Don't cross that curtain between business class and economy!

Don't cross the curtain

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/no-business-class-for-you-man-restrained-for-trying-to-walk-past-the-curtain-20130130-2dkro.html

Interesting read. It's simple - you didn't pay for it so you have no right to be in that section. Those who are in that section don't want you looking around either

Only in the US could this happen. They have to know what their "rights" are and whether there is a law preventing them from doing whatever they decided to do.

It's pretty simple really. You're on their aircraft which is their property. You do as they say! If they ask you to stop recording you stop, just like you would if someone on the street asked you to stop. What an idiot!

If they tell you to stop talking because they don't like your politics, do you do that? How about telling you to stop watching a movie on your ipad because it bags their airline? Like the person on the street, they can ask but they can't compel. Of course you have rights.  In a democracy we define those rights with laws. Whatever is not prohibited by law is OK. It's been that way for over 800 years. So if no law says you can't record them well guess what, you can.  If they think it's a breach of the contract of carriage they can sue you, but democracies don't condone physical intervention in such cases.  Dictatorships and failed states do things that way.  If that's what you prefer, fly Air Zimbabwe or Iran Air. 

No worries

Nex ttime you fly run up and down the aisle naked. or sing at the top of your voice. There is no law that says you can't do that.

As I said, it is their property. When you're on it you do what they say, just like when you invite someone into your house.

What happened to common courtesy?

I've got a better idea.

Take a pair of cymbals with you and just bash them together all flight.

Nothing to say you can't do that. I feel sorry for the flight attendants that have to deal with people like yourselves.

Maybe you haven't heard - we do have laws about offensive and indecent behaviour, disturbing the peace etc.  If you value common courtesy you'll stop hiding behind "people like yourselves" admonitions and address objective issues. Oh by the way, people who come to my house are not asked to pay a fare - but they are accorded the same rights on my property as they have anywhere else. That's how it works.

How is bashing a pair of cymbals together offensive?

It's my right to do so is it not? And if i decide to do so inside your house there's nothing you can do to stop me.

Yes, I hide behind "people lke yourselves" admonitions all the time. Maybe you haven't heard the cymbals.

Did I say it's offensive? It might be to many, but more correctly it disturbs the peace. So it isn't your "right" at all. And if you decide to do it inside my house there is plenty I can do to stop you - including asking you politely to leave, which makes you a trespasser if you don't comply.

Which is what the airline did to this idiot.

Except they can't ask them to leave a 30000.

End of story.

leave at 30000 feet.

According to the Age report, that isn't what happened at all.  What the flight attendant  "did" was to unlawfully seize property.  What the air marshall did was to unlawfully assault a passenger.  There is not an iota of evidence that the passenger was accused of trespass, although a direct request not to enter the J class cabin followed by non-complaince may have amounted to that. There is no evidence the passenger ever set foot in J class, although he expressed an intention to do so. But intention itself is irrelevant without carrying it out, in most situations anyway.  What he did was a) ask questions about the policy and b) use his phone in a lawful manner. So let's get our facts right before we so prescriptively declare an "end" to the story.

No worries.

It is not the actual events as happened that I'm disputing but the fact that he now wants to investigate his rights.

"Does he have the right to visit the business cabin?"

"Does he have a right to videotape crew?"

What next, "do I have the right to occupy a business class seat even though I didn't pay for it?"

"Do I have the right to use the business toilet even if I'm not travelling business"

"The emergency exit says don't sit, but it doesn't say don't stand on it so I can lawfully stand on it"

That is what annoys me. I'm not saying that the reaction of the flight attendant was correct or lawful, but the fact that he now wants to investigate these "rights".

It is this sense of "righteousness and entitlement" that bugs me, despite being politely told to do something.

And I'm not sure about the airmarshals unlawfully assaulting the passenger. Perhaps the flight attendant felt intimidated (we don't know the full story) and I'm sure that would be grounds for intervention by air marshalls.

If I were inside your house bashing cymbals together and you asked me to stop I would no worries.

But this guy would probably go and investigate whether he had the right to bash the cymbals despite being told not to do so. That is what I'm getting at.

You and I seem to be the only ones left in this thread, anyway...setting aside your apparent fetish for cymbals (just joking)...it really isn't possible for anyone to know what all their rights are (and are not). To me that makes it legitimate to investigate them.  I certainly don't know the answers to the questions you raise (either in Australia or in the USA), but I think someone in this person's position has every "right" to find out given what was going on. And in a way he did, by asking questions. It was the response to his lawful conduct that was egregious. I can't agree that being told to do something, politely or not, calls for compliance e.g. I request that you drink coffee because I don't like tea.  A person might defer out of sympathy, but if the request is not seen by them as fair and failure to defer is not illegal I think people have the freedom to choose. "Rights" is perhaps another word for "freedoms". Nor can I agree that the attendant "feeling" intimidated is sufficient - the test is whether the objective facts reasonably support a subjective response of that kind. Unfortunately it's this sort of thing that many people in positions of limited authority overlook - that their conduct is constrained by the limits of their legal authority and by the freedoms lawfully asserted by others. How the plastered on smile fades, as many of us discover, when the flight attendant who talks the talk gets called out to walk the walk.

I think we have scared everyone else away!

I agree it is not possible to know what all your rights are. But at what point do you consider an answer from a higher authority to be an acceptable answer?

For you example, you are kicking the seat in front of you (enough with the cymbals!). They tell you to stop. You ignore them. The FA tells you to stop, you ignore them. The CSM tells you and you ignore them. You ignore the first officer and then the Captain tells you to stop and you ignore him. Now, kicking the seat in front of you you can't possibly be defined anywhere in law, perhaps like some of the quesitons I posed earlier. However, the highest possible authority on the aircraft has made a reasonable request of you and you continue to ignore them. I think in that instance it would not be unreasonable to expect that you would be restrained and arrested on the ground, regardless of whether you had the legal right to kick the seat in front of you.

I guess for practical reasons the highest authority would be the one that ultimately determines whether you end up in gaol, but all that trouble could have so easily been avoided!