EBA & IR Issues in Australia (Not for those easily offended!)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SYD
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heres that word again.....fatigue
Aust pilot blames marital issues for poor landing
10:41 AM September 30
An Australian pilot who landed a plane too fast in what an Irish air accident report described as a "serious incident" had been suffering marital problems.
The unnamed 38-year-old Australian was on his last trip for Ireland's low-cost airline Ryanair when the incident occurred on a flight between London's Stansted airport and Skavsta near Stockholm on July 21, 2004.
The pilot had begun his descent to approach the airport too late and as a result flew the Boeing 737 "outside normal operator and manufacturer's parameters" as he came in to land, according to the report.
Despite the mistake, he managed to land the plane safely with 184 passengers and five other crew on board.
The pilot told investigators his lack of concentration at the time "was directly attributable to physiological and psychological fatigue".
He explained he had been experiencing marital difficulties over the past six months and his family had already returned to Australia.
The pilot, who had worked for Ryanair for four-and-a-half years, admitted that he should have called in sick on the day of the flight, but decided to go to work because he did not want to let the company down.
The report said it was "fortuitous" the landing was carried out safely.
-AFP
10:41 AM September 30
An Australian pilot who landed a plane too fast in what an Irish air accident report described as a "serious incident" had been suffering marital problems.
The unnamed 38-year-old Australian was on his last trip for Ireland's low-cost airline Ryanair when the incident occurred on a flight between London's Stansted airport and Skavsta near Stockholm on July 21, 2004.
The pilot had begun his descent to approach the airport too late and as a result flew the Boeing 737 "outside normal operator and manufacturer's parameters" as he came in to land, according to the report.
Despite the mistake, he managed to land the plane safely with 184 passengers and five other crew on board.
The pilot told investigators his lack of concentration at the time "was directly attributable to physiological and psychological fatigue".
He explained he had been experiencing marital difficulties over the past six months and his family had already returned to Australia.
The pilot, who had worked for Ryanair for four-and-a-half years, admitted that he should have called in sick on the day of the flight, but decided to go to work because he did not want to let the company down.
The report said it was "fortuitous" the landing was carried out safely.
-AFP
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sauce
Hey also on page six of The Sauce, that shortman says "1. Think of this as your business...".
OK john, this is my business:
1. Cabin Crew will have a substantial pay rise as we do the work - not sit on our furry asses at Mascot.
2. Cabin Crew will not be forced to take their hard earned long service leave which when I started with QF was a provision that could be taken by "mutual" agreement. Not when the company needs to burn some debt.
And then "4. Be passionate in being responsible for a national icon...". I didn't stuff this icon - YOU DID. It was an awesome Aussie icon till you twits decided Aussies shouldn't work for an Aussie company. I don't give a rat's ass about QF anymore. Quite frankly I hope SQ buy it and rebadge it "QF - The Singapore Airline".
And finally you say "5. Treat customers as you would like to be treated...". How about I treat my customers the way you treat yours! After all I am your customer and you treat me like sh.t.
So john, let's see YOU walk the talk!
Frankly, I think you are just all puff and billy - and you get $1.8M for it.
Go jump john - actually that will make you look a wee bit taller
OK john, this is my business:
1. Cabin Crew will have a substantial pay rise as we do the work - not sit on our furry asses at Mascot.
2. Cabin Crew will not be forced to take their hard earned long service leave which when I started with QF was a provision that could be taken by "mutual" agreement. Not when the company needs to burn some debt.
And then "4. Be passionate in being responsible for a national icon...". I didn't stuff this icon - YOU DID. It was an awesome Aussie icon till you twits decided Aussies shouldn't work for an Aussie company. I don't give a rat's ass about QF anymore. Quite frankly I hope SQ buy it and rebadge it "QF - The Singapore Airline".
And finally you say "5. Treat customers as you would like to be treated...". How about I treat my customers the way you treat yours! After all I am your customer and you treat me like sh.t.
So john, let's see YOU walk the talk!
Frankly, I think you are just all puff and billy - and you get $1.8M for it.
Go jump john - actually that will make you look a wee bit taller
Join Date: May 2005
Location: baxter
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi peanut,
things are not looking that good in LHR, had a look at the latest UK thread.
Quick! get in there and start the spin!
Looking forward to your explanation, Im really need a good laugh today!
Come on peanut " make my day"
here is a link just in case you cant find it...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...93#post2121693
things are not looking that good in LHR, had a look at the latest UK thread.
Quick! get in there and start the spin!
Looking forward to your explanation, Im really need a good laugh today!
Come on peanut " make my day"
here is a link just in case you cant find it...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...93#post2121693
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fixed Term crew are on the way back into short haul after several years break. People on the shortlist have been advised that they can expect fixed term positions to commence early next year in all bases.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: feet on the ground
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GD's words of wisdom
given GD late ever increasing fame in the business world ( see BRW and the most influential people in the country) he made the comments in NY this week that jetstar OZ is "investigating" a two class product for the international market. he mentioned to holiday places qf doen't fly. the sounds like the final nail in the coffin for aussie airlines.just keep your uniform and now you are jetstar international. my bet is the first destinations are honolulu, manila and the likes. i wonder how he is going to sell that to the qf pilots on secondment?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Free speech.......
Anyone interested in Qantas's attempts to threaten and bully those who post contrary to it's interests might be interested in the following article from todays SMH.
It will hopefully be of interest and provide food for thought for our moderators as well-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/...562954903.html
It will hopefully be of interest and provide food for thought for our moderators as well-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/...562954903.html
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mostie
I wouldn't get too excited about the prospect of an Australian state supreme court following a decision of a US state supreme court. Persuasive, possibly, but definitely not binding.
But even if the Delaware decision were to be followed, it apparently offers no protection against an action for defamation. From the SMH report, it merely changes the order in which matters must be proved.
In Oz, if you communicate or publish material to another party that lowers a person’s personal, professional trade or business or reputation in the estimation of the average person in the street, then you run the risk of being sued for defamation in all Australian jurisdictions.
Where the person isn’t named, the test which decides whether the words used refer to him/her, is whether the words used would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the subject to believe he/she was the person referred to.
The author of material who communicates it electronically, such as via an electronic bulletin board like PPRuNe, is deemed to have communicated or published it, and will be liable if the material is defamatory.
Subject to the defence of innocent distribution, any other person, such as PPRuNe, who intentionally or negligently takes part in, or authorises the publication of material, is said to have published it and is liable to be sued for defamation as well.
The ACT is the most generous jurisdiction in Australia in awarding damages for defamation. Don't forget the legal costs involved; usually paid by the loser, that is two sets of costs.
And PPRuNe is capable of being accessed in the ACT.
I wouldn't get too excited about the prospect of an Australian state supreme court following a decision of a US state supreme court. Persuasive, possibly, but definitely not binding.
But even if the Delaware decision were to be followed, it apparently offers no protection against an action for defamation. From the SMH report, it merely changes the order in which matters must be proved.
In Oz, if you communicate or publish material to another party that lowers a person’s personal, professional trade or business or reputation in the estimation of the average person in the street, then you run the risk of being sued for defamation in all Australian jurisdictions.
Where the person isn’t named, the test which decides whether the words used refer to him/her, is whether the words used would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the subject to believe he/she was the person referred to.
The author of material who communicates it electronically, such as via an electronic bulletin board like PPRuNe, is deemed to have communicated or published it, and will be liable if the material is defamatory.
Subject to the defence of innocent distribution, any other person, such as PPRuNe, who intentionally or negligently takes part in, or authorises the publication of material, is said to have published it and is liable to be sued for defamation as well.
The ACT is the most generous jurisdiction in Australia in awarding damages for defamation. Don't forget the legal costs involved; usually paid by the loser, that is two sets of costs.
And PPRuNe is capable of being accessed in the ACT.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: cyprus
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Court,Supreme Court
PPRune is registered presumably in the UK.
How can it be accessed legally through Australian courts?.
US jursidiction,UK jurisdiction and Australian.Legal sovereignty.
I wasn't aware globalization of the legal system had caught up with the internet.
Provide some prescedence.
Dixon is a prique.
The Cypriot courts await the litigation cascade.
How can it be accessed legally through Australian courts?.
US jursidiction,UK jurisdiction and Australian.Legal sovereignty.
I wasn't aware globalization of the legal system had caught up with the internet.
Provide some prescedence.
Dixon is a prique.
The Cypriot courts await the litigation cascade.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...................and that, as in Cahill's case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
"Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning," he wrote.
End quote.
"Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning," he wrote.
End quote.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mostie
Maybe, but each case turns on its own facts. All the Delaware case stands for is that on that occasion, the statements weren't defamatory. Being on a blog site doesn't exclude the operation of the law of defamation. It will depend on the content of the post in question.
Simon Templar
Broadly speaking, defamation actions can be brought where the allegedly defamatory material is published. Publication takes place in each place where the material is read, seen or heard by a person other than the person defamed. In Oz, each state and territory has its own defamation law so there's plenty of scope for forum shopping on the part of a plaintiff.
Australian money judgments can be enforced in other countries (as can foreign judgments be enforced here) under the provisions of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth).
The Regs set out the countries where judgments can be enforced. They include the UK (which could catch Danny) - but not Cyprus, so you can sleep easy.
Maybe, but each case turns on its own facts. All the Delaware case stands for is that on that occasion, the statements weren't defamatory. Being on a blog site doesn't exclude the operation of the law of defamation. It will depend on the content of the post in question.
Simon Templar
Broadly speaking, defamation actions can be brought where the allegedly defamatory material is published. Publication takes place in each place where the material is read, seen or heard by a person other than the person defamed. In Oz, each state and territory has its own defamation law so there's plenty of scope for forum shopping on the part of a plaintiff.
Australian money judgments can be enforced in other countries (as can foreign judgments be enforced here) under the provisions of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth).
The Regs set out the countries where judgments can be enforced. They include the UK (which could catch Danny) - but not Cyprus, so you can sleep easy.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus,
Quote- "Being on a blog site doesn't exclude the operation of the law of defamation. It will depend on the content of the post in question. "
Not according to the judgement handed down.
I'll cut and paste again for you.
Quote- "...................and that, as in Cahill's case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
"Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning," he wrote.
End quote.
I simple terms-
Statements from blogs/forums CANT be defamatory by virtue of where they are posted/originate.
Blog/chatroom = opinions. Not fact.
Simple really
P.S. I second, that Dixon is a prique and raise you that Borghetti is a prique too.
P.S.S. Was that you John driving around by yourself in your brand new Porsche 911 a couple of Sundays ago?. Glad that you are enjoying your performance bonuses.
Quote- "Being on a blog site doesn't exclude the operation of the law of defamation. It will depend on the content of the post in question. "
Not according to the judgement handed down.
I'll cut and paste again for you.
Quote- "...................and that, as in Cahill's case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
"Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning," he wrote.
End quote.
I simple terms-
Statements from blogs/forums CANT be defamatory by virtue of where they are posted/originate.
Blog/chatroom = opinions. Not fact.
Simple really
P.S. I second, that Dixon is a prique and raise you that Borghetti is a prique too.
P.S.S. Was that you John driving around by yourself in your brand new Porsche 911 a couple of Sundays ago?. Glad that you are enjoying your performance bonuses.
Last edited by mostie; 8th Oct 2005 at 08:05.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mostie
Sorry, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
It may well be that chat rooms tend to be vehicles to express opinions. But that's not the point. The mere fact that they are chat rooms (as opposed to TV/radio programs, print media etc) does not exclude them from the law of defamation, if the posts published are defamatory.
In any litigation in this area, there's an obvious difficulty in identifying the author of the defamatory material. If it's an ordinary person, there's usually not much point in suing them for damages as their assets probably don't amount to much. But companies and their directors usually do have assets.
And that's why PPRuNe forums are moderated.
Sorry, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
It may well be that chat rooms tend to be vehicles to express opinions. But that's not the point. The mere fact that they are chat rooms (as opposed to TV/radio programs, print media etc) does not exclude them from the law of defamation, if the posts published are defamatory.
In any litigation in this area, there's an obvious difficulty in identifying the author of the defamatory material. If it's an ordinary person, there's usually not much point in suing them for damages as their assets probably don't amount to much. But companies and their directors usually do have assets.
And that's why PPRuNe forums are moderated.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote- "mostie.... Sorry, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
Thats Ok Argus.
Its not me you are disagreeing with but rather a ruling handed down by the Delaware Supreme Court.
Thats Ok Argus.
Its not me you are disagreeing with but rather a ruling handed down by the Delaware Supreme Court.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mostie
Have a look at the actual decision here - it's John Doe No. 1 v. Cahill et. al, and can be found in the Supreme Court opinions.
Look at footnote 78 on p.33 where the Court says: "We do not hold as a matter of law that statements made on a blog or a chat room can never be defamatory...
There is an interesting discussion on pp. 3-4 as to how the plaintiff used court processes to discover the identity of bloggers from the ISP and the owner of the blog site, using the poster's IP address.
Have a look at the actual decision here - it's John Doe No. 1 v. Cahill et. al, and can be found in the Supreme Court opinions.
Look at footnote 78 on p.33 where the Court says: "We do not hold as a matter of law that statements made on a blog or a chat room can never be defamatory...
There is an interesting discussion on pp. 3-4 as to how the plaintiff used court processes to discover the identity of bloggers from the ISP and the owner of the blog site, using the poster's IP address.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have to disagree.
It's a boring discussion that threatens to frighten people unecessarily from posting on this site.
Perhaps our moderator will enlighten us as to any historical situation where courts were used to force pprune from divulging IP addresses...........?
I'll have to however aggree that dixon and borghetti are both priques.
BTW, has anyone any info on what qantas plan to do with longhaul CSSs.
It seems that the review of the position was carried out months ago.
Does it serve qf's interests to have hundreds of it's frontline employees "up in the air'" about their jobs???
It's a boring discussion that threatens to frighten people unecessarily from posting on this site.
Perhaps our moderator will enlighten us as to any historical situation where courts were used to force pprune from divulging IP addresses...........?
I'll have to however aggree that dixon and borghetti are both priques.
BTW, has anyone any info on what qantas plan to do with longhaul CSSs.
It seems that the review of the position was carried out months ago.
Does it serve qf's interests to have hundreds of it's frontline employees "up in the air'" about their jobs???