MERGED: Qantas ...was it blackmail?
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.
If the airport owner/operator says you can't use the airport, you can't use the airport.
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?
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.
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?
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?
Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, Part 1, Divisions 2 and 5. No security or safety issues, so no laws broken IMO.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Canberra Airport calls Qantas 737 ransom claim ?absolute baloney? | Australian Aviation
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
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!
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Australia knows best...
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.