Recently, the topic of "the man wants to upgrade for free and makes a big fuss causing the flight to be canceled and 300 people are rebooked" rushed to the hot search on Weibo. In a video posted by netizens, multiple crew members surrounded a man to persuade him, but the man was quite emotional and had a verbal confrontation with several passengers on board. Eventually, the flight was canceled.
The airline later responded that the flight was canceled due to weather reasons, which were force majeure factors, so it did not provide relevant compensation. On January 5, the Capital Airport Public Security issued a notice stating that at 23:41 on December 30, 2023, on an outbound flight from Daxing Airport, a group of three passengers had a dispute with the flight crew due to seat problems. After investigation, Dong and Zhao's behavior has violated the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, constituting an illegal act of disrupting order on public transportation, and Dong was punished with administrative detention and Zhao with an administrative fine in accordance with the law.
After the incident was exposed, many netizens condemned the "machine trouble" behavior at the same time, but also raised questions: the flight was finally canceled due to weather conditions, and the passengers could only change the ticket without any compensation, but the dispute lasted for more than two hours, did the dispute fail to deal with it in time, resulting in the flight missing the flightability time?
With these questions, the reporter interviewed relevant experts.
Delayed flights meet "machine trouble"
A large number of passengers have suffered from their rights and interests
Combined with public information, at 18:00 and 21:00 on December 30, 2023, two flights from Beijing to Chengdu, Sichuan Province were delayed, and passengers were uniformly arranged to take flight MU6797.
According to media reports, a passenger on the plane at the time recalled that after the passenger boarded the plane at around 23 o'clock, a man in the first class had an argument with the crew, and he only bought a first-class ticket for himself and the child passenger, and the nanny was in the economy class. After being refused, the man engaged in a "machine trouble", had verbal conflicts with the flight attendants, flight attendants, and even the surrounding passengers, and refused to correct his wrong words and deeds.
The two sides remained at a stalemate until about 1:30 a.m. the next day, when the man's family was taken away by the police. Subsequently, the on-board broadcast said that the flight was canceled due to the weather at Chengdu Shuangliu Airport, and passengers were advised to get off the plane. The passenger recalled.
After the flight is cancelled, CEA will provide the affected passengers with service guarantees such as accommodation and meals, transportation subsidies, refunds and changes at special counters, and make-up flights the next day, so as to minimize the negative impact on the passengers. On December 31, China Eastern Airlines arranged a make-up flight MU679S for passengers, which departed at 10:43 and arrived at Chengdu Tianfu Airport at 13:06.
A few days after the incident, some netizens posted a video of the dispute on social platforms, bluntly saying that "nearly 300 passengers paid for his rogue behavior", and the incident immediately sparked heated discussions.
Some voices believe that although the last flight was canceled due to weather conditions, the plane that was originally scheduled to take off at 23 o'clock is likely to miss the flyability time due to the dispute during the more than two hours of dispute. For the loss of passengers on board, the troublemaker must be held responsible. At the same time, if the crew members failed to stop and settle the dispute in time, should they also bear the corresponding responsibility?
Chen Dong, director of the aviation legal affairs department of Beijing Yinghe Law Firm, believes that the actual situation of the incident needs to be comprehensively assessed based on evidence at the scene, testimony of crew members and other passengers, and possible video recordings. The relevant civil aviation authorities will make judgments based on the investigation and evidence, and in accordance with the existing rules and regulations.
Chen Dong said that according to the available public information, according to the police report, the man's behavior clearly violated the provisions of Article 23, Paragraph 1 (3) of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, and constituted an illegal act of disrupting order on public transportation. This behavior not only affects the normal operation of the airline, but also infringes on the rights and interests of other passengers.
"The attitude and handling of the crew towards the man involved has also caused some controversy. Chen Dong said that the airline finally canceled the flight on the grounds of weather conditions, but failed to quickly and effectively stop the man's behavior and realize the continuation of the take-off, so as to protect the rights and interests of other passengers. The incident reflects the new compliance challenges faced by airlines on such issues.
Xu Lingjie, a professor at the Civil Aviation Flight University of China, told reporters that if the flight is canceled due to weather conditions, and the airline has fulfilled its protection of the rights and interests of passengers on the irregular flight in accordance with the law, the airline will not be held liable. If the flight is delayed or cancelled, and the airline bears the corresponding civil liability to the passengers, especially in the case of compensation or compensation, the airline has the right to recover from the violator; if the violator causes losses to the airline, the airline has the right to claim civil compensation; if the subsequent flight is delayed or cancelled due to the "machine trouble", the airline may be liable, and the violator shall also be liable.
Disputes arise in the manner in which it is handled
What is the root cause of flight cancellations?
According to the "Rules for the Safety and Security of Public Air Passenger Transport in Flight", if the crew disrupts the order in the aircraft or obstructs the crew from performing their duties, and refuses to listen to the dissuasion, the crew members shall take necessary control measures or require them to leave the aircraft before take-off or after landing.
According to Xu Lingjie, the Civil Aviation Law, which is the basic law in the field of civil aviation, stipulates that "during flight, the captain has the right to take necessary and appropriate measures on the premise of ensuring the safety of any act that disrupts the civil aircraft, disrupts the order in the civil aircraft, endangers the safety of persons or property on board the civil aircraft, and other acts that endanger flight safety."
The Rules for the Safety and Security of Public Air Passenger Transport during Flight stipulate that if the captain disrupts the order in the aircraft and obstructs the crew from performing their duties and refuses to listen to the dissuasion, he may require the crew to take necessary measures to restrain the perpetrator or require him to leave the aircraft before take-off or after landing. Therefore, the captain has the right to order the disruptor to leave the plane, and if he does not leave the plane, he can notify the public security organ of the ground airport for handling. Xu Lingjie said.
According to the revelations, in this incident, the dispute lasted for more than two hours, during which the man also had an argument with other passengers on the plane. This has caused many netizens to question: Is it a dereliction of duty for the crew to let the dispute remain deadlocked for a long time?
"In this case, the dispute lasted more than two hours and was accompanied by an argument with other passengers, and theoretically the crew had the right and responsibility to take steps to resolve the issue so that the flight could take off as planned. If the situation cannot be resolved through persuasion, the crew should consider other means, including requesting security personnel to intervene or asking the passenger in question to disembark. Chen Dong said that on the question of whether the crew members were negligent in their duties, more needs to be known about the specific details of the incident.
Under normal circumstances, crew members will do their best to ensure flight safety, smooth flight mission and comply with applicable regulations, Chen Dong said. If there is indeed an error or mishandling, the airline will conduct an internal investigation and take appropriate action based on the results of the investigation. If a crew member fails to take timely and effective action within the limits permissible, it may be considered a failure to perform their duties. The determination of actual responsibility usually requires an understanding of the results of a comprehensive investigation of the incident and even the conclusion of a judicial trial.
"According to the description of the incident, the man's dispute on the plane did cause a delay in time. Normally, if a passenger's misconduct directly results in a flight not departing on time, the passenger is responsible for the resulting delay. Chen Dong said.
He further explained that if the man's actions did not show up, the flight could have taken off before the weather changed, thus avoiding being canceled. His actions may be considered, then, as a factor that indirectly contributed to the cancellation of the flight.
In this case, if other passengers complain as a result, the airline will need to consider the following points when handling the complaint: first, whether there was improper service or response on the part of the airline, which exacerbated the impact of the dispute and the processing time, second, whether the causal link between the man's actions and the last flight cancellation could be substantially linked, and third, if it was ultimately determined that there was a direct relationship between the man's actions and the flight cancellation, then the passenger's complaint could prompt the airline to hold the man responsible。
Increase the intensity of rectification and punishment
Improve the ability to react and dispose of it
The reporter combed through and found that in recent years, incidents of "machine trouble" have occurred from time to time, and the public security organs have mostly punished the troublemakers for violating the Public Security Administration Punishment Law. For example, in September 2023, on a flight from Kunming, Yunnan Province to Beijing, after all passengers had boarded the plane, two passengers got into an argument over adjusting the back of their seats, and one of the passengers also moved his hand, causing the flight to be delayed for 93 minutes. After investigation, the police criticized and educated the front passengers, and imposed a penalty of 3 days of administrative detention on the rear passengers.
Chen Dong introduced that for "machine trouble" behavior, that is, the occurrence of trouble, violence or other behaviors that affect public order on the plane, the current Chinese laws and regulations on the punishment of such behaviors are mainly based on the public security administration punishment law. In addition to public security penalties, "machine trouble" may also violate criminal or administrative law provisions and face more severe penalties.
If the act of "making noise" seriously threatens the safety of the aircraft and causes serious consequences, it may constitute the crime of sabotage of vehicles, the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means, or the crime of intentional injury, etc., and criminal liability shall be borne. In accordance with the Civil Aviation Law and the Civil Aviation Safety and Security Regulations, passengers may be restricted from taking civil airlines for acts that impede flight safety and order, and may be included in the "blacklist" for industry bans.
Chen Dong said that according to the relevant regulations of the airline, passengers who do not comply with the flight regulations and instructions may be denied boarding, that is, they will not be able to buy tickets or use the airline's services for a period of time in the future. In addition to the above-mentioned legal liabilities, the "noisy" person may also be liable for the economic losses incurred by the airline, including but not limited to additional fuel costs, compensation costs for delays and other related losses.
In Xu Lingjie's view, taking the incident of "a man wanting to upgrade for free and causing a big fuss and causing flight cancellations" as an example, the two offenders were sentenced to administrative detention and fines respectively, which should be the corresponding punishment made by the public security organs after determining the facts, circumstances and the degree of social harm. The legal consequences of public security punishments, coupled with the positive publicity and education of the media, coupled with the public's verbal and written criticism, this kind of influence is long-lasting, and it is also a kind of "punishment" for the violators, and it is also a kind of education for the public.
In addition, according to the "Opinions on Appropriately Restricting Specified Seriously Untrustworthy Persons from Boarding Civil Aircraft for a Certain Period of Time and Promoting the Establishment of the Social Credit System" (hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions") issued in 2018, the perpetrators may be included in the list of seriously untrustworthy persons restricted from taking civil aircraft for conduct that seriously disrupts cabin order or obstructs the crew's performance of their duties, with a validity period of one year.
Xu Lingjie said that a multi-pronged approach should be taken to deal with "machine troubles," and that it is a very effective measure to include "machine troublemakers" in the list of seriously untrustworthy persons and to restrict them from taking flights; first, restricting the entry of disruptors from the source can ensure the order of air transport; second, the means of restricting flight travel may have more serious consequences for violators, which will help them to reflect on their mistakes and repent of their mistakes. After the promulgation of the Opinions, in 2019, the Civil Aviation Administration of China issued the Notice on Further Implementing the Relevant Requirements for Appropriately Restricting Certain Seriously Untrustworthy Persons from Boarding Civil Aircraft within a Certain Period of Time, which strengthened the implementation and regularly published the list of seriously untrustworthy persons, with good social effects.
It is worth noting that the relevant departments have paid attention to and made efforts to crack down on the "machine trouble" behavior.
In July 2023, the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) held a mobilization and deployment meeting for the special action of "Rectifying Aircraft Disturbances in Accordance with the Law and Maintaining Aviation Safety Order", requiring resolutely curbing the frequent occurrence of "aircraft disturbances", increasing rectification and punishment, cracking down on "aircraft disturbances" strictly, quickly and severely in accordance with the law, and guiding passengers to take flights consciously and civilly. In addition, the public security organs of airports in Shaanxi, Shandong and other places have carried out emergency response training for "machine trouble" incidents.
Chen Dong believes that the control of "aircraft trouble" requires efforts from various aspects, and requires the joint efforts of the government, airlines, aviation management departments, social organizations and the public to form an effective joint force to ensure aviation safety and maintain good flight order. The relevant departments and the airlines themselves should formulate severe punishment measures, and deal with violations in a timely manner to form an effective deterrent. The government and aviation safety regulators should step up supervision and law enforcement, and deal with violators in a timely manner to ensure aviation safety. At the same time, a reporting channel will be set up to encourage the public to actively participate in supervision and report violations in a timely manner.
The interviewed experts said that in foreign countries, some countries have very severe punishment measures for "machine trouble" behavior, and some experience and practices can be used for reference. For example, U.S. aviation authorities can impose fines of up to $37,000 per passenger who don't comply with the rules, and Qantas can ban "noisy" passengers from flying for up to five years.
Xu Lingjie suggested that the popularization and publicity of civil aviation knowledge and legal norms should be strengthened, so that more passengers can know the rules of boarding and consciously abide by them to ensure the safety and order of civil aviation transportation. At the same time, based on the guidance of good morality and the core values of socialism, a wide range of public opinion has been formed, so that the "troublemakers" will pay a more serious price than the legal consequences, not only punishing the violators, but also educating and warning potential violators. In terms of civil aviation, in accordance with the disposal concept of "disposal in accordance with regulations and transfer in accordance with the law", the disposal capacity of "machine trouble" should be improved, and special training can be considered to improve the overall response and disposal capacity of the crew.
Source: Rule of Law Daily (all-media reporter Sun Tianjiao)