國泰向「機場阿嬸」道歉 YouTube

ravemother

【記者王智報道】
http://www.singpao.com/NewsArtic ... ID=4618&Lang=tc

YouTube網站上月出現一段熱爆全城的「機場阿嬸」短片，一名中年女士因為遲到無法登機而情緒失控，躺在地上打滾。據了解，「機場阿嬸」上周約見國泰航空人員，表示親友都有看短片，令她十分尷尬。國泰亦證實該段熱爆短片的「攝影師」是國泰的地勤人員，因此已對該員工進行紀律處分及警告，並且要向「機場阿嬸」致歉。

碌地被攝錄上網

        據悉，「機場阿嬸」是名經常往返本港與美國三藩市的國泰乘客，上月4日她與丈夫及一名友人，因遲到而無法登上CX782的航班，有人見她情緒失控，不動聲色地用手機拍下過程。

        「機場阿嬸」於上周約見國泰人員，但在整個會面過程中，她表現平靜，沒有提高聲線，亦沒有要求國泰賠償。而她獲國泰贈送不少飛哩數，最近她乘搭國泰航班，亦得到免費機位升級。

        事發一個月後，國泰航空發言人昨日表示，已證實拍片者是國泰的地勤員工，國泰並已向該名「攝影師」作出紀律處分及警告，又為短片令該女士尷尬而致歉。發言人表示，該短片其後由第三者上載到YouTube網站，強調該人並不是國泰的員工，公司事後亦提醒所有員工，要明白及尊重乘客的私隱權。



[ 本帖最後由 ravemother 於 2009-3-5 11:29 編輯 ]

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-9 22:12 發表
the whole case is all about 唔尊重客人.  nothing to deal with privacy, since it is the middle of the airport.  so there is no conflict between my statement and the fox new reporter.

Of course, if the one who filmed was not a CX staff but a "nobody bystander", probably no one can dig him/her out and thus no "唔尊重客人" would have occurred.
So called "there is no privacy in the middle of the airport" means, anyone inside the airport might be monitored by the airport for security reason anyways, but doesn't mean anyone can film or photograph any other one(s) and broadcast them without any concern and liability.

the reporter also said there no legal responsibility for either the one who taped it or published it.  if the woman is going to sue either one, she won't win.

Of course, there are "statute law" (public law) and "civil law". For example, you killed somebody, that is under statute law. And if you divorce, that is under civil law.
The case was not enough for the lady to sue CX for legal (statutory) liability, yet she may successfully sue CX for civil liability. However, sometimes civil matters could be more time consuming than legal matters (no concrete evidence and is much more debatable sometimes), and that's why some people would choose to have settlement outside court. Same as this case.

tofu

the whole case is all about 唔尊重客人.  nothing to deal with privacy, since it is the middle of the airport.  so there is no conflict between my statement and the fox new reporter.
the reporter also said there no legal responsibility for either the one who taped it or published it.  if the woman is going to sue either one, she won't win.

mcvities

i too agree that the staff should never take the video in the first place. i'm sure he/she had violated some sort of 'code of conduct' on their staff manual. by allowing someone to broadcast it (with the intention to humiliate and broadcast a client's negative image), it's obviously a no-no in the service industry! how would u feel, if you phone telus to complain about something, and the call centre staff recorded your voice clip and broadcast it? i guess you might argue yelling over the phone is more acceptable than throwing a tantrum in the public. but to me, the staff is obviously not professional and inappropriate. they are supposed to protect a client's privacy. instead, they caused harm without knowing the background of the woman.

sheep

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 01:50 發表
yes-唔尊重客人
hm......侵犯私隱?!?

if you were filmed on a movie, tv show, news or etc when you are just walking on the street, can you sue them 侵犯私隱?

so many people are shooting pic on the str ...

有可能
因此 电影公司會响当眼處 貼張告示出泥
話 如果你响呢度行过
有可能會被拍入鏡头內
如果唔想  請掉头走

[ 本帖最後由 sheep 於 2009-3-8 16:06 編輯 ]

Ultraman

原帖由 Manlau 於 2009-3-8 05:35 發表
Just out of curiosity, I have a few questions: 1) If a staff of CX got a stroke because of this woman abnormal behavior, can the staff sue this woman for negligence or some other reason? 2) If we own the sky above our house and the ground below it, how are we going to split the ownership for owners who live in a multi-storeys building such as apartment? 3) And do we have the right to mine under our house?

1) Yes, anyone can try to sue another with his/her own reason (doesn't necessary mean he/she will succeed at the end). In this case, the staff can seek for civil action only.
2) At Common Law, the "ownership" of the sky above and ground below is a legal (but abstract) concept. Practically, it has been modified that the land owner owns or has rights in the airspace above his/her property only to the extent that the land owner can make effective use of it. And for the ground below, Provincial Governments have reserved rights for the use of it.
3) First, it's about zoning. Second, whether it's for your own personal use or for commercial use (you can try to apply it). Third, the Provincial Government has rights to take your land if there are precious mineral, metals and/or petroleum underground, and in return to give you compensation.

Ultraman

原帖由 giginium 於 2009-3-8 00:13 發表


really? I didn't know that if you owned land property that right also extended upwards and downwards. Can you show me a link? I'm really interested to find out just out of curiosity.

Trust me, that's at Common Law in Canada.
I don't have an exact link on hand. But I think you can search it online as "land ownership", "real estate ownership", or "extent of land ownership"... etc. You might able to find it.

Ultraman

原帖由 tofu 於 2009-3-7 22:42 發表
learn from your style.  if you can find a point to argue back, you will.  if not, you will just skip it.  kind of like mr. t.
i will believe it unless someone can show me why my example cannot go alon ...

Did you hear that clearly?
One of the women (a US lawyer)said, the airline has rights to tape the lady but no rights to publish it. She also questioned the purpose of taping and publishing the video.
They also mentioned, they (CX) crossed the line for the video being published.
They also said, between the contract between the airline and the lady (customer), the lady should arrive at gate 30mins earlier. It's the lady's own responsibility for being late, that the airline won't need to compensate her for anything (legally). However, the video being published is not under a rightful/legal act, and that's why the lady got compensation from the airline.
And after all, they're giving comments under US laws.

Manlau

Just out of curiosity, I have a few questions: 1) If a staff of CX got a stroke because of this woman abnormal behavior, can the staff sue this woman for negligence or some other reason? 2) If we own the sky above our house and the ground below it, how are we going to split the ownership for owners who live in a multi-storeys building such as apartment? 3) And do we have the right to mine under our house?

rainbow-davie

原帖由 giginium 於 2009-3-8 01:13 發表


really? I didn't know that if you owned land property that right also extended upwards and downwards. Can you show me a link? I'm really interested to find out just out of curiosity.

咁正? 突然我覺得交地稅交得好抵.  原來我同時擁有天堂同地嶽.