This doesn't surprise me - Qantas kick off The Veronicas

[drron]

And I've done it on AA and BA both times on the invitation of the Captain-the BA time was in March this year.

 

[Katie]

Well this whole thread makes me thankful for my rampaging Viking and Scottish genes (or wherever the heck the tall genes come from, maybe it was the artesian bore water I bathed in as a bairn) that give me my height. I'm more worried about banging my head into an open overhead locker, as happened on an AA 787 last year, than in not being able to reach the overhead lockers.

 

[p--and--t]

Sorry to bust your bubble, any place that the public is permitted to access (whether by payment or otherwise) is a public place.
The public can access a qantas plane by paying Qantas. It is public transport after all.

An interesting and complex area.

On consideration, I'll leave whether the inside of a QF place is public space and contention between the common carrier provisions and the privacy act to the lawyers.

The privacy provisions are vague and uncertain in some areas as you can read in ddron's link. On a previous circumstance not to do with airlines I have had conflicting advice on what is public and what is private and what may be recorded and when in a public space.

Also from previous experiences, it would be interesting to know whether airports under corporate management are still deemed today to be "commonwealth territory". If so, then state laws in respect to carriers and privacy may not apply.

Whether common carrier provisions supersede the privacy act is also an area that is not clear to me. The common carrier provisions seem to deal more with the limitations of liability for the carrier rather than privacy.

Unrelated google searches seem to indicate that the "public transport organisation" PTV in Victoria is deemed by legislation not to be a common carrier. Given that situation, discussion with someone much more informed than me over a coffee or something stronger whether the interior of these vehicles (trains, trams) are a "public" place under the privacy provisions similarly would be enlightening.

 

[Bodie]

This is relevant for qld - It can be quite confusing re public property v private. Take the common area ie food court of large shopping centre- Its a public area by criminal definition- ie police could charge you with a street offence - ie public nuisance- but the shopping centre could also issue you with a banning notice as its private for those civil matters. The only exception is if there is a public transport network- ie bus terminus or rail station attached and then the banning notice will specifically state the only access to property is to get on bus or rail. Commercial filming need shopping centre management approval. Shopping centre security can ask you to leave and if required can request police to assist in the removal of persons. Railway station platforms - trains and buses have their own specific legislation that covers offences.

State laws can be used if no Federal law is applicable on federal land- ie domestic violence , drink driving ( my experience was for military bases ) So i expect as most airports are privately owned it would be very similar to the shopping centre example.

 

[odysseus]

Sorry to bust your bubble, any place that the public is permitted to access (whether by payment or otherwise) is a public place.
The public can access a qantas plane by paying Qantas. It is public transport after all.

I don't think it's his bubble burst. Any place that is private is controlled by the owners. If you enter Westfield's, Coles, David Jones and so on, you can be asked to leave if you don't meet any requirements they set (subject to not breaching discrimination laws for example). Similarly any permission to film is up to them.

 

[Beano]

I was once interogated by a cabin crew manager when I took a photo of the crew doing the safety briefing. Just the life jacket, no face shown. (For a treasure hunt!!). She was very polite about it when I explained and let me keep the photo.

 

[Archphoto]

When I worked at the local KMart here in SA back in the early 90s, the store prohibited photographs to be taken within the store, without prior permission from management.

I have to wonder how they implement this today? I'm guessing if you're trying to use an SLR they'll be all over you, otherwise it's probably not even commented upon . . .

 

[Daver6]

FWIW, during a departure delay I was in 1C and took advantage of an open coughpit door to take a pic out through the front of the plane. From memory, it was a QF MEL - SYD flight. Won't do that again - FA took exception citing "coughpit security" and insited I delete the pic on the spot. Have done exactly the same thing on a couple of other flights in Europe (on IB and BA) in full view of staff and nobody cared.

Sounds like a power trip by the FA for no good reason. I've done this on QF, witnessed by FAs and nothing said. I've also posted this to Instagram and tagged Qantas. If it was such an issue, I would have expected QF to either contact Instagram or myself to have it removed.

As we know...QF. Consistently inconsistent.

 

[PineappleSkip]

I was once interogated by a cabin crew manager when I took a photo of the crew doing the safety briefing. Just the life jacket, no face shown.

I had a similar experience on a QF flight from POM to CNS. First aboard, I took a photo from front of the empty cabin (Q400) when they had just started on that route. Alas, not quite empty, there was an FA in shot at the very rear of the cabin who virtually RAN all the way to the front and demanded I cease taking photos of staff. Wide angle smartphone lens so you can imagine how visible staff at the back would have been. She may have been slightly hyper in big bad Moresby, although I’d be hard to mistake for a raskol. Of course my response was (Veronicas please note) ‘Yes maam, no maam, three bags full maam, please don’t have me arrested maam’ as no sane person would want to be delivered into the hands of the PNG constabulary .

Rather over the top, but been very careful not to even appear to photograph QF crew ever since. Moral of the story was there appear to be a few who digest paranoid pills over this. By way of contrast, I have many happy snaps of pineapple and EK crew in the A380 bar, taken by other crew on the EK polaroid.

That said, the Veronicas’ story doesn’t quite stack up. I’ve never had to ask for names from QF staff, they’re written large as life on their name tags, and refusing to stop filming when directed is just asking for trouble.

Cheers skip

 

[I love to travel]

I wonder who did it and how the bags got down from the locker when they were evicted.

 

[Vic]

Glad I'm not the only one to experience the contemptuous outrage for thinking the row 4 screen can be out until seat belt sign.

An interesting and complex area.

On consideration, I'll leave whether the inside of a QF place is public space and contention between the common carrier provisions and the privacy act to the lawyers.

The privacy provisions are vague and uncertain in some areas as you can read in ddron's link. On a previous circumstance not to do with airlines I have had conflicting advice on what is public and what is private and what may be recorded and when in a public space.

Also from previous experiences, it would be interesting to know whether airports under corporate management are still deemed today to be "commonwealth territory". If so, then state laws in respect to carriers and privacy may not apply.

Whether common carrier provisions supersede the privacy act is also an area that is not clear to me. The common carrier provisions seem to deal more with the limitations of liability for the carrier rather than privacy.

Unrelated google searches seem to indicate that the "public transport organisation" PTV in Victoria is deemed by legislation not to be a common carrier. Given that situation, discussion with someone much more informed than me over a coffee or something stronger whether the interior of these vehicles (trains, trams) are a "public" place under the privacy provisions similarly would be enlightening.

Privacy comes into the question only in so far as someone filming has a responsibility to respect other's right to privacy.

I don't think it's his bubble burst. Any place that is private is controlled by the owners. If you enter Westfield's, Coles, David Jones and so on, you can be asked to leave if you don't meet any requirements they set (subject to not breaching discrimination laws for example). Similarly any permission to film is up to them.

Who owns/controls the place doesn't change the recognition of an area as a public place under the law.

 

[ambrosia]

Reading this thread I’m thinking “Discretion is the better part of valor” so googled what it actually means which is: it's better to avoid a dangerous situation than to confront it.
I know someone was in the right, or having a bad day or whatever... but being pragmatic, there is a plane load of people waiting to depart, and Qantas asks you to follow cabin crew instructions, so I’d just swallow my righteousness, and listen to the CSM lecture and keep quiet. And certainly not start videoing.
I think it’s called Utilitarianism.

 

[odysseus]

Who owns/controls the place doesn't change the recognition of an area as a public place under the law.

There are limited provisions that may be enabled in certain spaces but it's not black and white - either public or not, and all conditions are the same for all so classified.

 

[RSD]

I had the misfortune to be on this flight (having missed a connection) and to be judge and jury them getting dragged off was within the range of possible sentances for their behaviour - would have preferred them not to be as it meant that we were delayed but stuff happens - serves me right to book MEL -SYD - BRI to grab some extra SC's instead of MEL - BRI direct. Like others I had never heard of them (and don't want to again), but yeah - a couple of Gen Y C or D graders being difficult and ignoring crew instructions because they thought that they could or should. The reason the crew asked them to stop videoing was that they had refused when another passenger asked them to stop filming as they didn't want to be filmed - a fair enough request from that passenger I thought and sufficient reason for the crew to ask them to stop filming regardless of whether filming was legal or not. As to how their bags got up into the overhead locker initially - one of them passed them to the other who was standing on the aisle seat

 

[drron]

Well that tips the scales QF's way.

 

[DC3]

"The Veronicas". LOL. Desperate for publicity?

 

[RSD]

"The Veronicas". LOL. Desperate for publicity?

Dunno - don't care quite frankly, but I'm sure that everyone on the flight could have done without the delay. Seems like everytime I am travelling lately there ends up being someone removed before takeoff on one of the sectors although this is the first time it has happened on an Australian sector.

 

[Moody]

So to recap ......

1. Two vertically challenged PAX self-load their carry-on by standing on a seat
2. When preparing the cabin, an FA takes exception to the wheels out configuration and asks for rectification
3. The mini-PAX ask the FA to do it (rather than repeat #1), but the FA replies along the lines of "Jobsworth"
4. A samaritan/chancer who is less vertically challenged then sorts the bags out. Problem solved.
5. But no ... the FA has their nose out of joint and has brought back reinforcements to berate the mini-PAX
6. Requests for names are ignored, so mini-PAX start filming. Cabin crew ask them to stop. They don't.
7. Mini-PAX are ejected from flight, causing 45 minute delay.
8. Subsequently the usual crucifixion is dealt out by AFF zealots
9. And finally Qantas apologise and/or stump up a settlement

Game over

 

[RSD]

So to recap ......

1. Two vertically challenged PAX self-load their carry-on by standing on a seat
2. When preparing the cabin, an FA takes exception to the wheels out configuration and asks for rectification
3. The mini-PAX ask the FA to do it (rather than repeat #1), but the FA replies along the lines of "Jobsworth"
4. A samaritan/chancer who is less vertically challenged then sorts the bags out. Problem solved.
5. But no ... the FA has their nose out of joint and has brought back reinforcements to berate the mini-PAX
6. Requests for names are ignored, so mini-PAX start filming. Cabin crew ask them to stop. They don't.
7. Mini-PAX are ejected from flight, causing 45 minute delay.
8. Subsequently the usual crucifixion is dealt out by AFF zealots
9. And finally Qantas apologise and/or stump up a settlement

Game over

Half close -

1. Two vertically challenged PAX self-load their carry-on by standing on a seat
2. When preparing the cabin, an FA takes exception to the wheels out configuration and asks for rectification - not sure on this bit - I may be wrong but I think it was actually turned sideways so effectively taking up more space than it should have
3. The mini-PAX ask the FA to do it (rather than repeat #1), but the FA replies along the lines of "Jobsworth" I wouldn't say it was quite like that - VeroniPAX#1 said "why can't you do it?" and FA replied that passengers need to load their carryon into the overhead bin correctly.
4. A samaritan/chancer who is less vertically challenged then sorts the bags out. Problem solved. Well initial problem anyway
5. But no ... the FA has their nose out of joint and has brought back reinforcements to berate the mini-PAX Not quite - the original FA was walking towards the rear of the aircraft with another FA following when VeroniPAX#1 said something to the second FA - I didn't catch what was said but was later told by the person seated next to me that it was about the first FA's request etc and the second FA's response was to confirm what the first FA had said.
6. Requests for names are ignored, so mini-PAX start filming. Cabin crew ask them to stop. They don't. Almost - VeroniPAX#1 started filming and PAX in aisle seat on other side asked her to stop filming as they didn't want to be filmed. CSM started to come down the aisle to see what was happening and heard second FA say that the other passenger had asked them to stop filming, and that they were instucting them to stop filming, CSM heard VeroniPAX#1's reply from about 4 metres forward and had obviously heard enough by that point so headed forward again - obviously went to talk to the captain.
7. Mini-PAX are ejected from flight, causing 45 minute delay. Ejected from an aircraft has a slightly different meaning but probably would have been a lot quicker. AFP eventually turned up and removed VeroniPAX x2 from the plane - problem now really solved and we took off. Delay was only partly due to wait for AFP, the Captain did later apologise for the delay and explained that a lot of checked baggage had to be removed to get their bags off the plane. To be honest at the time that it was being dealt with I don't think that any of the crew knew them as anything other than the names on the manifest
8. Subsequently the usual crucifixion is dealt out by AFF zealots - haven't seen anything on here other than a lot of mixed opinions.
9. And finally Qantas apologise and/or stump up a settlement - obviously these two wannabees still haven't figured out yet that they should have stopped videoing a) when the other PAX asked, and b) when the crew asked so QF would be better losing a bit of revenue by banning them for life than stumping up money. At the end of the day on every QF flight that I've been on in the last couple of years at the end of the safety briefing it says "The crew are here for your safety and you are to obey their instructions at all times" or something very similar. The other PAX was very annoyed when they saw that they were being filmed so it could have gotten a lot uglier so don't think that the captain's decision to offload them was an over-reaction.

 

[SOPOOR]

The reason I vaguely care about an incident like this is not because I have any view or opinion about the Veronicas or what level of celebrity they are, but because too often (though, really it's probably more from time-to-time, or rarely) you run into an FA who's having an off day or decided it's their way or the highway, when clearly there are inconsistencies and confusion about supposed "rules" and "policy", which FA's themselves don't help by creating more confusion by being inconsistent. And then they pull the "you have to follow every direction on-board" card when they feel like it, and make you feel like a criminal for having a differing perspective on trivial matters.

For example, on so many flights on QF sitting in row 4 with IFE system in arm rest, FA's consistently allowed me to have the screen out until the seat-belt sign went on. Then one day an FA decided that the rule was actually to put it away as soon as the prepare-cabin-for-landing announcement was made. Well, even after politely indicating that the seat belt sign was not on yet, was I the worst person ever for suggesting that on every other flight I'd been allowed to keep the screen up until then, and it's a wonder the AFP wasn't called on me, or even worse, thrown off the plane mid-flight! I don't think it helped that a CSM was paxing in seat 4B (me in 4A), so I feel like the FA felt they had to "enforce" the stricter version of the rules in front of them. That CSM did actually explain to me the rules are that they are meant to be stowed as soon as the announcement is made (who'd have known!) but agreed generally FA's allow them to remain up until the seat belt sign was off.

It's easy to imagine that the ladies with short stature could've easily lifted their bag (there's no qualification of how large or heavy it was.. so I don't know why people are harping on that as though this is a discussion again about large or heavy carry on...) and prop it on the edge and then push it in. The issue at hand is that they mistakenly put it in wheels facing out, and the FA wanted it turned around. Perhaps the ladies already knew they would require assistance to retrieve the bag at the end of the flight, and had fortunately been rendered such polite assistance in the past (thank God that not everyone in the world is a rude impolite un-assisting a**eh**e, like so many make people out to be...).

For the FA to turn this into a "you have to obey every instruction on-board or else you're going to get thrown off the plane" is, imo, ridiculous. Even more so from some of the reports that the people in this instance were not belligerent. Regardless, I've seen FA's get into a tizz even if the pax is not rude, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same in this case. Though of course, I wasn't there.

Slightly off topic,
I'm not a regular traveler , maybe 3 times per year,
But i get different policies for laptops needed to take out when putting through the scanner

I have a hp x360 and 80% of the time dont take it out as i believe its a tablet, and tablets dont require to be taken out

Some staff say its not a laptop
Some say if its got a kb its a laptop

Very random for me