Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Abuse of Authority: Undeniable Proof

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TeeVee
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
    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 don't see anywhere that any of the parties claims that the offloading was due to security.

    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:


  • elaw
    replied
    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
    we've over-empowered a whole bunch of small people, disgruntled, stressed people and are now paying the price.
    Sadly that's not the whole picture though.

    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:


  • TeeVee
    replied
    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:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
    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.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49791638

    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:


  • TeeVee
    started a topic Abuse of Authority: Undeniable Proof

    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.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49791638

    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.
Working...
X