Case Study: Arrogant Behavior of Aircraft Passengers towards Flight

Personnel

Erwansyah Sjarief

, Haedar Akib

, Umar Sugeng Hariyono

and Arini Syahradzi

Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma University

State University of Makassar (UNM)

University of Indonesia

Keywords: Arrogant Behavior, Flight Personnel, Aviation Safety and Security

Abstract: This research is a qualitative research, with aircraft passengers ‘arrogant behavior towards

aviation personnel as the study materials. This research is important to be conducted, since the

arrogant behavior of passengers - particularly those with high social status or even officials -

could harm the aviation personnel. In aviation, authorized personnel are not allowed to let

omissions occurred from pre-flight to post-flight. Any negligence or omissions, although

considered as small, has the potential to cause aircraft accident. That is why they are strictly

doing the security screening as well as security control. It is for the sake of creating flight safety

and security. This study concludes that such arrogant behavior of those with high social status or

even officials caused by their low awareness of aviation safety and security. Secondary data

sources are collected from the mass media associated with the case. As a qualitative research, the

method used to check and establish the validity of the data is triangulation, i.e. triangulation of

data sources and triangulation of theory. The researcher did not do the method triangulation,

because the data (secondary data) has clearly come from the on-line media that is used to explain

the phenomenon to be studied. Researchers conducted Triangulation of data sources through

interviewing informants and participant observation. Meanwhile the triangulation of theory was

conducted by comparing data with the relevant theoretical perspective to generate conclusions.

1 INTRODUCTION

Law enforcement in a society that is used to break

laws or rules is not an easy thing. Though they know

that one of the law enforcement objectives is to

protect them from various possibilities that will

harm them, but, since they are accustomed to

disobey the law, people are tend to still break the

law. In fact, what becomes surprising is those who

violate the law, have a high social standing. Among

them are those who have important positions in

government, or those whose their social status make

them a respected people in society.

The subject of this research is related to the

behavior of aircraft passengers, or the passengers’

families in complying to the aviation regulations. All

rules related to aviation, cannot be separated from

aviation safety and security issues. For that reason,

the enforcement of the aviation rules, start from the

arrival of passengers at the airport until the

passengers board the plane and then the aircraft

take-off, should be strictly enforced, without

exception. Anyone - regardless of their power and

position - when traveling by plane will be equally

treated, including VVIP passengers. However, for

these special VVIP passengers, a special procedure

is enacted.

Basically, the flight safety rules do not give

space for the occurrence of aircraft accidents, even

for just a slight chance. In the event of a plane crash,

there is a possibility of that it is caused by the

negligence of aviation personnel towards the flight

safety rules or due to factors beyond human

capabilities. Aviation rules are strictly enforced,

especially since there were several cases where

passengers became the cause of aircraft accidents.

During the last five years, there have been

several beatings by the aircraft passengers toward

the flight personnel, both to the ground personnel

and to the aircrew. I was occurred as flight personnel

104

Sjarief, E., Akib, H., Hariyono, U. and Syahradzi, A.

Case Study: Arrogant Behavior of Aircraft Passengers towards Flight Personnel.

DOI: 10.5220/0009917801040110

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 104-110

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

tried to strictly apply the flight safety rules.

Unfortunately passengers do not always accept it as

part of the flight safety and security procedures.

The first case occurred on 28 October 2013. The

perpetrator was an Ombudsman Commissioner of

the Republic of Indonesia, while the victim was one

of PT Gapura Angkasa (PT GA) staff, Yana Novia.

PT GA is an Airport Services company that takes

care of the ground handling. The incident started

when the aircraft with destination of Kualanamu

Airport, North Sumatra with flight number GA 227

which was originally departed at 07.45 WIB from

Sultan Syarif Kasim II Airport, Pekanbaru - Riau,

was delayed until 08.20 WIB. When Yana was

explaining to the passengers that the flight was

delayed because the pilot wanted to ensure the

weather conditions on Mount Sinabung, all of a

sudden, the Commissioner slapped Yana (Widjaya,

2013).

The second case, which still occurred in the same

year, happened to a flight attendant (FA) of Flight SJ

078 which was about to take off from Soekarno-

Hatta Airport to the destination of Depati Amir

Airport, Bangka. The incident started when the FA,

Nur Febriani (NF), admonished a passenger to turn

off his cell phone. Instead of heeding NF’s request,

the passenger was upset as NF was deemed as

having a rude and disrespectful manner. Whereas

according to NF, she rebuked politely. Prior to NF,

the other FA had also reprimanded the same

passenger to turn off his cell phone. When arrived at

the airport, NF was hit from the side using a rolled-

up newspaper. NF tried to run, then she was chased

and pushed and hit again. Later, it was known that

the passengers who did it were officials of Bangka

Belitung Province. According to the officers of

Pangkalan Baru Police Station, the Bangka Belitung

officer felt unfairly treated as a passenger. The

official said: "I am the passenger, I bought the ticket

with money. The passenger should be the king"

(Celestinus, 2013).

The third case, occurred on Wednesday, 5 July

2017 at Sam Ratulangi Airport, Manado. A female

passenger of flight ID6275 destination Jakarta,

slapped Aviation Security (AVSEC) officer. The

incident began when she and one other woman, were

passing a Walkthrough Metal Detector (WTMD)

check at the Security Check Point (SCP) 2. At the

time, she passed the detector, the alarm went off,

means that there is a metal element in her body. The

AVSEC officer - in accordance with the procedure -

asked the woman to take off her watch for X-rays re-

examination. It was not known how the AVSEC

officer asked her to take her watch off, the woman

suddenly came into anger and hit the AVSEC

personnel with the initials AM (21). Another

AVSEC member, EW, who tried to mediate the

incident, was slapped as well by the woman on his

left cheek. It was later discovered that the woman is

the wife of a high-rank police officer (Buol, 2017).

The fourth case is similar to the third case. An

AVSEC officer at Terminal 2F Soekarno Hatta

Airport, Tangerang, named Nur Fauzi (NF), was hit

not by passengers, but instead by a passenger

familyon July 30, 2017. NF was hit by a Navy

member with initials MH, due to misunderstanding.

MH accompanied his parents and brother-in-law

who were about to depart to Jayapura using

Sriwijaya Air. NF prohibited MH from entering the

check in area, because he did not have a ticket, and

recommended MH to ask the Officer In Charge’s

(OIC) to get the permission. After reported to the

OIC, he requested permission to enter the terminal

by showing the Military Member Identity Card to

NF. When he arrived at the check-in counter, it was

too late. MH blamed NF as the cause of his parents

and brother-in-law late check-in. Previously, in

2016, the hitting incident was also experienced by an

AVSEC officer with initial E by a high level

Indonesian Army at Soetta Airport (Panduwinata,

2017). It was alleged that the general was offended

by the way the AVSEC officer requested him to

remove his belt to be checked by the AVSEC

officers.

Those cases are interesting to be analyzed, to

answer the question of why passengers or

passengers’ family, including those with highly

respectable social status, hit the aviation personnel

when the aviation personnel were only doing their

job to prevent the possibility of an accident to

occurred.

2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Law Number 1 Year 2009 on Aviation,

Aviation personnel is described as a licensed or

certified personnel which was assigned duties and

responsibilities in the aviation sector (UU No. 1 Th

2009). In article 1 of Government Regulation No. 3

of 2001 on Aviation Security and Safety, an aviation

personnel is described as the aircraft personnel and

aviation security and safety personnel whose duties

are directly affecting the security and safety of

aircraft (PP No. 3 Th. 2001). Then in article 390 of

the same act, the flight personnel in performing their

duties are required to have certificates of competence

or licenses in accordance with the requirements as

Case Study: Arrogant Behavior of Aircraft Passengers towards Flight Personnel

105

has been set forth for their field of work (UU No. 1

Th 2009). Article 222 - which is more specific to the

personnel of the airport–explains that any airport

personnel who directly related to the operation and/or

maintenance of the airport facilities shall be licensed

or certified after they have passed several trainings

organized by an institution accredited by the

Minister, and meet the requirements: administrative,

physically and mentally healthy. Furthermore,

section 223 explains that the licensed airport

personnel must perform the work in accordance with

the provisions in their field of work and maintain the

capability possessed. If they violate the provisions,

their license could be deactivated, or even revoked

(UU No. 1 Th 2009). One example of airport

personnel is airport security or Aviation Security

(AVSEC). Annex 17 Chapter 2 explains about the

purpose of AVSEC that is, “each contracting state

shall have its primary objective the safety of

passenger, crew, ground personnel and the general

public in all matters related to safeguarding against

unlawful interference with civil aviation” (ICAO,

Annex 17 Security, 2011). Thus, each ICAO

member country is obliged to protect the security of

passengers, flight crews, ground officers and even the

general public in all matters relating to the security

towards unlawful acts on civil aviation. As such,

security screening and security control by AVSEC

officers towards the passengers are part of their duty

to recognize or detect and prevent the suppression or

the carried of prohibited items that can be used to

counteract law (Permenhub 127 Th 2015).

Likewise cabin crew or steward/stewardess. The

right name for the cabin crew is the flight attendant

which means the ones who attend or serve in a

flight. Flight attendant’s duties are set out in CASR

part 63, ranging from helping passengers to find

their seats, storing passenger luggage in the above

compartments or under the seats of each passenger,

inspecting all safety equipment including safety

inside the cabin before passengers are boarding up to

evacuate all passengers in case of an incident or

accident. It is also including directing passengers in

accordance with safety procedures as well as being

responsible for passenger’s comfort during flight. In

essence, the FA's job is to assist the pilot in an

airline operation.

Similar with AVSEC, FA should also pass a

certified special training/school as been regulated in

Article 58 of the Flight Law, that any aircraft

personnel who directly related to the operation of the

aircraft shall have a valid license or certificate of

competence acquired through education and / or

training held by an accredited institution and must

be recurrent or updated every year, to measure the

level of competence for flight service tasks (UU No.

1 Th 2009). In article 59 it is explained that a flight

attendant is obliged to perform their work in

accordance with the provisions in their work field

and maintain the capability they are possessed,

otherwise they will be subject to sanctions, from

warning, license freeze to revocation of license (UU

No. 1 Th 2009).

Thus, what is done by aviation personnel are

related to their profession. However, many people,

especially passengers of an airplane, are likely to

demeaning the profession, equalizing it with a

servant in public places or security forces in

shopping centers. Therefore, anyone, especially

those with high social status, even among the

perpetrators there is an Ombudsman Commissioner,

where the agency serves to oversee the

implementation of public services held by the State

Organizer and the Government, both Central and

Regional, including State-Owned Enterprises as well

as Private or private entities given the task of

holding certain public services (Ombudsman RI) is

actually doing the act of hitting aviation personnel

that should not be done by an Ombudsman

Commissioner.

From the observations that researchers did, there

are people who tend to demeaning the flight

personnel. From their appearance and manner, it can

be assumed that they have an important position.

This could be the cause of such violence towards the

aviation personnel. People in this category do not

want to be treated the same as other passengers,

especially related to the inspection. However, it

cannot be generalized that all those who occupy

important positions or those with high social status

behave that way. When researchers asked this to the

Executive General Manager of Halim Perdana

Kusuma Airport Jakarta, Col (Pilot) A. Rasyid

Jauhari, he explained that it cannot be generalized.

He gave an example, Minister of Transportation was

still obey the regulations, while he is at the airport to

travel. In fact, sometimes the Minister mingle with

the other passengers. However, there was a Minister

when he was left by GA-204 flight from Jakarta to

Jogjakarta on Wednesday, 24 February 2016,

showed his arrogant attitude. The minister missed

the flight because of his own fault, but he did not

admit it, moreover he blamed the airline. When he

finally arrived in Jogja, he explained various things

about the performance of an airline company as

dilapidated and far from satisfying and suffered huge

loss, in front of the UGM forum as he didn’t want to

be blamed for his lateness (Putera, 2016). The

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

106

Minister also explained an example about the

protection given by the state, that are not given to

other company (Rosyadi, 2016). He did not stop

there, as he said that he will also ask his colleague,

Minister of State Owned Enterprises, to fire the

Director of the airline company (Rappler.com,

2016). Amid various comments on the Minister's

stance, the Special Staff of the Minister explained

that the criticism was made because the service of

the government-owned airline was considered

disappointing. Then through his social media

account the Minister wrote, "I only protested

because the service was not good, why are you

people protested on me?”. Apparently the Minister's

tendency to defend himself was responded by a

fellow minister who wrote: "How come there are

still officials who asked to be over-served, it is not

that era anymore. If you were late then it is simply

you will be left #Garudaku" (Asril, 2016). In this

case, the minister did not hit the flight personnel, but

he showed his arrogant attitude.

Flight Psychologist Colonel (Ret.) Dr. Widura

Imam Sutopo, when interviewed about the behavior

of passengers, or people who jump over, strikes or

slaps aviation personnel, said that from the

psychological perspective there are two possibilities

causing violation at the airport or on the plane. First,

when those who do it are officials or family or

individuals who are in the "upper" social strata, they

tend to show a certain attitude to be differentiated

with the individual community in general. They

demand special treatments given their social status

to obtain certain privileges. If it is not due to that

reason, it is possibly caused by the second reason,

frustration. As an example, a delayed flight that may

lead to an aggressive attitude, so that someone could

carry out attacks, both verbally and physically.

However, it is obvious that the behavior of asking

for preferential treatment indicates that there is still a

behavioral orientation towards feudal attitudes in

certain levels of society in Indonesia. This usually

occurs in individuals who are oriented to power and

social degrees. Widura reminded that all actions

taken by aviation personnel are for safety and

security purposes, because all flight operating

systems at the airport are one of the flight operation

sub systems that must be monitored and maintained

in accordance with the applicable rules and

procedures.

Arrogant behavior, such as hitting officers in the

above cases, or like the Minister who missed his

flight, is very likely to occur due to a culture shock.

Cultural shock is the "shock" that occurred when a

person is in a "new world" he has never seen, felt or

experienced, which then changes their attitudes,

behaviors and values of those who experience it,

from their previous state. Many people have a good

attitude and manner before they occupied an

important position. However, they may change when

they occupy an important position. Sometimes the

attitudes and behaviors shown after occupying a

higher position do not reflect the attitudes and

behaviors that an official should show.

According to Kalervo Oberg (anthropologist),

culture shock defined as: "precipitated by the

anxiety that results from losing all our familiar signs

and symbols of social intercourse. These signs or

cues include the thousand and one ways in which we

orient ourselves to the situations of daily life

(Davidson, 2005). It can be argued that people who

experience culture shock face the anxiety of losing

the symbols that embedded in their selves. Thus they

create distance in social relationships from what they

have done before. Cultural shock is most likely to

occur in people who are upgraded (in terms of

position, rank, property or facility they have), which

he had never felt before. Such person then become

arrogant because they were not supported by the

foundation of a good mental attitude.

Cultural shock often occurs to many Indonesians,

who just occupied important positions. They tend to

ask to be treated or served differently from ordinary

people. That's what happens in the above cases. One

angry passengers said to the flight attendant: "I am a

passenger, I buy tickets with money, and thus should

be treated as a king". This is an example of someone

who experienced a culture shock, because he is a

local official. From what he previously said, there

are hidden meanings and messages that can be

interpreted, for example, you are just a flight

attendant (equating the FA as a servant, as explained

earlier), so you don’t have to control me. It can also

be interpreted as follow: I've bought the ticket with

an expensive price, why can’t I activate my mobile

phone? Another interpretation could be I'm an

official, so you have to serve me. In the above cases,

they consider what the aviation personnel did as an

exaggeration.

People who experienced cultural shock have

difficulties in adapting to new cultures for various

reasons. For example, because of their limited

context understanding in the external environment or

because they are unable to adapt to a new culture.

The worst thing is if it happens because of

unrealistic expectations of his new position. They

tend to show excessive self-existence, in order to

gain recognition from others, but unwittingly, they

Case Study: Arrogant Behavior of Aircraft Passengers towards Flight Personnel

107

instead show ignorance, incomprehension and even

their actions did embarrassing their selves.

Researchers' observations show passengers with

ordinary social status, tend to be obedient to the

rules, do not perform arrogant acts, as there is no

reason to show arrogance to aviation personnel. In

some cases, passengers with this ordinary social

status, could also be very mad with the flight

personnel, due to delayed flight and they are not

well-informed or being abandoned. In general,

anyone will be provoked emotionally if they feel

that they are treated unfairly as they should be.

Violence such as hitting tends to be done due to

uncontrolled emotions. Uncontrolled emotion itself

can occur because there are factors that can not be

accepted by the beater. The most common is when

the batter's self-esteem is demeaned or abused by the

beaten person, as Robert K. Cooper explains,

"Without the guidance of emotions, reasoning has

neither principal nor power" (Hillis, 2013). Thus,

beatings are likely to happen because passengers or

passenger families can not control their emotions,

and therefore they take an action they should not do,

because they lose their reason. In these cases, it is

highly irrational for passengers to be unable to

control their emotions, which leads them to lose

their reason, simply because the flight personnel

announce the flight delay due to weather conditions,

ask the passengers to not activate their cell phone or

ask the passengers to take their watch off when

passing through a metal detector, or because the

aviation personnel prohibits people from entering

areas that are only allowed for passengers.

In the cases mentioned above, it seems that no

airline personnel intends to degrade or harass the

passenger or passenger family self-esteem. What

they do, throughout the observation, is limited to

perform the duties as prescribed in the applicable

SOPs. There are no things or actions that could

provoke excessive emotion of the passengers. Yet as

what Priest Jane suggests about the customer's

behavior definition, where customer behavior is

defined as the mental, emotional and physical

activities that people engage in when selecting,

purchasing, using and disposing of products and

services so as to satisfy needs and desires (Priest,

et.al. 2013) it is possible when the mental, emotional

and physical condition of the passengers when they

are at the airport, or when they are on board the

aircraft, those people with high social status feel that

they are not being treated according to their needs,

wants and wishes, they feel that they are being

treated unreasonably and are not in accordance with

their position or social status by the flight personnel.

That's what makes them offended.

This kind of behavior is influenced by the

behavior of ambtenar (feodal spirit) as described by

psychologist Kasandra Putranto. According to

Kasandra, the phenomenon of a person shows the

behavior as what was happened to the women who

hit the AVSEC, is arising because the person does

not have good emotional and social capacity.

Concurring with Kasandra, Noor Rochman Hadjam,

a psychologist from the University of Gadjah Mada,

responded to the incident at Sam Ratulangi Airport,

Manado, assessed that such incidents had become a

plague, because of his high social status, he felt that

he should receive special treatment. It is then spread

to his family members who also asked for the same

privileged treatment. This phenomenon indicates the

remnants of feudalism in Indonesian society is still

exist, as the colonizing mentality will make someone

to feel dominant every time he has a higher social

status (bbc.com, 2010).

Such arrogant behavior tends to appear to the

people who have the power, to show their power and

self-existence as a person who has more power than

others, that makes them less appreciative towards

other people and treat others unreasonably.

The intentions to show power and self-existence

can also occur because of the influence of mental

model. Mental model, could be discovered when

someone perform an action, and such action was

influenced by the person's perception of what he saw.

If the perception is negative about what he sees, then

his actions will also be negative, and vice versa. Peter

M. Senge, in his book Fifth Discipline explains, the

mental models are conceptual frameworks consisting

of generalizations and assumptions from which we

understand the world and take action in it. We may

not even know that these mental models exist or are

affecting us (Senge, 1990) It is even possible that the

person does not know that the mental model has

influenced him in making a decision.

Another definition of mental model is beliefs,

ideas, images, and verbal descriptions that we

consciously or unconsciously form from our

experiences and which (when formed) guide our

thoughts and actions within narrow channels. These

representations of perceived reality explain cause and

effect to us, and lead us to expect certain results, give

meaning to events, and predispose us to behave in

certain (Businessdictionary.com, 2010).

Mental models often become obstacles in

learning, because it limits the way people think and

act so that there is no rejuvenation or innovation in

making decisions. That is, if one's mental model is

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

108

wrong in understanding a problem, then the decision

made will also be wrong. Basically the mental model

is:

1. Attitudes, behaviors and

habits of a person who is reluctant to accept

change, or tend to retain their old habits which

considered as permanent and could not be

changed.

2. Attitudes, behaviors and

habits of a person which presuming that the

actions he is doing is right and might be done,

because others do it too.

3. Attitudes, behaviors, habits

and actions of someone who does something

based on the things that are considered to be

beneficial to him, even if it is normatively

unacceptable and cannot be justified.

Mental models are almost identical to culture

shocks, as both are the attitudes and behaviors of

people who always think that they are right and thus

don’t have a willingness to change the way they

think and act, even if the ideas they are conveyed are

irrelevant and have been left behind. They will stick

to what they consider to be true, though there are

other more advanced alternatives.

The appearance of arrogant behavior from people

who have higher social status, is not apart from the

habit of society that sometimes treat people with

higher social status, such as officials or public

figure, in a much different way. These people then

deemed such special treatment as their rights and

privileges that belong to them. When they should

obey the strict rules, they ask to be privileged.

Instead of acting and behaving against the aviation

law or doing violation, they supposed top reserve

decency and propriety of being an official or public

figure. They are, of course, expected to be an

example for the ordinary people, not arrogant, not

doing any violence, especially hitting airline

personnel who only carry their tasks to implement

flight regulations. In the aviation world, aircraft

passengers are not allowed to do their own arbitrary

actions, not with standing that they are officials.

3 RESEARCH METHODS

This research is a qualitative research, which

examines the phenomenon of aircraft passenger’s

arrogant behavior towards flight personnel. The

method that commonly used in qualitative research

to examine and establish the data validity is

triangulation. In this research the initial data

(secondary data) comes from the several news in on-

line media to explain the phenomenon that will be

studied. Since the data is clear, the researchers does

not perform method triangulation, but still performs

triangulation of data sources and theory

triangulation. Triangulation of data sources was

done by interviewing informants and participant

observation, while the theory triangulation was done

by comparing data with the relevant theoretical

perspective to generate conclusions. Because the

researcher is a lecturer in Airport Management, it

really helps in formulating the expert judgment of

the studied problem (Rahardjo, 2010).

4 CONCLUSION

Air transport mode is a mode of transportation that

gives no tolerance to aviation personnel for possible

occurrence of omissions from pre-flight to post-

flight. Any slightest negligence has the potential to

cause an aircraft incident or accident. That is why

they are strictly implementing the aviation safety

rules and regulations. From these cases, it can be

concluded that many aircraft passengers, even if

they have high social status or an official, do not

understand well the intention and purpose of security

screening or security control. Although they

understand it, but because of their social status, they

tend to impose their own will. It could highly

possible that this is due to passenger’s low

awareness of aviation safety and security.

Aviation safety and security, are not only the

responsibility of airlines and airport operators,

instead it is also the responsibility of passengers. If

passengers are not obedient to the flight security and

safety regulations, e.g. do not want to be inspected

and behave arrogantly against the flight personnel, it

is possible that there could be infiltration or the

carrying of prohibited items which can threaten the

aviation safety and security.

It should be understood that the behavior of those

who impose their own will and need, which then

disregarding the flight safety and security

procedures, could lead to a fatal accident. For that

reason, anyone, regardless of their position or social

status, shall comply and adhere to the rules of

aviation safety and security.

REFERENCES

I. Widjaya, “Wakil Ketua Ombudsman Tampar Petugas

Bandara Pekanbaru,” news.liputan6.com, Jakarta, p.

732378, 29-Oct-2013.

Case Study: Arrogant Behavior of Aircraft Passengers towards Flight Personnel

109

T. HP Celestinus, “Gara-gara Diminta Matikan Ponsel,

Pejabat Pukul Pramugari,” Kompas.com, Jakarta, p.

15162015, 06-Jun-2013.

R. A. Buol, “Kronologi Kejadian Seorang Ibu Tampar

Petugas Bandara di Manado,” Kompas.com, Manado,

p. 9092811, 06-Jul-2017.

A. Panduwinata, “Kali ini Giliran Oknum TNI AL Pukul

Petugas AVSEC,” Warta Kota, Tangerang, 30-Jul-

2017.

UU No. 1 Th 2009, Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia

Nomor 1 Tahun 2009 Tentang Penerbangan.

Indonesia, 2009.

PP No. 3 Th. 2001, Peraturan Pemerintah Republik

Indonesia Nomor 3 Tahun 2001 Tentang Kemanan

dan Keselamatan Penerbangan. Indonesia, 2001.

ICAO, Annex 17 Security, no. March. 2011.

Permenhub 127 Th 2015, Peraturan Menteri Nomor 127

Tahun 2015 Tentang Program Keamanan Penerbangan

Nasional. Indonesia, 2015.

A. D. Putera, “Ini Klarifikasi Garuda soal Menteri

Marwan yang Tertinggal Pesawat,” Kompas.com,

Jakarta, pp. 8–9, 25-Feb-2016.

D. Rosyadi, “Cerita Menteri Marwan ketinggalan pesawat

dan marah-marah ke Garuda,” Merdeka.com, Jakarta,

26-Feb-2016.

Rappler.com, “Menteri Marwan Jafar ketinggalan

pesawat, minta direksi Garuda Indonesia diganti,”

Rappler.com Published, Jakarta, p. 123809, 26-Feb-

2016.

Sabrina Asril, “Menteri Marwan Berdalih Kritik Garuda

Bukan soal Ditinggal Pesawat,” Kompas.com, Jakarta,

25-Feb-2016.

M. Davidson, “Culture Shock, Learning Shock and Re-

entry Shock,” The University of Nottingham, 2005.

[Online]. Available:

http://international.bangor.ac.uk/content/culture-

shock-learning-shock-and-re-entry-shock-dr-michael-

davidson-university-nottingham.html. [Accessed: 04-

Aug-2017].

L. Hillis, “Emotional Developing,” J. Christ. Nurs., vol.

30, no. 3, pp. 155–157, 2013.

J. Priest, S. Carter, and D. A. Statt, Consumer Behaviour,

vol. 2013, no. 1009. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Business

School Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh EH14,

2013.

bbc.com, “Aksi ibu pejabat tampar petugas Bandara

Manado dan cerita lainnya,” bbc.com, Manado, 06-

Jul-2017.

P. M. Senge, “What Are Senge’s Mental Models ?

Problems with Mental Models,” 1990. [Online].

Available: https://study.com/academy/lesson/senges-

mental-models-definition-lesson-quiz.html%0APeter.

[Accessed: 08-Jul-2017].

Businessdictionary.com, “Mental Models,” 2010.

[Online]. Available:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/me

M. Rahardjo, “Triangulasi dalam Penelitian Kualitatif,”

2010. [Online]. Available: http://mudjiarahardjo.uin-

malang.ac.id/materi-kuliah/270-triangulasi-dalam

penelitian-kualitatif.pdf.

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

110