Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

MERGED: Qantas ...was it blackmail?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

MERGED: Qantas ...was it blackmail?

Old 15th May 2018, 00:36
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 712
MERGED: Qantas ...was it blackmail?

kaz3g is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 01:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 955
I'm curious what the legal implications are for the manager that approved this action... Interference?
where the hell are we, Africa?
maggot is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 01:17
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,221
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.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 01:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 93
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
Bankstown Boy is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 02:09
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,384
Qantas, do us all a favour, just reduce services to Canberra to zero.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 03:29
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 712
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?

kaz3g is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 04:22
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 44
Posts: 1,035
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.
Angle of Attack is online now  
Old 15th May 2018, 05:13
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,721
Private property, private agreements
what is private about federal land owned by the Australian government and leased to a private company?
Icarus2001 is online now  
Old 15th May 2018, 05:19
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 574
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]?
CurtainTwitcher is online now  
Old 15th May 2018, 05:54
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,334
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.

Last edited by neville_nobody; 15th May 2018 at 06:04.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 08:10
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: All over the Planet
Posts: 756
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.
Ken Borough is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 08:22
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: S16 47.2'
Posts: 150
Commonwealth land isn’t it?
Left 270 is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 09:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,384
Originally Posted by Angle of Attack View Post
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.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 09:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,721
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.
Icarus2001 is online now  
Old 15th May 2018, 09:37
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,221
Originally Posted by kaz3g View Post
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.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 10:22
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 243
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!!!
Square Bear is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 11:06
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,334
. 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.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 11:18
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,119
And this story comes to light a year after it happened now?? Someone has an agenda.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 11:37
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 240
Interesting problem, simple solution. Start engines and briefly run them up to take-off power. Problem dissapears. Easy!
Guptar is online now  
Old 15th May 2018, 11:41
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,767
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?
framer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.