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

[SOPOOR]

Privacy policy aside as to what is legal or not or allowed,

If the cabin crew ask you to stop filming just because they are having a bad hair day and you refuse, wouldn't the staff have the right to simply say "customer was disobeying orders/ being uncooperative" and i called security


Rights aside, i just do what im told, whether i agree or not, as arguing doesnt achieve anything, (like the time i got group scanned for explosives and one guy was ranting about always being targetted)

 

[Deleted member]

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.

Maybe she was ejected from a Veronica’s concert recently

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Privacy policy aside as to what is legal or not or allowed,

If the cabin crew ask you to stop filming just because they are having a bad hair day and you refuse, wouldn't the staff have the right to simply say "customer was disobeying orders/ being uncooperative" and i called security


Rights aside, i just do what im told, whether i agree or not, as arguing doesnt achieve anything, (like the time i got group scanned for explosives and one guy was ranting about always being targetted)

There’s a fine line here. Passengers must obey all lawful crew instructions. Those relate to the safe operating of the aircraft. Filming may or may not have something to do with the safe operation of the aircraft. If you are filiming entry/exit procedures to the coughpit, or how the crew access their sleeping quarters, that may be considered a safety related issue. Etc.

But the fine line comes in because you also can’t interfere with crew member duties. If you start getting into an argument with a crew member about your rights, you may cross the line of interfering with their duties.

A polite refusal to obey a crew member instruction to move seats to allow a couple on honeymoon to sit together, or to close the window shade if you want to look out, or to raise your seatback because the person behind doesn’t like it, is unlikely to have you in breach of obeying a crew member instruction. Those aren’t safety related. In Dr Dow’s case, whether it was the gate agent or crew who asked him to leave, they weren’t doing so lawfully. So he wasn’t in breach of that rule (despite it being a crew instruction to leave).

Get into an argument with the crew and the situation could change, quite quickly.

What happens after that would be a matter for the courts to decide, if it got that far. If the crew were acting unreasonably, there may be no punishment. But you’ll have wasted a lot of your time, and probably delayed yourself by quite a few hours.

I think filming does have a place. Again, Dr Dao’s situation is a good example. Supposedly in this case another passenger complained about the filming, and that’s why the crew asked filming to cease. Is that a lawful request if filming is allowed?

 

[SOPOOR]

There’s a fine line here. Passengers must obey all lawful crew instructions. Those relate to the safe operating of the aircraft. Filming may or may not have something to do with the safe operation of the aircraft. If you are filiming entry/exit procedures to the coughpit, or how the crew access their sleeping quarters, that may be considered a safety related issue. Etc.

But the fine line comes in because you also can’t interfere with crew member duties. If you start getting into an argument with a crew member about your rights, you may cross the line of interfering with their duties.

A polite refusal to obey a crew member instruction to move seats to allow a couple on honeymoon to sit together, or to close the window shade if you want to look out, or to raise your seatback because the person behind doesn’t like it, is unlikely to have you in breach of obeying a crew member instruction. Those aren’t safety related. In Dr Dow’s case, whether it was the gate agent or crew who asked him to leave, they weren’t doing so lawfully. So he wasn’t in breach of that rule (despite it being a crew instruction to leave).

Get into an argument with the crew and the situation could change, quite quickly.

What happens after that would be a matter for the courts to decide, if it got that far. If the crew were acting unreasonably, there may be no punishment. But you’ll have wasted a lot of your time, and probably delayed yourself by quite a few hours.

I think filming does have a place. Again, Dr Dao’s situation is a good example. Supposedly in this case another passenger complained about the filming, and that’s why the crew asked filming to cease. Is that a lawful request if filming is allowed?

great points,

I have never seen nor can imagine cabin crew backing down on any demand (call me cynical)

if its a request to let a honeymooner sit next eacthoher, then it would be a request only, as I may prefer my current for whatever reason,

but yes, refusal of a request of please stop filiming because another passenger doesnt want to, I would expect to end badly

 

[juddles]

......... in this case another passenger complained about the filming, and that’s why the crew asked filming to cease. Is that a lawful request if filming is allowed?

God I hope so. I can imagine the annoyance of the other pax having this pair making a scene and videoing me right in my face.

I wonder if it is for this reason that the video has not been used - because the sisters were informed by legal advisers that they would get sued if they did. Because I think MOST people would object to becoming unwilling stars in a media circus.

 

[SOPOOR]

God I hope so. I can imagine the annoyance of the other pax having this pair making a scene and videoing me right in my face.

I wonder if it is for this reason that the video has not been used - because the sisters were informed by legal advisers that they would get sued if they did. Because I think MOST people would object to becoming unwilling stars in a media circus.

in some countries, many news networks, just blur the faces out of the people who dont want to be in the videos,

not sure why the veronicas couldnt do that too

 

[p--and--t]

God I hope so. I can imagine the annoyance of the other pax having this pair making a scene and videoing me right in my face.

I wonder if it is for this reason that the video has not been used - because the sisters were informed by legal advisers that they would get sued if they did. Because I think MOST people would object to becoming unwilling stars in a media circus.

Maybe if you are C graders with an overload of DYKWIA attitude and have an upcoming TV reality program to find footage for and struggling to get enough media attention, you might think it is OK.

Their antics certainly seem to have had the desired effort on this forum.

 

[VPS]

Be interested to know what makes them ambassadors

 

[MEL_Traveller]

God I hope so. I can imagine the annoyance of the other pax having this pair making a scene and videoing me right in my face.

I wonder if it is for this reason that the video has not been used - because the sisters were informed by legal advisers that they would get sued if they did. Because I think MOST people would object to becoming unwilling stars in a media circus.

As pointed out above, faces could be blurred. But the issue is whether or not there is a right to privacy, just because you are in a plane, which may be considered a ‘public space’ by some interpretations.

if its a request to let a honeymooner sit next eacthoher, then it would be a request only, as I may prefer my current for whatever reason,

How about, ‘we need to to move/disembark because we have deadheading crew’. Lawful instruction?

 

[reubee]

Couldn't help but notice as I flicked through the entertainment system on a recent A380 flight that the Veronicas were still available in the Audio section, so they have not been kicked off completely.

 

[banana boy]

Is there a right to privacy in a public place? Can you demand that someone stop filming you and the law is on your side? (Setting aside what is subsequently done with said film).

 

[SOPOOR]

As pointed out above, faces could be blurred. But the issue is whether or not there is a right to privacy, just because you are in a plane, which may be considered a ‘public space’ by some interpretations.




How about, ‘we need to to move/disembark because we have deadheading crew’. Lawful instruction?

No idea my friend
It would be interesting to see what rights a passenger actually has and if cabin staff have been bending the rules (intentionally or unintentionally)

 

[pauly7]

View attachment 190493
Be interested to know what makes them ambassadors

They could have been ‘friends of Qantas’ which a number of celebs and high profile non corporates (so not covered by the standard CL program) are...

 

[Quickstatus]

The quid pro quo for being an friend /ambassador/customer of an airline is not exculpatory in this matter

Indeed, if they were ambassadors for the airline then there would be an even higher expectation of acting in the airline’s best interest. Que the Nut Exec from KA

Now firmly entrenched in QF’s camp

Separately,
It is a moot point whether a FA actions were lawful or not. That question can only be sorted out after eviction. The aim is not to get evicted in the first place. Dr Dao was unlawfully evicted but evicted he was

 

[p--and--t]

The quid pro quo for being an friend /ambassador/customer of an airline is not exculpatory

I learnt a new word today.

 

[Quickstatus]

I learnt a new word today.

Scores minimum of 25 in Scrabble

 

[VPS]

Scores minimum of 25 in Scrabble

Rubbish - if you're going to make a nine letter word you should get a bonus score

 

[Quickstatus]

Rubbish - if you're going to make a nine letter word you should get a bonus score

11 letter word. The bonus applies if you manage to use all 7 tiles (in addition to the 4 already on the board). 50 extra if so. The 50 bonus is not able to be augmented by double or triple word/letter, even if the word might be.

 

[DC3]

... Indeed, if they were ambassadors for the airline then there would be an even higher expectation ...

... and ambassadors to boot.

 

[vetrade]

View attachment 190493
Be interested to know what makes them ambassadors

Where celebrities are concerned, "loyalty / ambassadorship" is almost exclusively a quid pro quo situation. Celebrities live and breathe free anything - tickets or discounts or preferential treatment, free publicity, lounge memberships, invites to miscellaneous open nights / AO tennis, grand finals, sponsorships, yada, yada, yada. It is ingrained in their psyche by their managers (and fellow celebrities, no doubt) to expect some form of payola for anything they do. Even being photographed in a particular designer's clothes warrants a free top-up of one's wardrobe. It's a bit rich for these 2 girl-children to characterise their relationship with QF as one of, ostensibly, one of benevolence on their part towards the airline.