PDA

View Full Version : MERGED: Qantas ...was it blackmail?


kaz3g
15th May 2018, 01:36
Qantas 737 held for ransom at Canberra Airport | Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/05/qantas-737-held-for-ransom-at-canberra-airport/)

maggot
15th May 2018, 02:08
I'm curious what the legal implications are for the manager that approved this action... Interference?
where the hell are we, Africa?

Squawk7700
15th May 2018, 02:17
Blackmail Kaz, really? You of all people should know better.

We live in a user pays world. Private property, private agreements. This is strictly civil and not criminal, unless you believe that parking a car behind an aircraft constitutes false imprisonment of the passengers.

Bankstown Boy
15th May 2018, 02:18
I would have thought the legal term would be extortion, rather than blackmail, but either way when I read this I thought ... WTF???

I know that Canberra has a dreadful reputation for GA but I never thought I'd see the day when Pyongyang seemed the more reasonable of the two

Sunfish
15th May 2018, 03:09
Qantas, do us all a favour, just reduce services to Canberra to zero.

kaz3g
15th May 2018, 04:29
Squawks, blackmail is demanding money with menace, and interfering with an aircraft is a criminal offence. My hypothetical question concerning the second limb is whether parking a motor vehicle in close proximity to the rear of an aircraft loaded with fuel and passengers and intending to impede its movement constitutes “interference”. I think it’s an interesting question, but what would I know?

false imprisonment,...hardly. Detinue perhaps?

Angle of Attack
15th May 2018, 05:22
Sunfish? Have t heard from you for ages! Hope all is well, by the way would you prefer Tiger to take over from QF, or maybe get rid of Cobham, they are the disaster stories regarding reliability.

Icarus2001
15th May 2018, 06:13
Private property, private agreements what is private about federal land owned by the Australian government and leased to a private company?

CurtainTwitcher
15th May 2018, 06:19
This was the interesting bit.
It was only after senior Qantas management became involved that the car was moved and the aircraft, which was flying from Auckland to Sydney before diverting to Canberra because of bad weather, could take off.
Quarantine Immigration Customs? Different operator [Jetconnect]?

neville_nobody
15th May 2018, 06:54
Would have been an interesting situation if the delay by the airport caused the flight to miss curfew or crew out of hours.

There is a response in the original article suggesting that if the crew just went and got a pushback clearance then the airport car by law would have has to move as he is now obstructing a aircraft which has a clearance on a taxiway. Without any legal documentation holding the aircraft in CBR I cannot see how the airport could stand in the way of departure especially if the captain called for the Federal Police to move the airport car.

Ken Borough
15th May 2018, 09:10
What is reported to have been done is similar to the stunts pulled in days past by authorities in such salubrious places as Syria and Pakistan when Qantas aircraft made unscheduled landings. Many a hat was passed around and crew personal credit cards were maxed out to pay for fuel and airport charges. Who'd have thunk that this kind of behaviour would occur in Australia? Perhaps understandable if Qantas was a fly-buy-night outfit with a bad credit record but the action of Canberra Airport was inexcusable. - I'd back Qantas any day to pay its debts.

Left 270
15th May 2018, 09:22
Commonwealth land isn’t it?

Sunfish
15th May 2018, 10:16
Sunfish? Have t heard from you for ages! Hope all is well, by the way would you prefer Tiger to take over from QF, or maybe get rid of Cobham, they are the disaster stories regarding reliability.

i was being flippant, however closing the airport and blockading the roads to Canberra might give the entire country some peace and quiet.

Icarus2001
15th May 2018, 10:24
if the crew just went and got a pushback clearance then the airport car by law would have has to move as he is now obstructing a aircraft which has a clearance on a taxiway. I think you will find that the law is a little more complex than that. The airport baron knew what he was doing by directing staff to block the aircraft. You assume a taxi clearance confers some legal right to remove the aircraft from the airport ramp.

As much as I am not a fan of the airport there is possibly another side to this. Just perhaps, Canberra Airport has being trying unsuccessfully to negotiate an agreement with QF and in their often heavy handed way QF have refused to negotiate, leaving the airport lease holder with a problem and they saw an opportunity here to apply some pressure.

Before anyone else starts banging on about this being a safety issue, it is not. AS PIC if I want or need to take my jet in there I will. Then I will walk away and let my company deal with the airport baron.

Squawk7700
15th May 2018, 10:37
Squawks, blackmail is demanding money with menace, and interfering with an aircraft is a criminal offence. My hypothetical question concerning the second limb is whether parking a motor vehicle in close proximity to the rear of an aircraft loaded with fuel and passengers and intending to impede its movement constitutes “interference”. I think it’s an interesting question, but what would I know?

false imprisonment,...hardly. Detinue perhaps?



It simply doesn't fit the general definition of blackmail but I was saying if you're going to throw that term around, you may as well call it false imprisonment.

Detinue?

The crime of wrongful detention of goods or personal possessions.

Where is the criminal element here?

what is private about federal land owned by the Australian government and leased to a private company?

For all intents and purposes, it is private property if you are on it without permission. Doesn't matter who owns it, it's about the lease holder.

Square Bear
15th May 2018, 11:22
Thinking that "belief .....on reasonable grounds" might be an out (if you are using the VIC Crimes Act as a start point).

But does show that the granting self government in 1988 to a Territory may have been a mistake, esp if the place make such demands to aircraft operators that divert for obviously safety reasons.

Spent a little time living in the place but came away thinking it should be dissolved into NSW!!!

neville_nobody
15th May 2018, 12:06
. I think you will find that the law is a little more complex than that. The airport baron knew what he was doing by directing staff to block the aircraft. You assume a taxi clearance confers some legal right to remove the aircraft from the airport ramp.

As much as I am not a fan of the airport there is possibly another side to this. Just perhaps, Canberra Airport has being trying unsuccessfully to negotiate an agreement with QF and in their often heavy handed way QF have refused to negotiate, leaving the airport lease holder with a problem and they saw an opportunity here to apply some pressure.

I agree there would definately be a little more to this than the original story. On saying that though even if QF wasn't paying their bills you still can't just go and block aircraft. You would have to turn up with some sort of legal covenant preventing movement on condition that the bill is paid. It's just the same as anyone else who owes money. And with Qantas you know where the head office is it's not like they're going to runaway never to be seen again.

Really it is not something that should be dealt at a operational level, this is commercial law stuff.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
15th May 2018, 12:18
And this story comes to light a year after it happened now?? Someone has an agenda.

Guptar
15th May 2018, 12:37
Interesting problem, simple solution. Start engines and briefly run them up to take-off power. Problem dissapears. Easy!

framer
15th May 2018, 12:41
I’m pretty sure under Australian regs you are breaking the law if you interfere with the operation of an aircraft. ie prevent it from dispatching. Maybe someone knows which regs?

Squawk7700
15th May 2018, 13:37
If it's sitting at the gate and you tell the pilot they can't take off until they have paid the landing fee, you are not interfering with the aircraft.

If the airport owner/operator says you can't use the airport, you can't use the airport.

framer
15th May 2018, 14:37
I don’t think it’s that simple.Someone is legally operating an aircraft, there are passengers onboard, gas- turbine running in the tail, on duty cabin crew manning doors, avtur flowing into the wings etc, PIC responsible for the well-being of pax and crew, I doubt the law recognises the authority of Jo Bloggs to park a Ute in the way of that aircraft but I might be wrong.If it does, is it the security guard who is now responsible for the crew and pax? Or the PIC who is being thwarted in his/ her attempts to operate the aircraft as they see fit?If a private Airport executive can use physical obstruction to get money out of another party does that mean Telstra can block you in your driveway if you’re late on your bill? Is that what we’re about in Australia now? Or do you think perhaps they should pursue the issue in a different ( some would say more civilised) manner? Maybe through one of the many legal avenues set up for the purpose? One of the legal avenues that sets good countries apart from the also- rans?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
15th May 2018, 18:04
if the crew just went and got a pushback clearance then the airport car by law would have has to move as he is now obstructing a aircraft which has a clearance on a taxiway.
ATC only control traffic on the manouevering area, which does not include aprons, therefore there is no such thing as a pushback clearance. They give approvals only, and traffic avoidance is upto the crew and ground personnel. If you want to push and there is a car in the way, it's not ATC's problem. They cannot force anyone to do anything. They haven't given a taxi clearance, as the aircraft is not ready to taxi, and is not yet on a taxiway anyway. If there was a car on the taxiway obstructing the aircraft, the ATC would not either not issue a clearance, or cancel the taxi clearance and wait for the problem to be sorted out. Safety is their job, not security.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
15th May 2018, 18:18
If a private Airport executive can use physical obstruction to get money out of another party does that mean Telstra can block you in your driveway if you’re late on your bill?
You are not on Telstra property though. Telstra can and will quite legally cut off your use of their service, even with your own device, until you pay. If you eat in a cafe, then try to leave without paying, and the owner locks the doors to prevent you from leaving until you do, is that legal? Or morally right?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
15th May 2018, 18:38
I’m pretty sure under Australian regs you are breaking the law if you interfere with the operation of an aircraft. ie prevent it from dispatching. Maybe someone knows which regs?
Depends why and how you did it.
Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, Part 1, Divisions 2 and 5. No security or safety issues, so no laws broken IMO.

Pavement
15th May 2018, 22:47
The CEO of CB airport has written a very good piece giving the other side of the story. It actually gives a lot more context and states that it was an 8 minute incident. Although I’m not a fan of CB airport I suspect that the reality is more towards what they are saying rather than the known bully tactics of a major airline group.

TWT
15th May 2018, 23:14
Yes. The updated article linked to in post #1 gives the other point of view, that of the airport Managing Director, Stephen Byron.

Canberra Airport calls Qantas 737 ransom claim ?absolute baloney? | Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/05/canberra-airport-calls-qantas-737-ransom-claim-absolute-baloney/)

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
16th May 2018, 00:38
And this story comes to light a year after it happened now?? Someone has an agenda.
I read both articles when this thread first started. QF obviously has the agenda, as they "broke" the story to Aus Av. Seems pretty p*ss poor of AA that they published while waiting for CBRs comments, then the very next day adjusted the story using CBRs comments, rather than write one meaningful article using both. But I guess that is journalism in this country now. I agree the truth probably lays somewhere between, but the damage has been done to CBR, as the QF version will be the one that people remember and discuss. QF PR get their result.

Derfred
16th May 2018, 02:57
Yes, but Byron's comments make no sense. He says Qantas need to have an international diversion agreement because otherwise there is insufficient parking space for diversions. He also said that Qantas previously had an agreement (until 2014). Did the parking space suddenly decrease when Qantas discontinued the agreement? Has the parking space now suddenly increased now that Qantas have re-signed?

He has basically admitted that he pulled a stunt to force Qantas into resigning the agreement.

Qantas, in return, have obviously pulled a stunt to draw public attention to it.

Just little boys on both sides playing games with the movement of money. Nothing more.

I am more interested in why the aircraft didn't have fuel for MEL or BNE, given that presumably CBR was not a listed international alternate, and crap SYD WX.

Dee Vee
16th May 2018, 04:04
I'm curious what the legal implications are for the manager that approved this action... Interference?

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Qantas bean counters decide they don't wan't to pay for service. Pure business decision. They must understand this has consequences.

Qantas use service under guise of "emergency"

Canberra Airport within rights to demand payment for service - personally I'd be asking for 5 times the "annual fee" for their "emergency", to push home the point to Qantas that their lack of planning does not equal an "emergency" on the airport's part.

Dee Vee
16th May 2018, 04:06
I’m pretty sure under Australian regs you are breaking the law if you interfere with the operation of an aircraft. ie prevent it from dispatching.

I'm pretty sure the airport would have the final word over whether an aircraft gets permission to take off or not.

LeadSled
16th May 2018, 04:14
Folks,
And what does ERSA say about Canberra being an international alternate --- is there any qualification that it is only available as an alternate if you have a signed business agreement with the airport management??
Up to and including QF B747 have diverted to Canberra in the past.
Tootle pip!!

Daysleeper
16th May 2018, 04:39
As always the wonderful R4 Cabin Pressure by John Finnimore got there first in Douz...

MARTIN (pilot) : We don’t pay for that!
JUTTEAU (airport manager): Then who pays for that?
MARTIN: Nobody pays for that! It just happens.
JUTTEAU: I don’t know what your fire trucks do, Captain, but our fire trucks do not just ’appen.


CAROLYN QANTAS: How much?
JUTTEAU CBR: Twelve thousand, three hundred and six dollars. But let us call it twelve thousand.
MARTIN Pilot: Yes, well, nice try, but that’s entirely illegal.
JUTTEAU: That’s debateable.
MARTIN (hurriedly): Unfortunately we don’t have time to debate it. Must be off now. See you in court – maybe.
JUTTEAU: Of course, what is not debateable is whether it is illegal or not to take off without clearance from Air Traffic Control. It definitely is.
MARTIN: Who’s gonna stop us?
JUTTEAU: No-one is going to stop you, but when you get ’ome, your national authorities – whom I would notify – would immediately suspend your operator’s licence.
(Sound of vehicles pulling up outside the plane.)
JUTTEAU: Also, I was playing for time. I am going to stop you, by parking the fire truck across your nose – although, on the up side, this time I will not charge you for mobilising it!

Dee Vee
16th May 2018, 04:44
Folks,
And what does ERSA say about Canberra being an international alternate

Doesn't sound like Qantas had any issues landing in their "emergency".

Purely the business side of handling the situation after Qantas's emergency was dealt with, and forgotten by Qantas, who want to get their schedule back in place, but the economics took over, much to Qantas's disdain, easily dealt with if they had done their planning and preparation in advance.

Something beancounters are experts at ignoring in the quest to cut costs:)

Much like calling out a plumber in an emergency, and expecting them to turn up at a moments notice, then send you a 60 day account for their service, instead of getting paid to fix your emergency straight away, and disrupting all their other customers.


CAROLYN QANTAS: How much?
JUTTEAU CBR: Twelve thousand, three hundred and six dollars. But let us call it twelve thousand.


yeah, it really sounds like Canberra Airport has had issues with Qantas paying up in the past, and "the cheques in the mail" wasn't going to cut it this time.

maggot
16th May 2018, 06:40
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Qantas bean counters decide they don't wan't to pay for service. Pure business decision. They must understand this has consequences.

Qantas use service under guise of "emergency"

Canberra Airport within rights to demand payment for service - personally I'd be asking for 5 times the "annual fee" for their "emergency", to push home the point to Qantas that their lack of planning does not equal an "emergency" on the airport's part.
Sorry maybe I missed something? Does Qantas not pay their bills?

Lead Balloon
16th May 2018, 11:28
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.

Icarus2001
16th May 2018, 11:43
Stop talking sense Lead Balloon.

Just how many "first world" countries have privately owned airports anyway?

For that matter what about the rest of the world?

Lead Balloon
16th May 2018, 11:48
Australia knows best...

clark y
16th May 2018, 13:40
More evidence that we are just a third world country.(But you can drink the water)​​​​​​)

neville_nobody
17th May 2018, 07:14
Anyone care to explain what this business of having a 'international diversion agreement' actually is? I have never heard of it and it makes no sense for anyone to have any agreement to land at a publicly accessible airport . What does it matter if you land as an emergency/diversion/charter/RPT? The operator of the aircraft is responsible for ground handling not the airport, so what is it to them how you get there? And even if they get swamped in a 9-11 type mass diversion what does it matter? You wait in line until there is a parking available. No wonder QF didn't have one I personally don't see what purpose it actually serves.

BuzzBox
17th May 2018, 12:58
Neville,

It's about airport demand management.

The operator of the aircraft is responsible for ground handling not the airport..

Perhaps so, but the airport IS responsible for providing the movement areas, parking areas and passenger handling facilities. Smaller airports such as Canberra have limited space and can't accept too many international diversions. Diversion agreements help the airport to manage the efficient use of its facilities by limiting the number of large aircraft that might turn up with little notice.

And even if they get swamped in a 9-11 type mass diversion what does it matter?

It matters because the airport's scheduled flights can't move if the airport becomes clogged with diverted aircraft.

romeocharlie
17th May 2018, 13:46
Neville,

It's about airport demand management.



Perhaps so, but the airport IS responsible for providing the movement areas, parking areas and passenger handling facilities. Smaller airports such as Canberra have limited space and can't accept too many international diversions. Diversion agreements help the airport to manage the efficient use of its facilities by limiting the number of large aircraft that might turn up with little notice.



It matters because the airport's scheduled flights can't move if the airport becomes clogged with diverted aircraft.

If a 9/11 event happened they don't exactly have to worry about scheduled flights if the whole airspace is closed do they? After reading both articles and sitting on the fence for a while, I'm siding with QF. Diversion management plan or not, plenty of airfields round Australia don't have that luxury. I'd love to know if Toowoomba (Wellcamp) has the same for any airlines, being that it's runway can service a 747-800 and has different weather patterns from BNE/OOL/MCY?

BuzzBox
17th May 2018, 14:02
If a 9/11 event happened they don't exactly have to worry about scheduled flights if the whole airspace is closed do they?

Of course not, but weather related events (such as occurred in this case) are hardly likely to close down the entire airspace, are they?

Lead Balloon
17th May 2018, 22:29
Smaller airports such as Canberra have limited space...That’s because a bunch of DFOs, offices and related car parks were built where more airport infrastructure should have been built.

This is what happens when mule-stupid governments deliver public monopoly infrastructure into the hands of private greed.

Slippery_Pete
17th May 2018, 23:44
This is what happens when mule-stupid governments deliver public monopoly infrastructure into the hands of private greed.

Has been happening all over the country for the best part of 25 years.

Short term cash grabs by state and federal governments at the long term expense of Joe public. It’s one of the reasons Australians are always complaining about our huge cost of living.

Selling of public assets to private enterprise is the worst thing governments can possibly do.

BuzzBox
18th May 2018, 00:42
That’s because a bunch of DFOs, offices and related car parks were built where more airport infrastructure should have been built.

There is still room for expansion, it just hasn't been built yet!

Canberra Airport Expansion (https://www.dropbox.com/s/djt82ewsam3b34n/Canberra%20Apron%20Expansion.pdf?dl=0)

Lead Balloon
18th May 2018, 00:53
I’ve been hearing about the “Glenora Precinct expansion in the next 5 years” for around the last 15 years...

LAME2
18th May 2018, 01:34
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/airlines/news/article.cfm?c_id=113&objectid=217064

neville_nobody
18th May 2018, 03:59
Diversion agreements help the airport to manage the efficient use of its facilities by limiting the number of large aircraft that might turn up with little notice.

For widebodies this would make some sense and it is in the ERSA they need prior permission for unscheduled Ops. However this wasn't a widebody and is a totally different AOC and operation to QF Long Haul..

Personally I would have call the Feds to move the car and told the airport to sort it out with legal department because I still can't see how what the Airport did was actually legal.

Pinky the pilot
18th May 2018, 05:01
Personally I would have call the Feds to move the car and told the airport to sort it out with legal department because I still can't see how what the Airport did was actually legal

I have an acquaintance who is a Lawyer and I next time I see him I intend asking him about the legality of this event.

KRviator
18th May 2018, 05:47
Must be something in the water down that way...Goulburn airport dispute (https://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/4254543/airport-users-revolt-over-access-charges/) sees the lessor threaten to erect earthen berms to block hangar access to the taxiways.

Icarus2001
18th May 2018, 06:13
have an acquaintance who is a Lawyer and I next time I see him I intend asking him about the legality of this event. It is compulsory, every pilot I know either has a lawyer in the family or a friend who is one. The quality of their advice would depend on their knowledge of contract law and aviation law. No disrespect but otherwise it is not worth much.

Try leaving a multi story car park without paying, the boom gate stays down. Wheel clamping comes to mind? Refusing to pay at a bar, security guard "restrains" you until police arrive, same at a supermarket etc etc

Still a really bad look.

TBM-Legend
18th May 2018, 06:37
The Qantas refueller is on an account. The movements at CB and elsewhere are not COD they're on an account. AirServices charges and other landing fees are on an account. Why not just add this movement to the QF CB acct??

I did see the AF mob park a grader in front of an aircraft once however over a disputed account...I guess they could have wheel clamped it!

BuzzBox
18th May 2018, 06:54
It probably has something to do with the airport's fee structure for international diversions. If there's no agreement between the airport and the airline, there's a risk the airline will refuse to pay the bill. It seems the airport was simply waiting for the airline to agree to pay the charges because there was no formal agreement in place. Is that so unreasonable? There's at least one other major airport in Australia that has had to write off bad debts caused by airlines that refused to pay various charges. Why shouldn't the airport operator try to protect itself?

Lead Balloon
18th May 2018, 07:50
....
Try leaving a multi story car park without paying, the boom gate stays down. Wheel clamping comes to mind? Refusing to pay at a bar, security guard "restrains" you until police arrive, same at a supermarket etc etc

Still a really bad look.There is no longer a general right to detain to enforce payment of a civil debt unless the right is conferred by statute.

Although people can consent to their freedom of movement being limited by entering premises or public or commercial transport, that does not mean they are consenting to have their freedom of movement blocked as a consequence of a stoush about money between two companies. If I’d been a passenger or crew on the aircraft, I’d take action for false imprisonment against whoever decided to park the truck to stop the aircraft moving. You don’t even have to have known why the aircraft wasn’t moving at the time.

I consent to remaining stationary on the tarmac if the crew or ATC have decided that the weather is such as to make it safer to depart after a 30 minute delay. I do not consent to remaining stationary on the tarmac as a pawn in an argument about money between two companies.

Speaking of guards and supermarkets, in this case a suspected shoplifter was found to have been falsely imprisoned by security guards and police who took up a formation to ‘guide’ the suspect to the store security room:

Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991] VicRp 97; [1991] 2 VR 597 (13 November 1990) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VicRp/1991/97.html?context=1;query=Myer%20soo;mask_path=)

The difference with car park booms and wheel clamping is that the person is not imprisoned. The person can walk away.

There is this quaint concept - generally ignored by greedy millionaires - that personal liberty is more important than the payment of a debt. There are ways to get debts paid without interfering with someone’s freedom of movement.

BuzzBox
18th May 2018, 08:17
Lead Balloon:
The difference with car park booms and wheel clamping is that the person is not imprisoned. The person can walk away.

Were the aircraft's occupants 'imprisoned' in this case and, if so, by whom? In the car park/wheel clamping example, you said the 'person can walk away'. Theoretically, the 'person' in the airport incident can do exactly the same by getting off the aircraft. Surely the person is only 'imprisoned' if the airline or airport operator prevents that from happening.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
18th May 2018, 09:23
Amd if they won't let you off, who is imprisoning who?

neville_nobody
18th May 2018, 09:26
Why shouldn't the airport operator try to protect itself?

It can do that through the courts. They do not need to resort to wild west justice. Especially if you are talking about a company that can be easily located.

If the crew shut the doors and called for pushback clearance I think the airport would have been in some trouble legally.

This could have also been a poker game with the airport seeing what they could get away with knowing their actions were 100% illegal.

Ken Borough
18th May 2018, 09:36
It probably has something to do with the airport's fee structure for international diversions. If there's no agreement between the airport and the airline, there's a risk the airline will refuse to pay the bill. It seems the airport was simply waiting for the airline to agree to pay the charges because there was no formal agreement in place. Is that so unreasonable? There's at least one other major airport in Australia that has had to write off bad debts caused by airlines that refused to pay various charges. Why shouldn't the airport operator try to protect itself?

Does anyone really think in their wildest moments that Qantas or any of its subsidiaries would refuse to pay incurred airport charges? I'd be more concerned about a real estate entrepreneur paying an account than Charlie Q.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
18th May 2018, 10:17
If the crew shut the doors and called for pushback clearance I think the airport would have been in some trouble legally.

This could have also been a poker game with the airport seeing what they could get away with knowing their actions were 100% illegal.
Who says it was illegal?

It's taken a year for QF to leak this, Something else is afoot.

Tuner 2
18th May 2018, 10:29
The big 4 airports have operating margins of something like 40-50% The ACCC found that their parking margins are over 70%. That's what happens with these monopoly businesses.....CBR is private so I don't know its operating margins but I doubt they are doing much worse than the others. If QF had profit margins of that size it would be making $4-5 billion profits.

Consider the following P/E ratios for ASX50 companies:

SYD airport: 44.7
CSL: 39.4
WES: 33.5
BHP: 31.5
IAG: 19.2
MQG: 15
RIO: 13.8
CBA: 12.3
QAN: 12
VAH (not ASX50) :not much...



Maybe the airlines think there should be a little more publicity around the massive profit margins of major AUS airports, paid for by the airlines and passengers?

BuzzBox
18th May 2018, 10:56
Does anyone really think in their wildest moments that Qantas or any of its subsidiaries would refuse to pay incurred airport charges? I'd be more concerned about a real estate entrepreneur paying an account than Charlie Q.

Don't make me laugh. Since when did airlines become such paragons of virtue?

Lead Balloon
18th May 2018, 11:04
Lead Balloon:


Were the aircraft's occupants 'imprisoned' in this case and, if so, by whom? In the car park/wheel clamping example, you said the 'person can walk away'. Theoretically, the 'person' in the airport incident can do exactly the same by getting off the aircraft. Surely the person is only 'imprisoned' if the airline or airport operator prevents that from happening.Well spun, BuzzBox.

​​​​​​Theoretically, the passengers can get off the aircraft and drive the vehicle that’s blocking the aircraft’s movement, so that the vehicle is no longer blocking the aircraft’s movements.

Then there’s reality.

It may be that both the airline and the airport operator have falsely imprisoned the passengers. But I reckon it’s mostly down to the airport operator. But for the airport operator’s decision to use the people on the aircraft as pawns in its money game, the airline wouldn’t be in the position of deciding whether and how to offload the passengers and their baggage.

The job of spin doctor for the Canberra Airport operator is presumably quite lucrative. But I wonder whether it’s fulfilling.

Ken Borough
18th May 2018, 12:15
Don't make me laugh. Since when did airlines become such paragons of virtue?

I was writing about Qantas not some tin-pot carrier from the Third World (or elsewhere) no one in Canberra had ever heard of. :mad: :ugh:: ugh:

BuzzBox
18th May 2018, 12:40
Well spun, BuzzBox.

Thank you.
​​​​

The job of spin doctor for the Canberra Airport operator is presumably quite lucrative. But I wonder whether it’s fulfilling.

I am but an interested bystander (and long-term airline employee) who recognises there are two sides to every argument. It's actually quite fun baiting people with such a one-eyed view of the world.:E

BuzzBox
18th May 2018, 12:41
I was writing about Qantas not some tin-pot carrier from the Third World (or elsewhere) no one in Canberra had ever heard of. :mad: :ugh:: ugh:
Try talking to someone who works in the finance area of a major airport operator. Ask them what they think about certain airlines.

Lead Balloon
18th May 2018, 12:54
I am but an interested bystander (and long-term airline employee) who recognises there are two sides to every argument. It's actually quite fun baiting people with such a one-eyed view of the world.:EWho said you were anything other than an interested bystander?

BuzzBox
18th May 2018, 13:37
If anyone reading this thread is actually interested in the licensing arrangements for the use of CBR as an alternate, the following correspondence provides some background info:

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/119651/download?token=bbCRSd_A

Lead Balloon
18th May 2018, 13:59
You have an amazingly deep insight into the arrangements for use of CBR airport, BuzzBox. Are you aware of whether they’ve been the subject of judicial scrutiny?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
18th May 2018, 14:16
massive profit margins of major AUS airports, paid for by the airlines and passengers?
No, just the passengers (and their meeters and greeters re parking and retail). Airlines pass their costs on to their customers, just as other businesses do.

Tuner 2
18th May 2018, 23:57
No, just the passengers (and their meeters and greeters re parking and retail). Airlines pass their costs on to their customers, just as other businesses do.

Fair enough. So my original point of "Maybe the airlines think there should be a little more publicity around the massive profit margins of major AUS airports " , which are paid for by passengers, still stands then.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
19th May 2018, 01:01
Fair enough. So my original point of "Maybe the airlines think there should be a little more publicity around the massive profit margins of major AUS airports " , which are paid for by passengers, still stands then.
I don't think the public would be too surprised. After all, they pay the parking and coffee prices. They would probably be more surprised that QF is arguing about a few thousand, while managing to pay its CEO $25M, 50 times what the PM gets.

RodH
25th May 2018, 01:25
Looks like a bit of a spat has occurred between Alan Joyce and Canberra Airports Manager according to the ABC web site:

Qantas boss Alan Joyce likens Canberra Airport to Somali pirates; airport responds with bewilderment - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-25/qantas-canberra-airport-war-erupts/9798886)

The little fella is flexing his muscles it would seem.:=

itsnotthatbloodyhard
25th May 2018, 03:20
He’s sort of got a point, but maybe overdoing the outrage a bit for someone who deliberately stranded 100000 pax not so long ago.

Dee Vee
25th May 2018, 04:14
He’s overdoing the outrage a bit for someone who deliberately stranded 100000 pax not so long ago.

My thoughts exactly. Apparently Joyce thinks its ok to strand tens of thousands of passengers all around the world by grounding your fleet, in a pay dispute with your staff, but not ok to stop one aircraft from leaving over a dispute with payments for procedural operating standards, where you have been abusing the system.

V-Jet
25th May 2018, 05:27
^^^^^^^^
I don’t know the rights and wrongs of this, but just listened to an ABC (AUS) radio report on same quoting Qantas as saying CBR were behaving like Somali Pirates! Hilarious!! You could write a book/movie on Napoleons’ fibbing, lies, about faces, doublethink and incompetence but no one could believe it was based on fact!

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
25th May 2018, 05:50
"Consumers are losing out, because there's hundreds of millions of dollars in higher charges that we can't pass on to our customers
What charges would they be that cannot be passed on to customers? How would customers know which charges airlines are passing on? I would think that customers would be more than happy for the airline to not pass on the charges. I would think that consumers would be the ones to lose out if those charges were passed on. If Qantas are incurring charges that can easily be avoided, then that is Qantas's problem, not their customers.

Rated De
26th May 2018, 08:59
He’s sort of got a point, but maybe overdoing the outrage a bit for someone who deliberately stranded 100000 pax not so long ago.

An inconvenient truth, it was a high risk strategy, handsomely rewarding him, Freehills (Now Herbert Smith Freehills) and a nice little earner as employers were lining up to follow suit and lock out their work forces.
What remains of political capital was mostly spent in Canberra that day. Of course whilst speaking of ransom little Napoleon ought be rather careful, it is exactly what he held the CHOGM heads and an elected government to, after allegedly making his mind up, all by himself on a Saturday morning. Of course with nothing to hide Lucinda Holdforth would have been allowed to publish her book, explaining how she got a call on Saturday afternoon to sit down with Freehills and write the little fellow's 'speech'.


With respect to the dovetailing of national infrastructure, is it really a surprise that one private monopoly charges a premium to another private near monopoly? Neither of which care for national interest unless a 'flag of convenience' needs flying?

neville_nobody
30th May 2018, 03:20
Looks like they've nailed Atlas now as well......

SMH (https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/more-drama-at-canberra-airport-as-qantas-address-kenyan-comment-row-20180528-p4zhzr.html)


An international freight plane flying for Qantas was stuck with a $67,000 bill after making an unexpected landing at Canberra Airport.Invoices showed the freight company had to pay the bill by credit card in three instalments because it was so large, before the plane could continue to Sydney.The diversion, in February 2017, happened a month before a controversial incident in which an escort car was parked behind a diverted Qantas plane (https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/qantas-hits-back-at-aggressive-canberra-airport-tactics-20180513-p4zez9.html) after another unexpected landing.An invoice and credit card receipts showed the 747 freight plane was billed a $19,000 landing charge, a $14,000 aircraft parking charge, and a $28,000 alternate operation fee, plus $6,000 in GST.It is understood that Qantas reimbursed the freight company for the fee but is now seeking a partial refund from Canberra Airport.
A Qantas spokesman said: "This is the kind of behaviour that the airport seems to think is justifiable and which they can get away with because they are a monopoly. It’s outrageous.”In March 2017, a Qantas plane was briefly stranded on the tarmac after making an unexpected landing at Canberra Airport due to bad weather.Qantas said Canberra Airport asked for an $18,000 diversion charge to be paid by credit card before the plane could be released.
This claim appeared to be backed up by an invoice seen by Fairfax Media.

“I have attached the invoice for the diversion today by the above noted aircraft,” an airport employee wrote.

“Please note the aircraft cannot depart until the invoice is paid. Payment by credit card please.”Canberra Airport said the plane was only delayed for eight minutes, and the diversion was the latest in a series of unexpected landings jeopardising safety.Canberra Airport also rejected that the plane was “ransomed”, and said it even left in time to make its allocated slot time in Sydney.“It was the last in a series of unannounced diversions by Qantas that posed a safety risk at Canberra Airport,” a spokeswoman said.“One such incident occurred during the refuelling of a fire fighting plane during a fast-moving bushfire.”On Monday Qantas wrote to the Kenyan High Commission on the back of comments made by airline industry group chair Graeme Samuel, which likened Canberra Airport to Somalia or Nairobi.“Qantas does indeed hold Kenya and Nairobi in high regard,” group executive Andrew Parker wrote to high commissioner Isaiya Kabira.“We regularly promote your country in our various digital and marketing platforms and in our Qantas Magazine, which has a circulation of over four million readers.”Last week the former chair of Australia’s competition watchdog, Graeme Samuel, likened the aggressive behaviour of Canberra Airport to something out of Somalia or Kenya (https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/appalling-alan-joyce-likens-canberra-airport-to-somali-pirates-20180524-p4zhc5.html).

In response, Kenya’s high commissioner to Australia, Isaiya Kabira, rebuked the comparison in an open letter (https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/kenyans-now-enter-the-fray-of-qantas-scrap-with-canberra-airport-20180527-p4zhsm.html) sent to Fairfax Media.“While it is in your full right to express your outrage, we find it extremely unfortunate that you draw parallels of inefficiency and imagery of piracy to a respected and much-admired airport of Nairobi,” Mr Kabira wrote.Mr Samuel made the comparison at an airline industry event at Parliament House on Thursday last week.

At the same event Mr Joyce had likened Canberra Airport to a band of Somali pirates.
“Maybe the airport should be called ‘The Canberra Pirates’ because you wouldn’t have this in Somalia,” Mr Joyce said.

“You wouldn’t have this in other parts of the world. It is unbelievably appalling behaviour.”

Qantas explained the remark in Monday's letter.
“There was a reference made to Somalia to illustrate the seriousness of the issue at Canberra Airport and the parallel of piracy in the Arabian Sea,” Mr Parker wrote.“As we stated at the event last Thursday, our 737 was detained by the airport - using a vehicle parked behind the aircraft - until payment was made, the very definition of piracy.”


and the diversion was the latest in a series of unexpected landings jeopardising safety
So where was the NOTAM and HAZARD Alert?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
30th May 2018, 06:15
the very definition of piracy
Sorry Mr Parker, it's not.
Piracy
1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

Qantas were not being robbed. They were being asked to pay a fee for the use of facilities they had already used, by the legal owner of those facilities. Try flying on a QF aircraft without paying, and see what happens.

LeadSled
30th May 2018, 06:26
Folks,
Part of the report in today paper says that a B747 freighter working for Qantas diverted to Canberra, and landed while a firefighting aeroplane was refueling, this was a safety hazard??
Where was the firebomber refueling ---- in the middle of a runway???
I trust a NOTAM has been issued, pending an amendment to ERSA, clearly stating that Canberra is no longer available as an alternate, as a diverting aircraft will create an air safety hazard.
I trust CASA will look into this major air safety issue immediately.
And, I can fully appreciate the reference to Somali pirates ---- the unscheduled movement was apparently charged well over $60,000, including a sum of $28,000 which appears to be a penalty fee for Canberra being used as an alternate.
Where is the ACCC.
Tootle pip!!

thorn bird
30th May 2018, 07:06
God where's a good cartoonist when you need one?

Picture...

Australia's National Capital Airport,

Airforce one parked in front of the GA terminal, commonly known as Stalag 13.

Rotund gentleman with very blond hair standing at the top of the airstair screaming

"Wada Ya mean you want my Visa Card"!!!!

The possibilities are endless.

thorn bird
30th May 2018, 07:15
Just thought of another one;

The second coming.

Glowing cloud over the tarmac.

Skinny bearded figure in flowing white gown surrounded by angels
descending from the glowing cloud.

Bunch of guys dressed as centurions, with high Viz vests of course, spears pointing skywards.

Guy with the beard waving a card in his hand "But I've got my Visa Card"

Come on guys, you must have better ones. Any Cartoonists out there??

ebt
30th May 2018, 07:21
Folks,
Part of the report in today paper says that a B747 freighter working for Qantas diverted to Canberra, and landed while a firefighting aeroplane was refueling, this was a safety hazard??
Where was the firebomber refueling ---- in the middle of a runway???
I trust a NOTAM has been issued, pending an amendment to ERSA, clearly stating that Canberra is no longer available as an alternate, as a diverting aircraft will create an air safety hazard.
I trust CASA will look into this major air safety issue immediately.
And, I can fully appreciate the reference to Somali pirates ---- the unscheduled movement was apparently charged well over $60,000, including a sum of $28,000 which appears to be a penalty fee for Canberra being used as an alternate.
Where is the ACCC.
Tootle pip!!

To give them their due, Canberra Airport's full statement explains it a lot more. Short and long of it is that they were running out of tarmac space, especially as the helitaks were operating from Fairbairn. Qantas ops weren't letting them know what to expect, and the airfield didn't have a specific arrangement in place, so they could be charged as per the rate card and on COD terms. Seems like two fairly arrogant companies squaring off against each other, with each taking the 'woe is me' approach.

But, to the fair, Qantas have been getting ballsy with bullying the airports of late, especially as only a couple of years ago they offloaded the leases on the terminals back to them.

The Bullwinkle
30th May 2018, 11:19
I’m pretty sure under Australian regs you are breaking the law if you interfere with the operation of an aircraft. ie prevent it from dispatching.
If my memory serves me correctly, didn’t QANTAS themselves use similar tactics by parking tugs etc behind “Compass” aircraft in an effort to destroy their competition? Can’t have it both ways!

and the diversion was the latest in a series of unexpected landings jeopardising safety
Maybe if the bean counters weren’t determining fuel policy these days, there’d be less “unexpected landings”.

wombat watcher
30th May 2018, 11:25
What has not come out in this bullsh* t discussion is:
1. Given the said flight was an international flight from NZ, was Canberra one of the Company approved and listed Alternate airports?
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, did the captain seek company input or just divert?
3. Did the captain have no other choice
4. If the answer to 1 is no, then the captain would have diverted to an “emergency” airport ie an airport that the company had no formal arrangements for but the runway was long enougn, wide enough and strong enough to permit a safe landing for a B 737. If this is the case then in theory the fact that there was nowhere to park, CIQ may or may not have been available, and they were refuelling helicopters at the RAAF tarmac was irrelevant.

Despite anything Byron says, there may well have been a lot of issues created by the diversion of that B737 that day, but safety and danger was not one of them as Byron alleges.

morno
30th May 2018, 19:49
It does actually say in ERSA that Canberra is not to be used as an alternate unless prior arrangements are in place.

How recent that addition to ERSA is I don’t know. And I don’t know if it’s in the Jeppesen (given that most airlines don’t run around with an ERSA in the flight deck)

morno

Sykes
31st May 2018, 00:09
In the army this kind of thing was called "Throwing smoke". That is, if something f*cks up and you've got the finger pointed at you, you make some extravagant counter claim that is completely off-topic and duck for cover while everyone talks about the counter claim you just made.

This all started with AJ complaining about something that happened well over 12 months ago. Why? To take the pressure off him due to the high amount of SYD-CBR cancellations.

CBR airport went public with the cancellation rate. Rather than address the issue of cancellations (i.e. the fact that Qlink turboprop and 717 operations have crew shortages, as well as the 717 debacle late last year when due to management, four 717's were grounded in CBR), AJ simply tried to divert the issue by bringing up something that happened over a year ago.

Judging by the debate going on here, mission accomplished.

gordonfvckingramsay
31st May 2018, 01:07
In the army this kind of thing was called "Throwing smoke". That is, if something f*cks up and you've got the finger pointed at you, you make some extravagant counter claim that is completely off-topic and duck for cover while everyone talks about the counter claim you just made.

This all started with AJ complaining about something that happened well over 12 months ago. Why? To take the pressure off him due to the high amount of SYD-CBR cancellations.

CBR airport went public with the cancellation rate. Rather than address the issue of cancellations (i.e. the fact that Qlink turboprop and 717 operations have crew shortages, as well as the 717 debacle late last year when due to management, four 717's were grounded in CBR), AJ simply tried to divert the issue by bringing up something that happened over a year ago.

Judging by the debate going on here, mission accomplished.

I like it! And furthermore, it's entirely likely.

neville_nobody
31st May 2018, 02:22
AJ simply tried to divert the issue by bringing up something that happened over a year ago.

There is also a concerted effort by airlines to put some pressure on airports as the airlines feel they are getting screwed by airport monopolies. A4ANZ (http://www.a4anz.com/)

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
31st May 2018, 10:57
And reading between the lines it shows how A4ANZ demonstrates that domestic aviation in Australia is basically a duopoly, with airlines with effectively monopolies, ie in WA, happy to screw their customers also.

AerialPerspective
2nd Jun 2018, 15:30
Neville,

It's about airport demand management.



Perhaps so, but the airport IS responsible for providing the movement areas, parking areas and passenger handling facilities. Smaller airports such as Canberra have limited space and can't accept too many international diversions. Diversion agreements help the airport to manage the efficient use of its facilities by limiting the number of large aircraft that might turn up with little notice.



It matters because the airport's scheduled flights can't move if the airport becomes clogged with diverted aircraft.

Actually, I agree with Neville - this is a load of crap and probably a way for the airport to extract some sort of benefit - even if they did have a 'diversion agreement' in place, diversions are unscheduled... and may never happen. It's complete rubbish to say it's 'demand management' - you think the airport is going to keep an aerobridge available and extra equipment 'just in case' there's a diversion???

These rogues that are running airports are off the planet - I'm pretty damn sure there is a requirement for an airport to provide facilities for an emergency diversion - they can't 'refuse' to allow a flight in trouble to land - they also can't park equipment behind the aircraft, which presumably might have concerned/traumatized passengers on board, while demanding some sort of inflated charge. Learmonth is an RAAF Base and they have accommodated at least two A330s (one QF and one MH) after inflight incidents. This is just a load of tripe - they're an airport, the reason they have been issued a license to operate is on the basis they meet CASA requirements and I'm pretty sure ICAO - and ICAO would require handling or accommodation of an aircraft in distress. Anything else is some sort of weasel word BS designed to fleece the passenger, the airline and anyone else they can out of greed.

These damn places are public facilities, like roads and rail - they should not be privately owned or operated, they should be provided by the Contracting State based on demand. Total nonsense.

AerialPerspective
2nd Jun 2018, 15:37
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'.

Dee Vee
3rd Jun 2018, 01:15
These rogues that are running airports are off the planet - I'm pretty damn sure there is a requirement for an airport to provide facilities for an emergency diversion .

I'm pretty sure there was no emergency, Just Qantas deciding to divert there due to bad weather and no planning on their part.

this is the crux of the matter.

neville_nobody
3rd Jun 2018, 05:05
I'm pretty sure there was no emergency, Just Qantas deciding to divert there due to bad weather and no planning on their part.

this is the crux of the matter.

Howvever there may not have been any requirement to have planned an Alternate in the first instance. Won't be the first time that the weather has changed enroute.

Essentially what YSCB are claiming is that you have to run down to your reserves before landing there. The problem with that argument is that you can't divert enroute and land with reserve +30 minutes. But you can divert and hold at the IAF for 30 mins then land as that would constitute an emergency.

The fly in the ointment for YSCB's policy is that VH aircraft have no requirement to plan an alternate normally so if the weather changes mid-flight it is irrelevant what YSCB policy is people are going to divert there as they have no other option which is going to create the situation that their policy is trying to prevent.



.

What The
3rd Jun 2018, 05:51
I believe the story goes something like this. Canberra Airport had convinced a few carriers to pay them approximately one million dollars per annum to be able to file YSCB as an alternate. (Nice if you can get it). I believe that Qantas has refused to pay it (rightly so IMHO).
Therein lies the problem.

framer
3rd Jun 2018, 09:05
Originally Posted by Dee Vee https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/608861-merged-qantas-blackmail-5.html#post10163562)
I'm pretty sure there was no emergency, Just Qantas deciding to divert there due to bad weather and no planning on their part.

this is the crux of the matter.

Qantas pilots hold Canberra as a weather alternate regularly when the weather in Melbourne or Sydney is forecast to be a bit iffy. I imagine Jetstar and Virgin pilots do as well? This appears to be nothing more than two ‘ executive leadership teams’ ��having a barny.

Ken Borough
3rd Jun 2018, 09:09
I believe the story goes something like this. Canberra Airport had convinced a few carriers to pay them approximately one million dollars per annum to be able to file YSCB as an alternate. (Nice if you can get it). I believe that Qantas has refused to pay it (rightly so IMHO).
Therein lies the problem.

I think the problem is bigger than that. Put simply, it's what happens when vital infrastructure is sold to developers whose sole purpose in life is to get as much as possible for least effort. Canberra Airport has been whingeing about cancellations and the impact on customer service. Since when was an airport owner interested in an airline's customers? My take is that Canberra Airport owners resent the loss of income arising from the cancellations.

Rated De
3rd Jun 2018, 09:55
I think the problem is bigger than that. Put simply, it's what happens when vital infrastructure is sold to developers whose sole purpose in life is to get as much as possible for least effort. Canberra Airport has been whingeing about cancellations and the impact on customer service. Since when was an airport owner interested in an airline's customers? My take is that Canberra Airport owners resent the loss of income arising from the cancellations.

Customers are only as important as the spend per head.

Airport revenue management is the core of the issue, after all monopoly assets generating monopoly return is big business.
Airport management plans include gate and hard stand occupancy as both are key sources of aeronautical revenue. For Qantas the costs of flight cancellation due serviceability, crew shortages and the like are only an issue at point of departure. Thus to Qantas, Canberra airport can incur the externality.

Qantas domestic pilots, so we are informed, graciously take no pay for flights cancelled. So to Qantas Canberra airport ought not be paid either.

This may be actual story, one near monopoly pushing around another.

CurtainTwitcher
3rd Jun 2018, 10:43
This may be actual story, one near monopoly pushing around another.


Freaky, I only read this in the last hour...
Evil is not the attempt to eliminate the play of another according to published and accepted rules, but to eliminate the play of another regardless of the rules

— Finite and Infinite Games (https://amzn.to/2HucCdu), page 32

AerialPerspective
4th Jun 2018, 14:46
If my memory serves me correctly, didn’t QANTAS themselves use similar tactics by parking tugs etc behind “Compass” aircraft in an effort to destroy their competition? Can’t have it both ways!


Maybe if the bean counters weren’t determining fuel policy these days, there’d be less “unexpected landings”.

I was around at the time and I think that's a stretch... FYI Qantas was one of the few that dealt with Compass and charged reasonable prices for things like stairs and pushback... TAA/Australian may have perpetuated stuff like this, a company that no longer exists because it was taken over by Qantas.

I think the dirty tricks were limited basically to Ansett and Australian being required to provide two gates to the new entrant so both provided gates that were nearly a km apart at the end of separate concourses.

AerialPerspective
4th Jun 2018, 14:49
I'm pretty sure there was no emergency, Just Qantas deciding to divert there due to bad weather and no planning on their part.

this is the crux of the matter.

I seriously doubt that, diverting is a major decision and not taken lightly. The airports that have been privatised all have form in this area so regardless of what people think of Qantas or any other airline, this is BS and the airports should be re-nationalised or regulated within an inch of their lives. They are still located on Commonwealth land and Commonwealth Law applies due the country's obligations as a Contracting State.

Ken Borough
5th Jun 2018, 07:01
I seriously doubt that, diverting is a major decision and not taken lightly. The airports that have been privatised all have form in this area so regardless of what people think of Qantas or any other airline, this is BS and the airports should be re-nationalised or regulated within an inch of their lives. They are still located on Commonwealth land and Commonwealth Law applies due the country's obligations as a Contracting State.

:D:D:D

A report was given at the most recent IATA AGM in Sydney about airport privatisation. It didn't regard privatised airports at all well. Surprisingly, only a literal handful of countries have ventured down the privatisation path, Australia being one. A summary of the report can be found here:

http://www.iata.org/publications/economics/Reports/airport-privatisation-summary-report.pdf

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
5th Jun 2018, 13:38
Fundamental mistake in the second section:
Without airports, airlines have no business. Without airlines, the airports have no business.
Without airlines, the airports still have a business. That's why they try to diversify so much so that they are not so heavily reliant on the fickle airline industry. If it all came to an end, the airports still have the land to develop.
only a literal handful of countries have ventured down the privatisation path
Yes, third world backwaters like the UK, Germany, The Netherlands, France, several other European countries, South Africa, Japan, the large South American airports, the large Indian airports etc. In fact most of the large airports in the world, with the exception of the US (where some are considering it, and almost all are run as for-profit businesses).