Lack of curtains separating Business and Economy on 737

[FrustratedQP]

Thanks for pointing that out, that illustrates perfectly what I am saying. You’ve quoted the long title of the Act, which, yes, appears at the beginning of the Act. The long title is a description of what problem Parliament is trying to address in the Act. The long title has no operative effect itself. The problem that Parliament is addressing in this Act is that trespass (civil wrong) is not adequate to deal with unlawful entry on the lands that the Act applies to, therefore Parliament introduced some criminal offences to deal with it. None of those criminal offences are called trespass because (how many times do I have to say this?) trespass is not a crime.

No disrespect intended but it’s pretty obvious that you aren’t trained in how to read an Act so I’m not going to respond any further to the bush lawyer arguments that you persist in putting up.

First of all I can’t believe this argument follows on from my original benign statement about signs.

Yes, it also illustrates perfectly what I am saying, ask 100 people what trespass means and almost of them will describe an offence within the Act. To say trespass is not a crime is semantics. Take stealing for example ask the question and most will describe the offence of larceny, no rape it’s sexual assault etc. do you see where I am going with this.

Put simply if one enters or remains on any land surrounded or inclosed partly by a wall or fence or natural feature or any building or part of a building without the requisite permission that person commits a criminal offence. Most people think that offence is called trespass.

As you said, the long title has no effect, however it is there to describe the intention of the Act. Someone didn’t just make it up on the spot, a lot of thought went into it. That’s why the word trespass is in there.

Yesterday I asked a NSW Local Court Magistrate whether trespass is a criminal offence, guess what, he said, “yes.” No disrespect intended, but I think I will rely on his opinion and my nearly 3 decades of service as a police officer with the NSW Police when determining this issue, but thanks for your opinion anyway. I too have no more to say on this issue.

 

[Gold60]

Which bit?

Yep you got it.
Much like DYKWIA (do you know who I am)

 

[PJF]

Which bit?

CL meaning but there are groups that people refer to as the DYKWIA brigade. Not sure who they but was thinking they need for us to know who they are because maybe they do not know who they are and maybe they expect us to tell them who they are. Lol

 

[Pushka]

CL meaning but there are groups that people refer to as the DYKWIA brigade. Not sure who they but was thinking they need for us to know who they are because they do not know who they are and maybe they expect us to tell them who they are. Lol

Chairman’s Lounge - CL- people are a distinct entity from DYKWIA people.

 

[PJF]

Chairman’s Lounge - CL- people are a distinct entity from DYKWIA people.

Thanks Pushka I know it was just being cheeky about it

On point..........

CL Chairman's Lounge isn't it Chairpersons Lounge or has QF CEO not done the backflip on that one yet to line up with the other political views

 

[Matt_01]

First of all I can’t believe this argument follows on from my original benign statement about signs.

Yes, it also illustrates perfectly what I am saying, ask 100 people what trespass means and almost of them will describe an offence within the Act. To say trespass is not a crime is semantics. There is no offence of stealing either, however ask the question and most will describe the offence of larceny, no murder it’s homicide etc. do you see where I am going with this.

Put simply if one enters or remains on any land surrounded or inclosed partly by a wall or fence or natural feature or any building or part of a building without the requisite permission that person commits a criminal offence. Most people think that offence is called trespass.

As you said, the long title has no effect, however it is there to describe the intention of the Act. Someone didn’t just make it up on the spot, a lot of thought went into it. That’s why the word trespass is in there.

Yesterday I asked a NSW Local Court Magistrate whether trespass is a criminal offence, guess what, he said, “yes.” No disrespect intended, but I think I will rely on his opinion and my nearly 3 decades of service as a police officer with the NSW Police when determining this issue, but thanks for your opinion anyway. I too have no more to say on this issue.

I am just a simple guy what does "Put simply if one enters or remains on any land surrounded or inclosed partly by a wall or fence or natural feature or any building or part of a building without the requisite permission that person commits a criminal offence. Most people think that offence is called trespass." mean.

We are talking about a plane, no building, fence etc. it is public transport in the sky. From what I can gather in reading posts we are discussing using a dunny on a narrow body. I am one of those R4 types, not the T-80 types but one who can select any seat at any time and not CL. When I travel on narrow bodies and if I need to go to the dunny the cabin staff usually point me to the front of the plane. Have I committed a crime or am I guilty of "trespassing" for having status with the airline that I choose to fly with?. But then again I am away from home and stirring the pot.

 

[FrustratedQP]

I am just a simple guy what does "Put simply if one enters or remains on any land surrounded or inclosed partly by a wall or fence or natural feature or any building or part of a building without the requisite permission that person commits a criminal offence. Most people think that offence is called trespass." mean.

We are talking about a plane, no building, fence etc. it is public transport in the sky. From what I can gather in reading posts we are discussing using a dunny on a narrow body. I am one of those R4 types, not the T-80 types but one who can select any seat at any time and not CL. When I travel on narrow bodies and if I need to go to the dunny the cabin staff usually point me to the front of the plane. Have I committed a crime or am I guilty of "trespassing" for having status with the airline that I choose to fly with?. But then again I am away from home and stirring the pot.

No we’re not Matt, this particular discussion revolved around a post that I originally made discussing whether signs such as no trespassing (and others) were or were not rules. I can see why you would be confused. That is partly why I started the post with the comment, ‘First of all I can’t believe this argument follows on from my original benign statement about signs.’

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Have I committed a crime or am I guilty of "trespassing" for having status with the airline that I choose to fly with?. But then again I am away from home and stirring the pot.

I think the broader OT discussion was simply whether or not trespass could be a crime. My reading of various Summary Offences Acts (SA and Vic) would seem to suggest that it can be a crime if you refuse to leave when asked to do so. The penalty is 25 penalty units or six months imprisonment. That would seem to suggest trespass can be a crime. It also appears that in the ACT and QLD trespass can be a crime as well. It all depends on the circumstances.

 

[PJF]

No we’re not Matt, this particular discussion revolved around a post that I originally made discussing whether signs such as no trespassing (and others) were or were not rules. I can see why you would be confused. That is partly why I started the post with the comment, ‘First of all I can’t believe this argument follows on from my original benign statement about signs.’

I’m confused I thought this thread was started on the 15th March by snooze and as titled at the top is about “lack of curtains separating Business and Economy on a 737” aircraft. Please correct me if wrong

 

[straitman]

Yesterday I asked a NSW Local Court Magistrate whether trespass is a criminal offence, guess what, he said, “yes.” No disrespect intended, but I think I will rely on his opinion and my nearly 3 decades of service as a police officer with the NSW Police when determining this issue, but thanks for your opinion anyway. I too have no more to say on this issue.

Remaining OT for a moment.
We have opinion in law from a magistrate and police officer in one state disagreeing with a lawyer, with aviation knowledge, from another state. Can anyone else see where the problem lies?

Remember that aviation comes under federal law for what it's worth.

All this is interesting but has absolutely no relevance to the original topic.

 

[oz_mark]

Remember that aviation comes under federal law for what it's worth.

Except for the bits that don't

 

[PJF]

Remaining OT for a moment.
We have opinion in law from a magistrate and police officer in one state disagreeing with a lawyer, with aviation knowledge, from another state. Can anyone else see where the problem lies?

Remember that aviation comes under federal law for what it's worth.

All this is interesting but has absolutely no relevance to the original topic.

I agree don’t see the relevance aircraft laws are Federal laws under CASA. The signs /placards as it’s quoted In CASA regs for abiding by I previous post.
So would that mean a Y passenger going to the J toilet without the ok and not abiding what the placard says is trespassing at 40000 ft in the business class cabin. Lol

 

[PJF]

Lower and lower.

Yes how low indeed. Since the tune up from a Mod haven’t seen any more of that rubbish

 

[Scarlett]

Lower and lower.

A Tigerair pax who went on holiday in the USA and flew Allegiant? Oh, sorry, different lower...

 

[PJF]

LMAO at this thread...

Qantas policy on forward toilet use on single aisle aircraft is simple - anyone can use it so long as a queue doesn't form. (It has already been alluded to way back by a previous insider's post.) Same goes for domestic priority ground services from check-in to boarding, Qantas staff are instructed to serve who ever turns up, where ever! (Of course Qantas puts signs up and makes announcements about all these things, but never enforces them = company policy!)

The reality on board B737s is that Qantas makes significantly more money (over the course of the financial year) from the "types" who can select row 4 seats, than the "types" who can only select row 3 seats! Talk to your CSM about it next time you are on a longer flight and your CSM has a spare minute. (I did!)

The only domestic airline which "protects' forward toilet access on single aisle aircraft (and indeed other ground services from priority check in through to boarding) is Virgin! It is part of their performance guidelines for staff.

Yes and its great to see that such a level of service still exists with VA showing how to appropriately respect the boundaries of punters who are willing to pay for the experience and service of business class. QF no comparison.
Yes have flown Virgin Business and you get what you pay for a Business Class experience. IME QF do not give you the same experience on the 738 aircraft.
Come to think of it I have not seen VA high flyers doing the same things as the QF ones.

 

[Flying_man]

I think disappointing that durbrian is putting his view across in rude way. This is because I agree with many of the point made by durbrian but he says it in way that is not nice or kind. He is rude to mr John k. In my understanding mr John k is a senior member in this forum and even if you disagree with his view you should treat him with reverence. Big shame that durbrian correct argument is ruined by way it presented

 

[PJF]

I think disappointing that durbrian is putting his view across in rude way. This is because I agree with many of the point made by durbrian but he says it in way that is not nice or kind. He is rude to mr John k. In my understanding mr John k is a senior member in this forum and even if you disagree with his view you should treat him with reverence. Big shame that durbrian correct argument is ruined by way it presented

That's right some good debatable points but terrible in the execution to the targeted audience. Now that you have said that sit back and wait to see if the DYKWIAers strike. After all this thread IMHO is really academic as at the end of the day it is a QF problem and all the punters can do is air their views here or put in a complaint to QF and get the automated response. Oh unless you are a CL and as someone alluded here in a post that they may have complained to QF that it blocked their view or felt claustrophobic in the Y section about the curtains so QF got rid of them but I ? how valid that actually is.

 

[Gold60]

Yes it SEEMS as though this issue has been caused by QF doing away with the curtain, and not enforcing the need for people to use their own cabin's toilet, unless the crew on the day decided otherwise?

Something about making one's bed,and then having to lay in it.

Mind you, QF mgt may not care who uses which toilet when. If that is the case, maybe those PAX who disagree with this mgt action, might enjoy flying VA, or some other airline, timings and service standards suiting their needs of course ?

That's right some good debatable points but terrible in the execution to the targeted audience. Now that you have said that sit back and wait for the DYKWIAers to strike. After all this thread IMHO is really academic as at the end of the day it is a QF problem and all the punters can do is air their views here or put in a complaint to QF and get the automated response.

 

[PJF]

Yes it SEEMS as though this issue has been caused by QF doing away with the curtain, and not enforcing the need for people to use their own cabin's toilet, unless the crew on the day decided otherwise?

Something about making one's bed,and then having to lay in it.

Mind you, QF mgt may not care who uses which toilet when. If that is the case, maybe those PAX who disagree with this mgt action, might enjoy flying VA, or some other airline, timings and service standards suiting their needs of course ?

QF is your listening there is an easy fix to the curtain issue and maybe you can make more money on flights. get rid of business class on the 738s and put extra Y seats in. Problem solved and perhaps more money for the coffers (you would have to crunch the numbers) Leave the Business class experience to Virgin

 

[JohnK]

That's right some good debatable points but terrible in the execution to the targeted audience. Now that you have said that sit back and wait to see if the DYKWIAers strike.

Are there really any DYWKIAers in this thread? I think most have said they only use the front toilet under certain conditions?