Disgusting Jetstar
I doubt anyone outside this thread, or the persons actually involved even care or remember it anymore anyway.
Probably a question for the Head of Legal at Jetstar.
It would very much become a he said/she said debate if the airline came out soon after quashing his claims. Press will ramp it up from there, not ideal. I think Jetstar are trying to avoid anything that involves its brand in the press, considering recent challenges, don’t continue to flog the dead horse comes to mind. So perhaps, say nothing, let the courts deal with it, cop the initial interest, then move on, people forget things soon after. They stuffed up with the Bali paperwork fiasco, coming out repeatedly in the days after with different stories, made things worse. Sometimes better to just say nothing and deal with it internally with the relevant authorities.
It would very much become a he said/she said debate if the airline came out soon after quashing his claims. Press will ramp it up from there, not ideal. I think Jetstar are trying to avoid anything that involves its brand in the press, considering recent challenges, don’t continue to flog the dead horse comes to mind. So perhaps, say nothing, let the courts deal with it, cop the initial interest, then move on, people forget things soon after. They stuffed up with the Bali paperwork fiasco, coming out repeatedly in the days after with different stories, made things worse. Sometimes better to just say nothing and deal with it internally with the relevant authorities.
Well done to the Jetstar crew. Perhaps a few apologists for this passenger might have had a better perspective if they'd actually been there, instead of allowing their general hatred for all things Jetstar and cabin crew to overwhelm their common sense.
The following 7 users liked this post by mrdeux:
After seeing the news I thought the only disgusting things were the title to this thread and some posts contained therein. Apologies to Jetstar, its employees, particularly the FA, and police might be in order.
The following users liked this post:
"And the wife and child, who JQ were trying to protect, were kicked off too? Sounds fishy to me."
Perhaps they were not "kicked off", as you describe it, but disembarked voluntariiy when the wife was advised that their hold baggage would be ofloaded. That is SOP world wide, and has been (I believe) since Lockerbie. Airlines do not necessarily advertise why bags must come off, because the outrage industry/woke brigade may then accuse them of 'profiling' people of a certain appearance - never mind that security policies apply equally to bogans and business suits.
The Press will beat up anything to make a story, and some people form instant judgements based on sensationalist reporting.
Perhaps they were not "kicked off", as you describe it, but disembarked voluntariiy when the wife was advised that their hold baggage would be ofloaded. That is SOP world wide, and has been (I believe) since Lockerbie. Airlines do not necessarily advertise why bags must come off, because the outrage industry/woke brigade may then accuse them of 'profiling' people of a certain appearance - never mind that security policies apply equally to bogans and business suits.
The Press will beat up anything to make a story, and some people form instant judgements based on sensationalist reporting.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 23rd Jul 2023 at 02:40. Reason: added woke brigade because outrage industry has two distinct wings
The following users liked this post:
I look forward to reading the apologies from every idiot in this thread who stuck the boot into jq and the cabin crew involved without knowing the facts. Because God knows these people would never just ghost this thread after having taken such a moral position.. right?
Because God knows these people would never just ghost this thread after having taken such a moral position.. right?
I look forward to reading the apologies from every idiot in this thread who stuck the boot into jq and the cabin crew involved without knowing the facts. Because God knows these people would never just ghost this thread after having taken such a moral position.. right?
With freedom of speech comes freedom to be wrong and freedom to be criticised. Freedom to apologise is also a right which can be exercised or neglected. Nobody has demanded anything from 'contributors' to this anonymous forum to my knowledge, merely expressed the wish that said contributors wipe some of the egg off their anonymous faces.
Thank you for your anonymous contribution. It shall be given due consideration.
The Australian forum is a worldwide pathetic joke compared to much of the rest of PPRuNE
I would like to point out that not only did this guy cause a ruckus, did not listen to the crew (which you are required to by FEDERAL LAW), delay the flight and cost the company some dollars, he injured 3 police officers whilst resisting (albeit minor injuries, but still) and endangered those around him. Should have been thrown into jail.
I look forward to reading the apologies from every idiot in this thread who stuck the boot into jq and the cabin crew involved without knowing the facts. Because God knows these people would never just ghost this thread after having taken such a moral position.. right?
As I tell my kids -
1. Most people are morons.
2. Never argue with a moron.
It has served my mental health well.
The following 2 users liked this post by das Uber Soldat:
Hi there Das, too cool for school perhaps? On the one hand defending a run of the mill, low cost carrier, wanting an apology for something or other? Sorry, I forgot what this brouhaha was about? On the other hand pointing out your aircraft being flown by folk with intellectual disabilities, oh sorry, sarcaaarrrrasm! Carry on.
Apologise? Why?
The airline in question may have been in the right for once on this occasion but it's safe to say they still have more than enough outrages against decency and the human spirit oustanding against them that an apology here is but a pointless, unnoticed drop in the waters of their debt.
The airline in question may have been in the right for once on this occasion but it's safe to say they still have more than enough outrages against decency and the human spirit oustanding against them that an apology here is but a pointless, unnoticed drop in the waters of their debt.
The following users liked this post:
Hi there Das, too cool for school perhaps? On the one hand defending a run of the mill, low cost carrier, wanting an apology for something or other? Sorry, I forgot what this brouhaha was about? On the other hand pointing out your aircraft being flown by folk with intellectual disabilities, oh sorry, sarcaaarrrrasm! Carry on.
it's safe to say they still have more than enough outrages against decency and the human spirit oustanding against them
Be outraged then TIEW. The Captain tried to sort it out and the "victim" wanted the police. The "victim" then decided to assault the AFP so he got tasered for his decision to not do what they asked.
What reason would that be then? As has been stated the CC just want to get through the day doing the job they are asked to do, in the manner the airline wants it done, with the co-operation of the passengers.
Go by train then or drive yourself.
What reason would that be then? As has been stated the CC just want to get through the day doing the job they are asked to do, in the manner the airline wants it done, with the co-operation of the passengers.
Go by train then or drive yourself.
The passenger was verbally abusive and refused to move, so he got put in his place. The other guy wasn’t the one arguing about returning to his seat, therefore he wasn’t tasered. It’s pretty straightforward. I also agree with your point about pax who think they can ignore instructions from crew and do whatever they want. In emergencies it’s people like him who put lives in danger. In an evaluation crew have 3 minutes to get everyone off the plane. Imagine the chaos if every pax did whatever the hell they want?
For all those who keep banging on about the “lawful orders” of CC and that someone commits a Federal offence “the second” the person fails to do what they’re told by CC, no matter the circumstances, old mate wasn’t convicted and fined for failure to comply with CC directions. That charge was dropped. For a reason.
Just sayin’.
Just sayin’.