article cites "did not follow crew instructions" as the reason. what's behind the requirement to follow crew instructions? a simple contractual requirement in to contract of carriage? no, my friend. it's there allegedly for security reasons, though almost never is it being enforced for real security reasons. rather, it's a power play.
10.1 Refusal of Carriage
Even if you have a Ticket and a confirmed reservation, we may refuse to carry you and your Baggage if any of the following circumstances have occurred or we reasonably believe will occur:
if carrying you or your Baggage may put the safety of the aircraft or the safety or health of any person in the aircraft in danger or at risk
if you have used threatening, abusive or insulting words towards our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft or otherwise behaved in a threatening manner
if carrying you or your Baggage may materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft
if carrying you will break government laws, regulations, orders or an immigration direction from a country to which you are travelling or are to depart from
because you have refused to allow a security check to be carried out on you or your Baggage
because you do not appear to have all necessary documents
if you fail to comply with any applicable law, rule, regulation or order or these Conditions of Carriage
if you fail to complete the check-in process by the Check-In Deadline or fail to arrive at the boarding gate on time
because you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security
because you have not complied with our medical requirements
because you require special assistance and you have not made prior arrangements with us for this
if you are drunk or under the influence of alcohol or drugs
if you are, or we reasonably believe you are, in unlawful possession of drugs
if your mental or physical state is a danger or risk to you, the aircraft or any person in it
if you have committed a criminal offence during the check-in or boarding processes or on board the aircraft
if you have deliberately interfered with a member of our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties
if you have put the safety of either the aircraft or any person in it in danger
if you have made a threat
because you have committed misconduct on a previous flight and we have reason to believe that such conduct may be repeated
because you cannot prove you are the person specified on the Ticket on which you wish to travel
because you are trying to use a Flight Coupon out of sequence without our agreement
if you destroy your travel documents during the flight
if you have refused to allow us to photocopy your travel documents
if you have refused to give your travel documents to a member of Our ground staff or the crew of the aircraft when we have asked you to do so
if we reasonably believe you will ask the relevant government authorities for permission to enter a country through which you are Ticketed as a transit Passenger
because your Ticket:
- is not paid for
- has been reported lost or stolen
- has been transferred
- has been acquired unlawfully
- has been acquired from someone other than us or an Authorised Agent
- contains an alteration which has not been made by us or an Authorised Agent
- is spoiled, torn or damaged or has otherwise been tampered with, or
- is counterfeit or otherwise invalid.
In any of the situations in this 10.1, we may remove you from a flight, even after you have boarded, without any liability on our part, and cancel any subsequent flights on the Ticket.
so not only is what is alleged in the article NOT listed in their COC, qantas clearly did not cancel the subsequent flight since they placed them on a later flight.
as for the cellphone thingie, that too is a bunch of crap. i fly about 8 segments every month, and without fail, there are multiple cellphones left on for the duration. not once has there been an issue. there's actually a movement to legalize it which i assume is backed by some science showing that cellphones do not really interfere with flight.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Abuse of Authority: Undeniable Proof
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View PostNOPE. if you remove a person from a flight because they constitute a security risk, you DO NOT put them on the next flight.
I don't know what happened, but (just inventing an example) if you are required to turn your phone off and you deny to comply with the instruction, off you go because we cannot take-off until you do.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Postwe've over-empowered a whole bunch of small people, disgruntled, stressed people and are now paying the price.
The people "paying the price" are a tiny minority. As a result of what's being done, the vast majority of the traveling public gets a (mostly) false sense of security, and they love it.
Leave a comment:
-
NOPE. if you remove a person from a flight because they constitute a security risk, you DO NOT put them on the next flight.
i'm sure you will now enlighten the world on how wrong i am. but consider this before you do so:
suppose you were the captain of that qantas flight and the only facts given to you by the fa are those revealed in the story. would you agree to the offloading of the pax? what if it meant you could be sued personally if it comes out that the pax were not a security risk?
this is not the first and sadly wont be the last time some horseshit like this happens. we've over-empowered a whole bunch of small people, disgruntled, stressed people and are now paying the price.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Posti've said it before: giving fa's the authority we've collectively given them was a bad idea and here is the undeniable proof. though it's far from the first time something similar has occurred, it's high time we put an end to this abuse.
i don't care if this pair were rude or disruptive or whatever. the point is, if it made sense from a SAFETY perspective to "offload" them from the flight, they should have been denied boarding on all subsequent flights.
bottom line is this bullshit is nothing more than some disgruntled fa who simply wants to flex their authority to show who has the bigger penis or boobs.
i for one hope they do sue and win a huge verdict.
This is your "undeniable proof", counselor? You're kidding, right?
Leave a comment:
-
Abuse of Authority: Undeniable Proof
i've said it before: giving fa's the authority we've collectively given them was a bad idea and here is the undeniable proof. though it's far from the first time something similar has occurred, it's high time we put an end to this abuse.
i don't care if this pair were rude or disruptive or whatever. the point is, if it made sense from a SAFETY perspective to "offload" them from the flight, they should have been denied boarding on all subsequent flights.
bottom line is this bullshit is nothing more than some disgruntled fa who simply wants to flex their authority to show who has the bigger penis or boobs.
i for one hope they do sue and win a huge verdict.Tags: None
Leave a comment: