Australian Philip Kirsch grounded after 9/11 bomb prank

[anat0l]

Secondly do VA have the same signs at the gate that DJ has-We take jokes seriously etc.If so did the idiot see it?

I think I recall DJ used to have signs at gates about jokes. Of course, there would be the big headline text made in the usual jovial Virgin way, then the fine print would be very clear that jokes were taken seriously. I haven't been to BNE I when VA started, so I don't know if they have similar signs. I also do not know if such signs still exist (they were "mobile" sign posts).

The CoCs of both VA and DJ have "blanket" conditions that allow them to refuse carriage to a passenger who they believe poses a threat, breaks the law, is offensive (or has the intent) etc. etc. For example, V Australia > Terms and Conditions is VA's CoC, with section 10 being a list of possible things they can refuse carriage. It's a loose and flaky terms that are drafted, but sec 12.4 does give an example of what VA can do if they need to to ensure pax safety. I say 'flaky' because strictly it is in the section about "During the Flight", i.e. applicable to a pax who has already been admitted on a flight which has now taken off / in progress. Some of the cross references between clause numbers throughout the document are also off; in most cases, off by one article (i.e. the print says refer to 11.3 when it should be 10.3).

No where on VA's or DJ's website does it state the policy on jokes causing a security incident. My searching might be off, but I can't find it any where. This is unlike the QF website where under the "Travel Security" section it clearly states:

The Qantas Group has a strict policy of denying boarding to, or off-loading any passenger that makes inappropriate comments or behaves inappropriately inflight or on the ground. Qantas will not accept any inappropriate comments as 'jokes'. Qantas will also seek to recover all costs incurred as a result of inflight incidents, including diversions, from those involved.

QF reinforces this in their CoC by saying that you can be refused carriage if you make a threat. The clause doesn't actually say that the threat needs to have intent (i.e. the difference between a joke threat and a real threat); it only (and perhaps ambiguously) says you need to make one per se.

Both CoC's have a provision - of course - stating that local laws take precedence over the CoC's and to the extent that it resolves any conflict that laws may have with the conditions. The BNE airport website gives this information about travel security:

Jokes and Comments
All passengers and visitors to the airport should be aware that any comment made (whether in jest or otherwise) regarding the carriage or possession of a weapon or explosive device will be taken seriously and may result in prosecution and/or the airline refusing carriage.

[going OT] It is actually fascinating to read that if you are served a Notice for Refusal of Carriage from QF or VA, their terms are slightly different. If you book and attempt to fly whilst served with a refusal notice, QF CoC says that you are entitled to a refund minus "[Qantas's] reasonably incurred" admin fee, whilst VA CoC says that they can elect not to give you anything back.

 

[straitman]

Banning all stupid people from flights would be good, but assuming this is not going to happen, I don't see any validitity for such an overreaction

The person performed a stupid act and has been given a penalty that would seem reasonable by the judge.

Based on the compensation payable ( 1500 out of a claimed cost of 2100 ), I wonder whether the judge might be questioning whether the action taken of the flight was appropriate. Did the crew make a reasonable evaluation of the situation and react accordingly or did they overreact

Dave

That should read $1500 out of a claimed cost of $21,000 which makes quite a difference.

I would hope that an airline captain should have enough intelligence to be able to assess the situation and act accordingly. I do not necessarily think that diverting is always the appropriate action and that it may be more appropriate to have the offender arrested on arrival at the destination

Dave

In all probability the CASA procedures, the airline procedures and the FAA procedures would not give the aircraft captain the discretion to act in any other way than what he did.

 

[Nigelinoz]

I recall an episode of "Airport" a few years ago when an American guy was carrying a violin case and checking in for a flight from Heathrow to the US,when he wasa asked what was in the case he joked that it might be a shotgun but he didn't know as he was carrying it for someone else.
The check in agent was not amused and called the police who promptly handcuffed the guy and took him away for questioning.
I think he was held overnight and had to take a later flight,he quickly realised that his "joke" had backfired but he wasn't a happy chappy.

 

[samh004]

Saying something like that is irresponsible these days, but people are just a little too trigger happy too. World we live in.

 

[markis10]

Me thinks he is very lucky he wasn't flying an American airline with a Sky marshall on board, a body hit with a low charge 9mm would "smart" a wee bit..........

Cheers Dee

There was every chance an Australian Air Marshall was onboard despite their numbers being cut 30% this year.

 

[medhead]

Umm, I ignored that comment about shooting the guy, with a body hit
If only because they don't shoot people in the body who "have a bomb" because that might just set off the bomb. Instead about 10 guys hold them down and then someone shoots them in the head. Sure stops them setting off the bomb, but does a bit more than smart as well.