Jetstar seeks to have passenger charged
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar seeks to have passenger charged
Jetstar urges charges over cabin fumes incident
12:09 PM December 10
Jetstar will urge Queensland Police to charge a passenger responsible for carrying a gas cylinder on to an aircraft.
The pilot of an Airbus A320, which was bound for Cairns, was forced to make an emergency landing in Brisbane last night when the cylinder began to leak into the cabin.
Eight people were taken to hospital with minor breathing problems.
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway says the airline will push for charges to be laid.
"It's up to authorities to determine what action they should take but a dangerous good was carried onto our aircraft and did cause significant disruption to our passengers," Mr Westaway said.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman says the incident has been referred to the federal Transport Department's aviation security section for further investigation.
Source: ABC
12:09 PM December 10
Jetstar will urge Queensland Police to charge a passenger responsible for carrying a gas cylinder on to an aircraft.
The pilot of an Airbus A320, which was bound for Cairns, was forced to make an emergency landing in Brisbane last night when the cylinder began to leak into the cabin.
Eight people were taken to hospital with minor breathing problems.
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway says the airline will push for charges to be laid.
"It's up to authorities to determine what action they should take but a dangerous good was carried onto our aircraft and did cause significant disruption to our passengers," Mr Westaway said.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman says the incident has been referred to the federal Transport Department's aviation security section for further investigation.
Source: ABC
How on earth does one get a canister of butane through security?? Given that you are basically strip searched these days and they will check everything included bottled water how does something like this get through??
If Jetstar do get him charged then I sure hope all their DG info was well posted!!
If Jetstar do get him charged then I sure hope all their DG info was well posted!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on...
You're spot on Neville. But I would go further and ask what is CASA doing about Jetstar's procedures and checks that apparently allowed the gas bottle to pass the pre-boarding checks. In this case they (Jetstar) must be equally, or even more, at fault than the alleged carrier of the gas bottle. Imagaine the implications were the cannister's contents more sinnester? Horrific.
In this case, the Jetstar spin doctor would be well advised to keep his mouth shut. After all, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than open one's mouth and leave no doubt.
In this case, the Jetstar spin doctor would be well advised to keep his mouth shut. After all, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than open one's mouth and leave no doubt.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Luke Skywalkers mums bed
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say it's more to do with the security contractors than the airline. Why didn't they pick it up? I wonder if they'll initiate legal action for the costs involved?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a lot of checkpoints where this gas cylinder could have been stopped - checkin, security, boarding gate, and finally by the CC onboard. What is yet to be known though is if it were disguised or carried on board laisse faire (spelling?). If it were concealed then there is a strong chance the CC onboard and gate staff had no idea - and the pax may well have lied when asked the DG questions at checkin.
What I fail to understand though is how it was not picked up by security - my understanding is that gas cylinders of any form (excluding the small ones in the lifejackets) are not allowed in the cabin?
If it does turn out the pax lied when answering the DGs questions then definately there is a chance for recourse, however I agree the security firm is also at fault here.
What I fail to understand though is how it was not picked up by security - my understanding is that gas cylinders of any form (excluding the small ones in the lifejackets) are not allowed in the cabin?
If it does turn out the pax lied when answering the DGs questions then definately there is a chance for recourse, however I agree the security firm is also at fault here.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: WA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don Esson, mate I work for DJ so I am not pro JQ at all, however u are a peanut based on your comments!!!
"But I would go further and ask what is CASA doing about Jetstar's procedures and checks that apparently allowed the gas bottle to pass the pre-boarding checks."
Pre-boarding checks, dude have you flown in the last 15 years or what???? "Excuse me madam/sir are you carrying dangerous goods onboard today?" Oh dear the pax said no, no take the AOC of Jetstar, they shouldn't be flying!! You are a nutbag, Pornstar being liable for the reland of the Airbus onroute to YBCS is a joke, blame security in BNE for letting them get through, you have no idea mate!!!!
"In this case, the Jetstar spin doctor would be well advised to keep his mouth shut. After all, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than open one's mouth and leave no doubt." <-- Now in this case would you prefer to be the pot or the kettle? ey?
Oh, dear, there's always one isn't there?
You may contemplate your sins over the next five days and hopefully when you return, be repentant!
Woomera
"But I would go further and ask what is CASA doing about Jetstar's procedures and checks that apparently allowed the gas bottle to pass the pre-boarding checks."
Pre-boarding checks, dude have you flown in the last 15 years or what???? "Excuse me madam/sir are you carrying dangerous goods onboard today?" Oh dear the pax said no, no take the AOC of Jetstar, they shouldn't be flying!! You are a nutbag, Pornstar being liable for the reland of the Airbus onroute to YBCS is a joke, blame security in BNE for letting them get through, you have no idea mate!!!!
"In this case, the Jetstar spin doctor would be well advised to keep his mouth shut. After all, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than open one's mouth and leave no doubt." <-- Now in this case would you prefer to be the pot or the kettle? ey?
Oh, dear, there's always one isn't there?
You may contemplate your sins over the next five days and hopefully when you return, be repentant!
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 11th Dec 2005 at 23:34.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fountain Gate...
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar may sue man who grounded flight
From: bY Richard Finnila
December 12, 2005
AN airline passenger who sparked a mid-air emergency by taking a gas bottle on a plane could be sued over the $100,000 cost of aborting the flight and deploying another jet.
Budget airline Jetstar has revealed it is considering the extraordinary move after the passenger's gas bottle not only triggered the first emergency - but also continued leaking on the second flight on Friday night.
Eight people, including a baby and cabin crew, were taken to hospital suffering from nausea after the bottle leaked in the man's bag in the cargo hold on the first flight.
But after cabin crew asked all passengers whether they were carrying anything flammable, the man boarded another plane from Brisbane later in the evening with the bottle still in his baggage.
Small traces of the smell could still be detected, but not enough to cause another emergency landing.
After landing in Cairns all bags were searched and the gas cylinder seized.
Advertisement:
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said the company was upset by the man's blatant disregard for safety and was considering banning him from flying with the airline again.
"Our legal people will look at it and see if there is a way we can try to recover some of the costs," Mr Westaway said.
The Airbus A320 plane had to be grounded for most of Saturday while cleaning crews flushed out the gas.
"We had to take the plane for a test flight before we could let passengers back on board," Mr Westaway said.
"Private charters like these cost $30,000 alone."
Mr Westaway said the reason why the smell was not as potent in the second flight was because the plane was a Boeing 717 which uses a different style air-conditioning system.
If it had been another Airbus A320 then the same situation could have happened again.
Gas cylinders are a contraband item because they can leak and even explode at high altitudes.
Mr Westaway said the 30cm bottle, which is commonly used to fuel a small camp cooker, was detected when it began leaking after reaching 25,000 feet.
Brisbane Airport Corporation spokesman Jim Carden said the passenger should have declared the item when he checked in at Brisbane Airport.
"All passengers are asked at check in whether they are carrying any flammable devices in their luggage and clearly he didn't tell anyone," Mr Carden said.
"I can see why Jetstar want to throw the book at him and frankly so do we."
Mr Carden said holiday travellers should consider this is a timely reminder not to bring anything dangerous aboard a plane.
Mr Westaway said naivety was not an excuse.
Australian Federal Police are also investigating and could lay charges against the traveller.
From: bY Richard Finnila
December 12, 2005
AN airline passenger who sparked a mid-air emergency by taking a gas bottle on a plane could be sued over the $100,000 cost of aborting the flight and deploying another jet.
Budget airline Jetstar has revealed it is considering the extraordinary move after the passenger's gas bottle not only triggered the first emergency - but also continued leaking on the second flight on Friday night.
Eight people, including a baby and cabin crew, were taken to hospital suffering from nausea after the bottle leaked in the man's bag in the cargo hold on the first flight.
But after cabin crew asked all passengers whether they were carrying anything flammable, the man boarded another plane from Brisbane later in the evening with the bottle still in his baggage.
Small traces of the smell could still be detected, but not enough to cause another emergency landing.
After landing in Cairns all bags were searched and the gas cylinder seized.
Advertisement:
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said the company was upset by the man's blatant disregard for safety and was considering banning him from flying with the airline again.
"Our legal people will look at it and see if there is a way we can try to recover some of the costs," Mr Westaway said.
The Airbus A320 plane had to be grounded for most of Saturday while cleaning crews flushed out the gas.
"We had to take the plane for a test flight before we could let passengers back on board," Mr Westaway said.
"Private charters like these cost $30,000 alone."
Mr Westaway said the reason why the smell was not as potent in the second flight was because the plane was a Boeing 717 which uses a different style air-conditioning system.
If it had been another Airbus A320 then the same situation could have happened again.
Gas cylinders are a contraband item because they can leak and even explode at high altitudes.
Mr Westaway said the 30cm bottle, which is commonly used to fuel a small camp cooker, was detected when it began leaking after reaching 25,000 feet.
Brisbane Airport Corporation spokesman Jim Carden said the passenger should have declared the item when he checked in at Brisbane Airport.
"All passengers are asked at check in whether they are carrying any flammable devices in their luggage and clearly he didn't tell anyone," Mr Carden said.
"I can see why Jetstar want to throw the book at him and frankly so do we."
Mr Carden said holiday travellers should consider this is a timely reminder not to bring anything dangerous aboard a plane.
Mr Westaway said naivety was not an excuse.
Australian Federal Police are also investigating and could lay charges against the traveller.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just taking a guess, but the gas cylinder should have shown up on the x ray. You can see what the cylinders normally look like as there are some in the DG/prohibited item display near security.
Also a butane gas cylinder either pressurised or unpressurised is not allowed in the cabin and may only be carried as cargo, but I would have to check the DG regs about that.
Also a butane gas cylinder either pressurised or unpressurised is not allowed in the cabin and may only be carried as cargo, but I would have to check the DG regs about that.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The Desert
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have witnessed over the last year or so a very relaxed and playful team of so called security officers at the screening point at a major domestic port. These people still think that they are enough to stop people doing this kind of thing. I have personally witnessed on a number of occasions when the right person could easily walk around the machine with no one watching. These officers are so busy talking, joking and not paying attention to the very serious nature of their job. To put it simple, anyone could get a job at the screening point, be them un-educated and careless. In their defense their shifts need to be shorter to keep in line with their attention span.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have missed it, but can anyone confirm that the gas cylinder was taken aboard as CARRY-ON luggage?
Or, if it was checked in, then there is no way the security guards can find it!
At the end of the day, the passenger IS responsible for what THEY pack. There is a little box that says "I AGREE" which must be ticked when you purchase your online ticket.
IF it was taken aboard as Carry-on, then I agree that "security" must shoulder some of the blame.
Or, if it was checked in, then there is no way the security guards can find it!
At the end of the day, the passenger IS responsible for what THEY pack. There is a little box that says "I AGREE" which must be ticked when you purchase your online ticket.
IF it was taken aboard as Carry-on, then I agree that "security" must shoulder some of the blame.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when do Cabin Crew perform bag searches? Sure, they have THEIR bags searched in hotel foyers but I don't seem to ever recall searching passengers bags on the aircraft?
Hope that clarifies!
Edited to note that an above post from a newspaper article is now saying that the cylinder was in the cargo hold - in which case the pax lied (either intentionally or through naievety) re the contents of his baggage when asked the DG questions (presuming of course he was asked them, which I am almost certain he would have been - I am in no way doubting JQs checkin practices nor am I attempting to slander JQ, however you do need to consider all possibilities).
What I *really* want to know though is why it was not removed from his baggage before going on the second flight??????????
I think most of the heat should go to the security.
They employ the lowest common denominator, straight from hungry jacks to their little x/ray machine looking for any way they can be obstructionist.
i.e. Knitting needles, nail clippers and any other item theat NORMAL people bring along that are very unlikely to be used by a terrorist. You are more likely to get past these dickheads with fire arm than a sharp key.
Fopr gods sake the whole system is a farce and occurences like this just prove what an utter waist of time these people are.
This is based on this item being carry on. If it was checked in my post is not relevant. How ever I still feel the same obout these morons,(security).
They employ the lowest common denominator, straight from hungry jacks to their little x/ray machine looking for any way they can be obstructionist.
i.e. Knitting needles, nail clippers and any other item theat NORMAL people bring along that are very unlikely to be used by a terrorist. You are more likely to get past these dickheads with fire arm than a sharp key.
Fopr gods sake the whole system is a farce and occurences like this just prove what an utter waist of time these people are.
This is based on this item being carry on. If it was checked in my post is not relevant. How ever I still feel the same obout these morons,(security).
Last edited by RENURPP; 11th Dec 2005 at 23:43.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say sue and string the guy up ... if you are daft enough to enter into a contract (ie 'Conditions of Travel') without reading what your responsibilites are, then you should not be travelling (or out in public).
If you are arrogant enough to read - and then disobey - the conditions of travel, then you should get all you cop from the carrier.
Checked in luggage? How would Jetstar be responsible for this? Butane can come in cans the same size and shape as hairspray, so even if the hold baggage was screened, why would anyone/ machine pick it up?
Jeeps, can some responsibility be put on the punters for once?
I dont work for jetscare, but gosh - it's always the airline's fault isnt it ?
Some other things I would Like to see Pax sued for by airlines:-
1) Delaying a flight (due to gettin pissed in the QF club/ bar and having their bags removed through a lengthy process).
2) Emotional trauma from abusing cabin/ ground crew for things that are beyond the staff's control.
3) Medical Trauma for taking off ones shoes in the cabin - when one should not take off one's shoes due to foot odour
I want to see a string of 'the customer-is-responsible-lawsuits' - maybe then we can get back to air travel being the dignified mode it should be
If you are arrogant enough to read - and then disobey - the conditions of travel, then you should get all you cop from the carrier.
Checked in luggage? How would Jetstar be responsible for this? Butane can come in cans the same size and shape as hairspray, so even if the hold baggage was screened, why would anyone/ machine pick it up?
Jeeps, can some responsibility be put on the punters for once?
I dont work for jetscare, but gosh - it's always the airline's fault isnt it ?
Some other things I would Like to see Pax sued for by airlines:-
1) Delaying a flight (due to gettin pissed in the QF club/ bar and having their bags removed through a lengthy process).
2) Emotional trauma from abusing cabin/ ground crew for things that are beyond the staff's control.
3) Medical Trauma for taking off ones shoes in the cabin - when one should not take off one's shoes due to foot odour
I want to see a string of 'the customer-is-responsible-lawsuits' - maybe then we can get back to air travel being the dignified mode it should be
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thus buck should stop with the airline under the doctrine of "principal and agent" under which principal carries the can for whatever its agent/contractor either does or omits to do. Most contracts for the supply of services are on the basis of 'all care and no responsibility'; I doubt that anyone doing business with Jetstar, or any otther airline for that matter, would insist on anything less. An airline can give its contractors a right bollocking when they stuff up but when its all said and done, the airline has to shoulder the responsibility for its agents activities or inactivities.
Was the Jetstar spin-doctor rattling his sabre and sending a message to its future customers that they shouln't carry gas cylinders on their aircraft??
Was the Jetstar spin-doctor rattling his sabre and sending a message to its future customers that they shouln't carry gas cylinders on their aircraft??
Evertonian
If he was carrying it in his shoes, they would've found it straight away!
Bit confusing though, am I correct in thinking that when they changed aircraft & got the smell on the 717, they then decided to search the PAX baggage?
Of all the airlines I've had dealings with, Britannia were the only ones that followed through on a discipline. If a punter made a joke or comment about a bomb at check in, there was a standing order to refuse travel & rip up their ticket. I saw it done just the once at Tulla...gee it felt good too!
Bit confusing though, am I correct in thinking that when they changed aircraft & got the smell on the 717, they then decided to search the PAX baggage?
Of all the airlines I've had dealings with, Britannia were the only ones that followed through on a discipline. If a punter made a joke or comment about a bomb at check in, there was a standing order to refuse travel & rip up their ticket. I saw it done just the once at Tulla...gee it felt good too!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It hasn't yet been said but well done to the crew involved. The result? 1 jet safely landed. Passenger and crew "injuries" delt with as per accepted airlne practice. Don Esson, to petulantly blame the carrier for a passengers actions that controvined ALL airlines rules is a classic. I think youve just got a front running nomination for D1ckhe@d of the year!!
How many pax actually cough up to having banned items in their checked in luggage? Not many.
DM
How many pax actually cough up to having banned items in their checked in luggage? Not many.
DM