The Bag went but the passenger didn't
 

Just curious to see how this quarantined passengers bag was not offloaded before the flight
departed from Auckland to Christchurch

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...ation-disgrace

As I understand, it's Aviation Security law and the airlines own standard operating procedures that no
flight will depart before an offloaded passengers bag is also offloaded. I have had years in the airline
industry both NZ and AUS and I know the ramifications of allowing a flight to depart with one of these
bags still on board.

No problem here. Have another think about it. ;)

This is standard procedure, and I am shocked that someone with "years in the airline industry" isn't aware of this. Think about it. It's normal.
Eg. Just like when bags get left behind - they go on a flight without their owner.

The difference here is that the passenger clearly intended to travel with his bag. It was not his idea to get off the aeroplane, that decision was made for him. He was not what we used to call a "vol disso".

Whilst I am not familiar with the NZ regs (and thus make no comment on the rights and wrongs of this incident) I can't see how such a scenario would not in breach of the Oz Transport Security Regulations should this same scenario have happened in Australia. It provides provisions for not travelling with the pax bag under certain circumstances, but not this scenario.

Common sense suggests that there is in fact no safety issue in the incident under discussion, but the rules in Aus are written by lawyers with a directive to have their hands in the financial honeypot that rewards regulatory complexity and obfuscation, not practicality.

As Rod Rotor said: It depends on why the passenger didnt travel as to the bag policy.

Nine times out of ten the bag is offloaded due to a no-show so it has to be offloaded for security reasons. If its for something like a medical divert/disembarkation and the flight continues on, then there is no need.

Can you point that out to me in the Aus transport safety regs? I can’t find it.
and if it’s a no show it’s not 9 times out of ten. It’s 10.

In days of old, two TAA B727's launch out of Melbourne one headed to Adelaide and the other to Brisvegas. Minor problem as bags etc put on wrong aircraft so pax in ADL bags are now in BNE...whoops..

TBM, it wasn't just bags that were 90degrees out, It happened Ex ADL on the first lights of the day, The SYD crew got on the MEL aircraft and the MEL crew on the SYD one, Flts 23 & 21. You guessed it, they launched and whoops.

Passengers were no better in CBR. When the destination of the flight was announced before doors close, half the passengers would get off and board the aircraft parked next to it, flts 425 & 426.

CC

The bags may not have been taken off but the OP certainly has! :ouch:

9 times out of ten refers to the reason a bag is offloaded - a no show.

Cant show you in the regs because Im not interested in looking, just following company policy (large Australian airline) that has been in place since before I was.

Contained in Aviation Transport Security Regs
R4.21(6)(D), and
R4.21(B)(C).
Whether that applied in this case is maybe debatable. THe airline and the regulator can sort that out.

Most Companies would have their own approved procedures as alluded to above.

My point exactly, although I don't see much room in the debate. I don't see how such a situation (should it happen in Oz) would be defendable in front of the Regulator (not CASA) under those Transport Safety Regs specifically 4.21B.

And if my reading of the triple negative legalese is correct, a medical diversion does not appear in 4.21A (1)(a) as a reason not to have matched every bag to pax on board from 4.21 6(c).

You mean Aviation Transport Security Regs ;)

Given that details have been reported in the news I would be surprised if the NZ CAA and Aus Dept of Home Affairs isn't looking at this already.

Part 108 of the NZ regs seems a little more relaxed than ours although it didn't apply in this case.

108.53(b)(7)
the air operator and the pilot-in-command are to assess the risk and decide whether a passenger’s baggage that is on board an aircraft is to be carried on the flight if the passenger has failed to board the aircraft

Ooops, typo, yes. :ok:
wow. You’d never have something so pragmatic and sensible in regs this side of the pond.

Years ago, when I left the RAF, we emigrated to the Far East. It was the day the IRA mortar bombed Heathrow airport.

All of my wife’s luggage went to Mexico. It took weeks to get it back; by then, judging by the labels stuck on the suitcases they had done a British Airways world tour. She was not impressed.