoC (I missed that one). Seems very clear.

 

[eminere]

Wait... he's German?

 

[Quickstatus]

If consent is obtained what is the problem?

Consent is often "given" but often people would rather not be videoed even if consent is given. I'm talking about the generality of videoing people. YTubers should conduct themselves in a manner that does not cause uneasiness among the crew.
The starting point should be that even with consent, faces should be blurred. If someone wants to be in the video then they can ask - Opt in .

QR cares so much for the privacy of its staff

QR does not care about its staff. Full stop
But the YouTuber should as they are operating within CC's workplace.

Wait... he's German?

Born in Melbourne but Czech -AU dual nationality. Father is German. Mother Czech

 

[justinbrett]

Consent is often "given" but often people would rather not be videoed even if consent is given. I'm talking about the generality of videoing people. YTubers should conduct themselves in a manner that does not cause uneasiness among the crew.
The starting point should be that even with consent, faces should be blurred. If someone wants to be in the video then they can ask - Opt in .

QR does not care about staff.
But the YouTuber should as they are operating within CC's workplace.

This doesn't seem to be a problem when the review is favourable

 

[Quickstatus]

This doesn't seem to be a problem when the review is favourable

Regardless, consent under any and all situations is always conditional.

However, It is not good optics for QR. an airline which fires people due to shortfall in performance may not be a safe airline. No Just Culture there

 

[jase05]

I think going forward this may see a rule change where filming is banned completely on some airlines. Not ideal as I even though I don’t like plenty of bloggers there are some that show great and informative content that has enabled me to make decisions on which flights to take.

 

[Quickstatus]

enabled me to make decisions on which flights to take.

That's true, but as always YMMV. One flight or one review does not define an airline.

 

[jase05]

That's true, but as always YMMV. One flight or one review does not define an airline.

Absolutely. I mainly look at what the seating is like as that’s one of my most important things. A lot of the other stuff doesn’t bother me too much and I do find some of the bloggers get a bit picky on the small things

 

[justinbrett]

I think going forward this may see a rule change where filming is banned completely on some airlines. Not ideal as I even though I don’t like plenty of bloggers there are some that show great and informative content that has enabled me to make decisions on which flights to take.

Or it will be permitted for airline sanctioned reviewers like Sam Chui and his Aussie clone (Dennis Bunnik) where what you see is carefully choregraphed and controlled (often heavily biased), but the candid reviews that a normal pax would expect to experience (Josh, Non-stop Dan, Noel Phillips etc) are banned.

If you are a good airline what have you got to hide?

 

[Quickstatus]

If you are a good airline what have you got to hide?

It's already happening now.
QF invites only certain "media" personalities for a publicity drive. They are all given pre-prepared talking points, and an unspoken requirement to be heavily biased toward the airline is assumed.

Good airlines don't exist. Good organisations don't exist. Every organisation is on a slippery slope to a disaster. The disaster does not announce itself until it happens but there are always signs beforehand. Most YTubers only focus on the soft product but I would not consider excellence in the soft product an indication of overall excellence.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The video is unclear on this. He never said he didn't comply. He said he was suspicious as to its authenticity, and when he replied he never received a response, so he sought confirmation elsewhere. He then says QR went to YouTube to try to get the video removed. It's unclear if this was simultaneous or he outright refused for an extended period. That we will probably never know. He blurred the original FA from the outset so I don't see why he would have had a problem with it, if he thought the email was genuine.



Why? If consent is obtained what is the problem?



QR cares so much for the privacy of its staff that it fires them after this event? That's just ridiculous. It's obvious this has nothing to do with the privacy of the staff.



As I posted earlier the FAQs specifically list digital cameras as permitted devices, so there can be no confusion over this.



QR doesn't have a policy for filming onboard. You're making up requirements that don't exist. He asked for consent and received it.



That can't be done retrospectively. He asked the crew onboard to film and they permitted him. Sure they could have said no, we don't permit use of cameras in flight. They didn't. They said yes.

As QS pointed out, it mentions portable recorders as permitted devices in the CoC (I missed that one). Seems very clear.

You aren’t addressing the issue of whether cabin crew are able to give consent on behalf of QR for commmercial filming purposes.

They may give personal consent to being filmed, but I’m not sure that gives consent on behalf of QR’s CoC where it says you must ask permission of Qatar Airways to operate electronic equipment.

At the very least, once Mr Cahill had decided the content of his review was negative, he should have explained this to the crew and asked them again if they consent. This might have allowed them to consider the consequences of a negative review, and the impact on their jobs.