Bleeding heart delays flight deporting illegal immigrant
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are so sucked in by the Jones/Pickering/Abbott/Howard fear mongering machine about refugees that you turn a debate about a soft protest that delays an aircraft into a safety scare worthy of a no fly list.
Do you guys still look for reds under the bed too?
Australia really is a redneck wonderland full of scared ignorant bogans.
Do you guys still look for reds under the bed too?
Australia really is a redneck wonderland full of scared ignorant bogans.
If it was a federal offence, they would be charged. Have they been charged with a federal offence? No. Because they didn't commit one. The aircraft was still at the gate.
Next you'll be trying to tell me you are interfering with the safe operation of a flight if you are late to board, thus delaying the aircraft.
Next you'll be trying to tell me you are interfering with the safe operation of a flight if you are late to board, thus delaying the aircraft.
No I will not be telling you a late passenger is interfering with the safe operation of an aircraft because they are not, the power is squarely in the Captains hands, you offload there bags and go without them!
I don't know the ins and outs of this case but I can say this. Nobody has the right to force anybody to fly unless they are a prisoner of the commonwealth. If you decide to get off the plane at any stage, for any reason, up until the aircraft is pushed back from the gate......nobody has the right to stop you. That is called 'deprivation of liberty'.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
danielx2
Well said. The politics behind this are immaterial. The fare paying public have a right to expect the carrier that they have paid to provide a safe and efficient service. I consider QF acted correctly in this case. Furthermore I consider Qantas’ actions will be viewed in a positive light by the travelling public, ergo if our hand–wringing lefty mates expect some sort of backlash they are likely to be disappointed. Quite the opposite, I expect.
Question for those knowledgeable about such things; would other airlines now also consider banning Mr Leary?
Well said. The politics behind this are immaterial. The fare paying public have a right to expect the carrier that they have paid to provide a safe and efficient service. I consider QF acted correctly in this case. Furthermore I consider Qantas’ actions will be viewed in a positive light by the travelling public, ergo if our hand–wringing lefty mates expect some sort of backlash they are likely to be disappointed. Quite the opposite, I expect.
Question for those knowledgeable about such things; would other airlines now also consider banning Mr Leary?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was unaware the PPRune was a political forum but it appears that it is.
To me there are valid positions on both sides of the refugee debate and this is not the appropriate forum to discuss.Its a very complex argument not helped by the standard of debate on both sides.
To get back to the subject.The rules on what is a safety incident are easily available and it appears that many posters have not bothered to access them. There are also a number of ICAO treaties that also come into play.
For those of you who seem to have a concrete position on punters not being able to leave the aircraft before door closure, perhaps you should read the current Rumours and News thread on United, particularly #48.If the accusation is true and there was a suspicion of an Ebola exposed pax being on an aircraft that you were on, I suspect all of us would leave the aircraft if the doors were still open?
All airlines in Australia are "common carriers " and as such have limited powers on who they can refuse to carry. So this one may be not so clear cut.
Wunwing
To me there are valid positions on both sides of the refugee debate and this is not the appropriate forum to discuss.Its a very complex argument not helped by the standard of debate on both sides.
To get back to the subject.The rules on what is a safety incident are easily available and it appears that many posters have not bothered to access them. There are also a number of ICAO treaties that also come into play.
For those of you who seem to have a concrete position on punters not being able to leave the aircraft before door closure, perhaps you should read the current Rumours and News thread on United, particularly #48.If the accusation is true and there was a suspicion of an Ebola exposed pax being on an aircraft that you were on, I suspect all of us would leave the aircraft if the doors were still open?
All airlines in Australia are "common carriers " and as such have limited powers on who they can refuse to carry. So this one may be not so clear cut.
Wunwing
I don't know the ins and outs of this case but I can say this. Nobody has the right to force anybody to fly unless they are a prisoner of the commonwealth.
Be interesting to see if he takes this further in court as I would suggest he may need to fly for his job.
If the guy voluntarily offloaded himself because he just got a call that his wife was taken to hospital due to a car crash, would QF still ban him?
F. Nose, the airline appears to have been well aware of its responsibilities and did not deprive anyone of their liberty to leave the aircraft.
Notwithstanding "common carrier" obligations, methinks danieldaniel's point would win the day in court. A trader surely has the right to decline business from those who seek to disrupt their activities - whether because they don't pay on time, or as in this case, because they incur costs which would be difficult to recover and also because they disrupt other legitimate customers who could then go elsewhere if they thought that the trader was not serving their best interests.
I would love to see these dopes actually challenge this in court to see how it plays out.
Notwithstanding "common carrier" obligations, methinks danieldaniel's point would win the day in court. A trader surely has the right to decline business from those who seek to disrupt their activities - whether because they don't pay on time, or as in this case, because they incur costs which would be difficult to recover and also because they disrupt other legitimate customers who could then go elsewhere if they thought that the trader was not serving their best interests.
I would love to see these dopes actually challenge this in court to see how it plays out.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach.
By calling the guy a "dope" you have already prejudged him with very limited and unsubstantiated information. I learnt long ago not to take info in the press of any form as even remotely approaching the true position and that seems to be the common opinion of most PPRuners on most Aviation subjects commented on in these Forums.
If he is as accused, he will undoubtedly take court action and your wish will be granted. Maybe that result will not be as some on this Forum would wish?
If he is as he orginally claimed, an offended bystander, then there is a very good chance that he will quietly be paid off and we on PPRune will never hear any more of the matter. Time will tell who is right but being a "Common Carrier" does mean that whatever happens the law has some say in the final outcome.
Wunwing
By calling the guy a "dope" you have already prejudged him with very limited and unsubstantiated information. I learnt long ago not to take info in the press of any form as even remotely approaching the true position and that seems to be the common opinion of most PPRuners on most Aviation subjects commented on in these Forums.
If he is as accused, he will undoubtedly take court action and your wish will be granted. Maybe that result will not be as some on this Forum would wish?
If he is as he orginally claimed, an offended bystander, then there is a very good chance that he will quietly be paid off and we on PPRune will never hear any more of the matter. Time will tell who is right but being a "Common Carrier" does mean that whatever happens the law has some say in the final outcome.
Wunwing
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are so sucked in by the Jones/Pickering/Abbott/Howard fear mongering machine about refugees that you turn a debate about a soft protest that delays an aircraft into a safety scare worthy of a no fly list.
I can chose who my business does business with, I'd expect that Qantas can & will do the same, good on you Qantas for kicking these clowns off, I hope you continue to do so
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of you so concerned at the loss of the offending passengers rights don't seem to be so concerned with the other passengers.
What about the family down the back racing to be at the deathbed of their Mother? They were really impressed with the delay!
They may well have the right to get off, the Airline equally has the right not to carry them in future.
I would like to see a system where delays could be quantified and the delay causing pax fined. (Except legitimate medical issues etc)
Too many times people check in their bags and then "get lost" in the shopping centres posing as terminals.
What about the family down the back racing to be at the deathbed of their Mother? They were really impressed with the delay!
They may well have the right to get off, the Airline equally has the right not to carry them in future.
I would like to see a system where delays could be quantified and the delay causing pax fined. (Except legitimate medical issues etc)
Too many times people check in their bags and then "get lost" in the shopping centres posing as terminals.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porter/Tank
This incident is not a matter of what you would like the situation to be to suit your political agenda, its what the Law says. This incident brings into play a lot of Laws and Treaties and as such if persued will end up redefining Airlines',Captain's and passengers rights.As I said before, if it goes the wrong way for the carrier it may not be all that good.
My bet is that it will quietly go away and be sorted behind the scenes.Most businesses shy away from test cases if there is even a remote chance that it may not go their way
Wunwing
This incident is not a matter of what you would like the situation to be to suit your political agenda, its what the Law says. This incident brings into play a lot of Laws and Treaties and as such if persued will end up redefining Airlines',Captain's and passengers rights.As I said before, if it goes the wrong way for the carrier it may not be all that good.
My bet is that it will quietly go away and be sorted behind the scenes.Most businesses shy away from test cases if there is even a remote chance that it may not go their way
Wunwing
Wunwing
I suggest you are grossly overstating the obligations of “Common Carrier” status to fit your argument. A common carrier is legally bound to carry all passengers or freight as long as there is enough space, the fee is paid, and no reasonable grounds to refuse to do so exist. A common carrier that unjustifiably refuses to carry a particular person or cargo may be sued for damages. I would contend Qantas have very “reasonable grounds” to refuse carnage to those on their “No Fly List”. It isn’t hard to prove a prior connection of all involved in this protest whether it be with the use of IT and looking at booking times, bank account details used, ISP etc, the use of security cameras in the terminal and the circumstantial evidence that he works for a “Social Justice Organisation” which he has admitted. Also by his own admission he said he became aware of the deportee from refugee advocates when he arrived at the airport. Why didn’t he tell check-in staff of his displeasure at check-in if he was so disturbed by it? Also irrespective of a passengers rights to get off a flight, if a passenger is ordered to sit down by a crew member and refuses, he/she has violated Federal Laws and can be prosecuted “if the Captain so wishes to pursue it”.
Qantas Conditions of Carriage
I suggest you are grossly overstating the obligations of “Common Carrier” status to fit your argument. A common carrier is legally bound to carry all passengers or freight as long as there is enough space, the fee is paid, and no reasonable grounds to refuse to do so exist. A common carrier that unjustifiably refuses to carry a particular person or cargo may be sued for damages. I would contend Qantas have very “reasonable grounds” to refuse carnage to those on their “No Fly List”. It isn’t hard to prove a prior connection of all involved in this protest whether it be with the use of IT and looking at booking times, bank account details used, ISP etc, the use of security cameras in the terminal and the circumstantial evidence that he works for a “Social Justice Organisation” which he has admitted. Also by his own admission he said he became aware of the deportee from refugee advocates when he arrived at the airport. Why didn’t he tell check-in staff of his displeasure at check-in if he was so disturbed by it? Also irrespective of a passengers rights to get off a flight, if a passenger is ordered to sit down by a crew member and refuses, he/she has violated Federal Laws and can be prosecuted “if the Captain so wishes to pursue it”.
Qantas Conditions of Carriage
10. Refusal of Carriage and Denied Boarding
10.1 Refusal of Carriage
Even if you have a Ticket and a confirmed reservation, we may refuse to carry you and your Baggage if any of the following circumstances have occurred or we reasonably believe will occur:
• if carrying you or your Baggage may put the safety of the aircraft or the safety or health of any person in the aircraft in danger or at risk
• if you have used threatening, abusive or insulting words towards our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft or otherwise behaved in a threatening manner
• if carrying you or your Baggage may materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft
• if carrying you will break government laws, regulations, orders or an immigration direction from a country to which you are travelling or are to depart from
• because you have refused to allow a security check to be carried out on you or your Baggage
• because you do not appear to have all necessary documents
• if you fail to comply with any applicable law, rule, regulation or order or these Conditions of Carriage
• if you fail to complete the check-in process by the Check-In Deadline or fail to arrive at the boarding gate on time
• because you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security
• because you have not complied with our medical requirements
• because you require special assistance and you have not made prior arrangements with us for this
• if you are drunk or under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• if you are, or we reasonably believe you are, in unlawful possession of drugs
• if your mental or physical state is a danger or risk to you, the aircraft or any person in it
• if you have committed a criminal offence during the check-in or boarding processes or on board the aircraft
• if you have deliberately interfered with a member of our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties
• if you have put the safety of either the aircraft or any person in it in danger
• if you have made a threat
• because you have committed misconduct on a previous flight and we have reason to believe that such conduct may be repeated
• because you cannot prove you are the person specified on the Ticket on which you wish to travel
• because you are trying to use a Flight Coupon out of sequence without our agreement
• if you destroy your travel documents during the flight
• if you have refused to allow us to photocopy your travel documents
• if you have refused to give your travel documents to a member of Our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft when we have asked you to do so
• if we reasonably believe you will ask the relevant government authorities for permission to enter a country through which you are Ticketed as a transit Passenger
• because your Ticket:
- is not paid for
- has been reported lost or stolen
- has been transferred
- has been acquired unlawfully
- has been acquired from someone other than us or an Authorised Agent
- contains an alteration which has not been made by us or an Authorised Agent
- is spoiled, torn or damaged or has otherwise been tampered with, or
- is counterfeit or otherwise invalid.
In any of the situations in this 10.1, we may remove you from a flight, even after you have boarded, without any liability on our part, and cancel any subsequent flights on the Ticket.
10.1 Refusal of Carriage
Even if you have a Ticket and a confirmed reservation, we may refuse to carry you and your Baggage if any of the following circumstances have occurred or we reasonably believe will occur:
• if carrying you or your Baggage may put the safety of the aircraft or the safety or health of any person in the aircraft in danger or at risk
• if you have used threatening, abusive or insulting words towards our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft or otherwise behaved in a threatening manner
• if carrying you or your Baggage may materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft
• if carrying you will break government laws, regulations, orders or an immigration direction from a country to which you are travelling or are to depart from
• because you have refused to allow a security check to be carried out on you or your Baggage
• because you do not appear to have all necessary documents
• if you fail to comply with any applicable law, rule, regulation or order or these Conditions of Carriage
• if you fail to complete the check-in process by the Check-In Deadline or fail to arrive at the boarding gate on time
• because you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security
• because you have not complied with our medical requirements
• because you require special assistance and you have not made prior arrangements with us for this
• if you are drunk or under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• if you are, or we reasonably believe you are, in unlawful possession of drugs
• if your mental or physical state is a danger or risk to you, the aircraft or any person in it
• if you have committed a criminal offence during the check-in or boarding processes or on board the aircraft
• if you have deliberately interfered with a member of our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties
• if you have put the safety of either the aircraft or any person in it in danger
• if you have made a threat
• because you have committed misconduct on a previous flight and we have reason to believe that such conduct may be repeated
• because you cannot prove you are the person specified on the Ticket on which you wish to travel
• because you are trying to use a Flight Coupon out of sequence without our agreement
• if you destroy your travel documents during the flight
• if you have refused to allow us to photocopy your travel documents
• if you have refused to give your travel documents to a member of Our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft when we have asked you to do so
• if we reasonably believe you will ask the relevant government authorities for permission to enter a country through which you are Ticketed as a transit Passenger
• because your Ticket:
- is not paid for
- has been reported lost or stolen
- has been transferred
- has been acquired unlawfully
- has been acquired from someone other than us or an Authorised Agent
- contains an alteration which has not been made by us or an Authorised Agent
- is spoiled, torn or damaged or has otherwise been tampered with, or
- is counterfeit or otherwise invalid.
In any of the situations in this 10.1, we may remove you from a flight, even after you have boarded, without any liability on our part, and cancel any subsequent flights on the Ticket.
11. Conduct During Flight
11.1 Obey Directions
To maximise passenger comfort, safety and security, you must comply with the following requirements, and all other reasonable directions of any crew member on your flight with us, when on board:
• stow Cabin Baggage under the seat in front of you or in the overhead lockers
• take care when you open overhead lockers, since Cabin Baggage may move during flight
• keep your seatbelt fastened when seated
• remain seated with your seatbelt securely fastened during turbulence
• stay seated as directed, in particular while the aircraft is moving on the tarmac
• do not smoke
• if you drink alcohol, drink only in moderation and only alcohol served on your flight with us as part of our inflight bar service
• use infant and child restraints as directed
• do not behave in a manner to which other passengers may reasonably object,
and
• if asked by a member of the crew acting reasonably, you must give your passport or other travel document to them for safe custody until the end of the flight.
We may also ask you not to operate any electronic devices including cellular telephones, laptop computers, recorders, radios, CD players, electronic games, laser products or transmitting devices, remote or radio controlled toys that could interfere with the flight. If you fail to comply with our requests, we may retain the device until the end of the flight. Hearing aids and heart pacemakers are permitted.
11.1 Obey Directions
To maximise passenger comfort, safety and security, you must comply with the following requirements, and all other reasonable directions of any crew member on your flight with us, when on board:
• stow Cabin Baggage under the seat in front of you or in the overhead lockers
• take care when you open overhead lockers, since Cabin Baggage may move during flight
• keep your seatbelt fastened when seated
• remain seated with your seatbelt securely fastened during turbulence
• stay seated as directed, in particular while the aircraft is moving on the tarmac
• do not smoke
• if you drink alcohol, drink only in moderation and only alcohol served on your flight with us as part of our inflight bar service
• use infant and child restraints as directed
• do not behave in a manner to which other passengers may reasonably object,
and
• if asked by a member of the crew acting reasonably, you must give your passport or other travel document to them for safe custody until the end of the flight.
We may also ask you not to operate any electronic devices including cellular telephones, laptop computers, recorders, radios, CD players, electronic games, laser products or transmitting devices, remote or radio controlled toys that could interfere with the flight. If you fail to comply with our requests, we may retain the device until the end of the flight. Hearing aids and heart pacemakers are permitted.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That document may or may not stand the test of a court.It also may be valid in one jurisdiction and not another as in the case of both major airlines, they have divisions that are allocated rights under State's jurisdiction and as such State consumer laws apply. An Australian blanket ban may fail on that basis.
As I have said this could get very messy and I predict it will just disappear and be sorted behind the scenes.
At least now we seem to be arguing the actual rules etc for pax removing themselves from aircraft rather than the refugee/ bleeding hearts subject that in fact started the thread. This is not a political forum, Aviation matters apart and it should not become one.
Wunwing
As I have said this could get very messy and I predict it will just disappear and be sorted behind the scenes.
At least now we seem to be arguing the actual rules etc for pax removing themselves from aircraft rather than the refugee/ bleeding hearts subject that in fact started the thread. This is not a political forum, Aviation matters apart and it should not become one.
Wunwing
Wunwing
With all due respect there is no debating the said passengers were in violation of Federal Law in refusing to abide a crew direction. On this ground alone they can find themselves not only on an airlines “No Fly List” but also the Commonwealth Governments “No Fly List”. My advice to them is to admit their wrong doing, apologise to all those affected and promise they won’t do it again because if they do decide to pursue their perceived rights, it could very well blow up in their faces.
With all due respect there is no debating the said passengers were in violation of Federal Law in refusing to abide a crew direction. On this ground alone they can find themselves not only on an airlines “No Fly List” but also the Commonwealth Governments “No Fly List”. My advice to them is to admit their wrong doing, apologise to all those affected and promise they won’t do it again because if they do decide to pursue their perceived rights, it could very well blow up in their faces.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Adelaide, SA
Age: 63
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypotheticals
If a passenger is a nervous traveler, and if sometime after boarding some event occurs (say another passenger protesting or ranting about something) that increases our first passengers anxiety, is it ever OK for them to ask to leave the aircraft?
I am assuming here that our first nervous passenger has no connection to our protesting passenger.
I am assuming that once doors are closed - sorry mate you are on the flight.
But prior to doors closed, are there any opportunities to de-plane? Does checked luggage versus no checked luggage make a difference?
Thoughts?
I am assuming here that our first nervous passenger has no connection to our protesting passenger.
I am assuming that once doors are closed - sorry mate you are on the flight.
But prior to doors closed, are there any opportunities to de-plane? Does checked luggage versus no checked luggage make a difference?
Thoughts?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wunwing,
You can attempt to steer the discussion any way you want but...
It's becoming increasingly clear that this was a premeditated, orchestrated stunt designed to draw media attention to a political viewpoint.
In my book, that is not acceptable behaviour - aside from any of the other considerations which have been raised in previous posts.
You can attempt to steer the discussion any way you want but...
It's becoming increasingly clear that this was a premeditated, orchestrated stunt designed to draw media attention to a political viewpoint.
In my book, that is not acceptable behaviour - aside from any of the other considerations which have been raised in previous posts.