Lufthansa strikes again!!

[NoName]

You do realise this occurred in Singapore right?

A country and society notoriously intolerant of rudeness and disobedience and where everyone toes the line.

Had I been inebriated or engaged in any kind of abuse, let alone profanity laden, let alone for a protracted period of time, I’d have almost certainly been arrested and charged with a crime of some kind.

The fact I wasn’t, is all that matters. Your opinion, does not.

That all sounds wonderful however I’ll take the accepted facts of the VCAT findings (which it must be pointed out you did not dispute at the time).

No abuse?

28.
At 6.30 pm Mr ***** is reported as having returned to the Qantas lounge desk and engaging in an “abusive confrontation”. Mr ***** is said to have approached the Qantas desk a third time at approximately 7.27 pm and “started to get quite abusive again”. At this time Mr ***** demanded to speak with the duty manager.

35.
The relevant parts of the email read as follows:
“I walked in to the lounge at 8pm on 16 March 2016 and overheard an irate passenger complaining. I didn’t pay much attention to it until 30 minutes later when sitting away from the reception area I could again hear the passenger raising his voice and using swear words towards staff. (I do apologize as I should have walked up and corrected and reminded him not to use such profanity in the presence of ladies).

...In at least 4 instances over the course of 1.5 hours I continually heard this person “whinge” and hurl profanities at your staff.”

The tendered email from an unfortunate fellow lounge patron certainly suggests profanity and significant abuse. And I think 1.5hrs is protracted in anyone’s (except your) book.

51.
However, Mr ***** did not specifically allege that the email as a whole was a fabrication. His specific complaint was that it was a fabrication as to the time it was sent to Qantas.

Strange that you didn’t object to the content of the email if it wasn’t true.

47.
Mr ***** denied that he was drunk when engaged in discussion with the Qantas staff on 16 March 2016. In his written document annexed to the Application he said he had consumed 3 glasses of champagne prior to speaking with the duty manager and had consumed at least one more glass of champagne after speaking with the duty manager. Whilst Mr ***** may not have been drunk on 16 March 2016, it is open to the Tribunal on the evidence to find on the balance of probabilities that he was under the influence of alcohol whilst in the Qantas lounge on 16 and 17 March 2016.

The tribunal certainly seems to think you were on the boozed side of things.

31.
A number of passengers waiting in the Qantas lounge who had witnessed the discussion with Mr ***** approached the desk staff and offered to act as witnesses for Qantas if required. Some of these passengers also expressed concerns about having Mr ***** travel on flight QF6 given his behaviour in the Qantas lounge.

Plenty of witnesses who were willing to attest to your abuse. And quite clearly a number were terrified of you being on the same flight. Understandable when they have just witnessed an obvious loose cannon.

Whatever way you want to try to desperately spin it I think it’s pretty clear you are a serial offender with these types of incidents. Trouble seems to follow you regularly when you engage with airlines and their staff. It’s fair to ask what/who is the common denominator here?

 

[Quickstatus]

The fact I wasn’t, is all that matters.

I suppose that is one yardstick to measure the appropriateness of one's behaviour. For most people though, the yardstick is at a higher standard.

 

[Mr_Tee]

I'm late to this party - have only just dived in now.....but reading through this all brings back the memories of 2018 and 2022 with the OP.

Can't wait to see how this unfolds further.