oicur12.again:
"If he was genuinely wanting to "Boycott" the carrier"
My parents would love to boycott QF for many reasons but are doomed to fly QF because of the huge number of points they have. Maybe this guy is in a similar position.
But more importantly, where in the article did it state that he trying to boycott QF?
You guys really want a police state huh?
Firstly, I made no reference to the no fly list etc - so not sure how my post can be tied in to the nanny state argument.
Whilst I agree the word "boycott" was not used in the article, one could reasonably assume that by removing ones self from an aircraft which you had originally elected (and paid) to travel on by your own choosing would constitute a refusal (boycott) to travel with this carrier.
Ignoring that, my point was simply pointing out that this gentlemen and his peers were so outraged that QF was assisting with the deportation transfer, that they removed themselves from the flight, refusing to travel on this carrier. But magically, when there was no scene to make, they were more than happy to return with the same company. You either object to the companies practices or you don't.
Plus surely QF points could just be cashed out into vouchers if the thought of flying QF is so offensive.