Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
It’s an interesting question whether a debt is owed if a court has not found that it’s owed. If it turns out that a debt is not owed unless a court has found that it’s owed, my description of impeding someone’s free movement (in a car or bike or a boat or an aircraft...) unless a demand for money to discharge an alleged debt is met would be “blackmail” or “extortion” or “false imprisonment” or a combination of those.
The terms of use of an airport, like any other terms, are open to interpretation, challenge, variation by conduct and unenforceability on a variety of grounds. Only courts have authority to decide what those terms mean.
I reckon Qantas should take Sunfish’s advice and cease inconveniencing Canberra airport with those pesky aircraft thingies.
Another crazy idea: Instead of allowing a monopoly asset to continue to be run for the purpose of increasing the private wealth of an individual, re-nationalise the thing and run it as a piece of public infrastructure for the public good.
100% correct - Lead Balloon. Just like Police... let's privatise policing then see how many people complain when someone tries to break into their house and they call 000 and the Police turn up but demand a $1000 emergency fee because they were attending another emergency and it's disrupted their 'demand management'.