Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Abuse of Authority: Undeniable Proof

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

  • 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.

  • #2
    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?

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

        Eric Law

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
              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 you have used insulting words towards our staff
              if carrying you may materially affect the comfort of any person in the aircraft
              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 [misplaced carry-on baggage can be a safety concern]
              if you have deliberately interfered with the crew of the aircraft carrying out their duties

              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.
              Really? Do you know what happened there other than the version of the Veronicas in that article?

              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.
              That's not the point. First of all it is just an hypothetical situation. But if my company has a policy that cellphones must be turned off before leaving the gate (regardless of how reasonable that policy is), if you don't turn your phone off after being requested to do so you are not allowing the plane to leave the gate. Off you go as per 10.1 above. That doesn't mean that we will not let you on-board the next flight after we have a conversation and you commit not to do the same thing again.

              Again, I don't know what happened there. But for example:
              - Your carry-on doesn't fit there and we cannot close the bin, please move it further back where there is more room.
              - You move it, I am to short to reach there.
              - Sorry, but company policy doesn't allow us to handle passenger baggage.
              - Ok, then it will stay there. #*%@~ you and your ^&*%#$ing policy.
              And off they go as per 10.1. And it doesn't mean that they will not be allowed in the next flight.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #8
                right. ok.

                the only basis IN LAW for airlines to have such illusory contracts is in the name of safety. once you peel away the horseshit frosting, what's left is pure nonsense that has led to abuse.

                you cannot legally charge someone for a service and retain the arbitrary right to deny that service based on crap. unless of course you are an airline and have convinced the various legislatures around the world that what you are doing (arbitrarily) is in the name of safety.

                want proof of this? we have decades and decades and decades of pax air transport and likely in all that time pre-9/11, and the subsequent, rabid, "securitization" of air travel, no one was offloaded from a commercial flight for refusing to turn the direction of the carry on.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                  right. ok.

                  the only basis IN LAW for airlines to have such illusory contracts is in the name of safety. once you peel away the horseshit frosting, what's left is pure nonsense that has led to abuse.

                  you cannot legally charge someone for a service and retain the arbitrary right to deny that service based on crap. unless of course you are an airline and have convinced the various legislatures around the world that what you are doing (arbitrarily) is in the name of safety.

                  want proof of this? we have decades and decades and decades of pax air transport and likely in all that time pre-9/11, and the subsequent, rabid, "securitization" of air travel, no one was offloaded from a commercial flight for refusing to turn the direction of the carry on.
                  I don't disagree with your diagnostics of the abuse of authority in the airline industry at great. Just saying that, in this particular case, we don't know what happened and, in my opinion, you are jumping to conclusions too quickly.

                  Again, in this particular case, I don't know what happened, but I can imagine a situation where the passengers was disruptive and was properly off-loaded and, after a conversation, they were allowed in the next flight. OR, maybe the flight crew were total jerks, which of course could be the case too (I can imagine that situation too).

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    ...in my opinion, you are jumping to conclusions too quickly.
                    Ya think?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      Ya think?
                      says the supposed commercial pilot who won't answer the question posed to him....it's ok, we all know the truth behind all of these horsecrap events is the overreaction (way too late) by govts around the world empowering essentially uneducated, untrained, overworked, overstressed, and likley underpaid crews to deal with overstressed, uneducated, abused pax.

                      power corrupts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                        says the supposed commercial pilot who won't answer the question posed to him....it's ok, we all know the truth behind all of these horsecrap events is the overreaction (way too late) by govts around the world empowering essentially uneducated, untrained, overworked, overstressed, and likley underpaid crews to deal with overstressed, uneducated, abused pax.

                        power corrupts.
                        Says the supposed lawyer who won't use caps.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Children, behave.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Been fun to watch this- should have made some popcorn.

                            I think TeeVee has an interesting point...it smells a little bit funny off to kick someone off for safety and then let them go on the next flight...

                            "Undeniable"...well, let's start with absolute statements and then move to a possibly overly-self-important-celebrity, and maybe there is another side to the story.

                            Bring in the media who sometimes seem to care nothing about facts...

                            Would be fun to take this to court where facts and a good, strong argument (which aren't quite the same thing) and human jury bias will come into play.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              These 'celebs' have a their first TV show coming out in a month or so - free publicity anyone????

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X