Pax removed from QF838 MEL-DRW 02 Feb

[drron]

Was this fellow one of the ones to refuse to sit down or did he just wish to get off.
If the first then he has refused to obey a crew instruction and no matter what the cause is he must expect that being put on a no fly list is a possible consequence.
If it was the second personally I think QF has been too harsh unless there was more to the conversation with the crew.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Was this fellow one of the ones to refuse to sit down or did he just wish to get off.
If the first then he has refused to obey a crew instruction and no matter what the cause is he must expect that being put on a no fly list is a possible consequence.
If it was the second personally I think QF has been too harsh unless there was more to the conversation with the crew.

From the sound of it it looks like this passenger decided to 'join in' rather than being one of those who instigated.

For those who did instigate the action, I'm not sure whether aground for their barring would be failure to obey a crew member instruction to be seated. You could probably get them on commercial grounds (costs associated with the delay), and potential grounds that they might disrupt future flights (also commercial, and possibly safety)... but I'm not sure about the 'obeying' bit.

 

[toowongman]

All this could have been avoided if the Government used RAAF or chartered aircraft to move these people around as they usually do.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

All this could have been avoided if the Government used RAAF or chartered aircraft to move these people around as they usually do.

I'm not too excited about the cost to the taxpayer for that! Although I'd need to see the economics.

Do we know how many other commercial flights have been undertaken incident free?

 

[ChasingDaylight]

All this could have been avoided if the Government used RAAF or chartered aircraft to move these people around as they usually do.

Speaking from experience (albeit in 2012) commercial aircraft are commonly used where there is only a couple of detainees/IMA's travelling, and they are always under escort. Charters and government aircraft are used when there is more than a few (i.e big transfer off XCH/potential security risks.

Do we know how many other commercial flights have been undertaken incident free?

Lots. It's very common (or was!).

 

[BAM1748]

I'm not too excited about the cost to the taxpayer for that! Although I'd need to see the economics.

Do we know how many other commercial flights have been undertaken incident free?

The crew are being paid, the plane is there regardless so operational costs, fuel, landing fees, crew accom at the destination.

In this case they should have used the RAAF. They may use commercial many times without incident but like insurance you want to cover the 'big one'.

Matt

 

[RooFlyer]

Can't really see how this was 'the big one'. It was a single guy, who tried to enter Australia on false pretences. No doubt it happens all the time.

Do people really think they should fly an RAAF plane to Sri Lanka and back just for one pax (plus escort)?

 

[ChasingDaylight]

Can't really see how this was 'the big one'. It was a single guy, who tried to enter Australia on false pretences. No doubt it happens all the time.

Movements have slowed down quite a lot now, but it was incredibly common in 2012. Charters/RAAF are only used for large numbers or for exceedingly risky individuals.

 

[toowongman]

Can't really see how this was 'the big one'. It was a single guy, who tried to enter Australia on false pretences. No doubt it happens all the time.

Do people really think they should fly an RAAF plane to Sri Lanka and back just for one pax (plus escort)?

Yup. Gives the RAAF something to do and sends a message to others thinking about trying the same stunt.

 

[amaroo]

Yup. Gives the RAAF something to do and sends a message to others thinking about trying the same stunt.

With a conga line of smiling Generals onboard lined up ready to take selfies...

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Under international law people are entitled to seek asylum. Just because his application was rejected doesn't mean it wasn't a genuine application.
I think having anyone on a flight under duress is a safety and security issue, whether it's an asylum seeker or a prisoner being extradited to another jurisdiction.
Surely - where logistically possible - people should always be allowed to leave an aircraft if they are concerned about their safety.
An aircraft crash isn't the only safety concern - onboard conflict is a legitimate concern as well.

 

[Quickstatus]

Under international law people are entitled to seek asylum. Just because his application was rejected doesn't mean it wasn't a genuine application.
I think having anyone on a flight under duress is a safety and security issue, whether it's an asylum seeker or a prisoner being extradited to another jurisdiction.
Surely - where logistically possible - people should always be allowed to leave an aircraft if they are concerned about their safety.
An aircraft crash isn't the only safety concern - onboard conflict is a legitimate concern as well.

the other side of the coin: just because someone calls themselves asylum seekers does not mean they are political refugees by definition. Most are just rent seekers.

 

[RooFlyer]

Under international law people are entitled to seek asylum. Just because his application was rejected doesn't mean it wasn't a genuine application.
I think having anyone on a flight under duress is a safety and security issue, whether it's an asylum seeker or a prisoner being extradited to another jurisdiction.
Surely - where logistically possible - people should always be allowed to leave an aircraft if they are concerned about their safety.
An aircraft crash isn't the only safety concern - onboard conflict is a legitimate concern as well.

Sure, anyone can seek asylum - but it doesn't mean its a genuine application. I've often thought about seeking asylum in New Zealand, but they are pretty clever over there.

Sure, violence on planes is a safety issue issue; maybe we should send failed asylum seekers (AKA non-refugees) back via the boats they typically choose to arrive in? (But of course its only by boat typically from Indonesia. Usually the asylum seekers fly from home country to Indonesia! Talking generically here, not necessarily the Sri Lankans.)

The on-board conflict you mention; um ... what would be the source of such conflict on those flights I wonder?

Finally, the 2 who are the subject of the recent posts didn't ask to leave the aircraft because of "safety concerns" - it was because they didn't like what was happening to the non-refugee. Sort of like that couple who de-boarded because they couldn't get the right size of First Class pyjamas on a Qantas flight; too self important to fly, but in this case it was in conjunction with other disruptions to the flight.

 

[Moody]

the other side of the coin: just because someone calls themselves asylum seekers does not mean they are political refugees by definition. Most are just rent seekers.

"Most are just rent seekers" - is that something a right-wing shock jock told you to parrot?

Sorry to bring facts into the argument but the vast majority of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees. Furthermore the ones that do settle in Australia are less likely to be dole bludgers than the locals - they tend to grasp the opportunity with both hands and lead very productive lives ... if they haven't been too traumatised by their treatment.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

the other side of the coin: just because someone calls themselves asylum seekers does not mean they are political refugees by definition. Most are just rent seekers.

Rent seekers? SRSLY?

Rent seeking:

In economics (see public choice theory), rent-seeking is expending resources on political activity to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating wealth. The effects of rent-seeking are reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[SUP][1][/SUP] and, potentially, national decline.

Current studies of rent-seeking focus on the manipulation of regulatory agencies to gain monopolistic advantages in the market while imposing disadvantages on competitors. The term itself derives, however, from the far older practice of gaining a portion of production through ownership or control of natural resources and locations.

 

[mannej]

Sorry to bring facts into the argument but the vast majority of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees. Furthermore the ones that do settle in Australia are less likely to be dole bludgers than the locals - they tend to grasp the opportunity with both hands and lead very productive lives ... if they haven't been too traumatised by their treatment.

I am interested if that can be quantified by way of a source, or if it is opinion only?

 

[RooFlyer]

"Most are just rent seekers" - is that something a right-wing shock jock told you to parrot?

Sorry to bring facts into the argument but the vast majority of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees. Furthermore the ones that do settle in Australia are less likely to be dole bludgers than the locals - they tend to grasp the opportunity with both hands and lead very productive lives ... if they haven't been too traumatised by their treatment.

Ho, ho, ho. Parrot eh? ROFL!

So those who are found NOT to be genuine refugees can be send back, OK? More space for the genuine refugees, right? We can all agree on that?

Rent seekers? SRSLY?

Rent seeking:

In economics (see public choice theory), rent-seeking is expending resources on political activity to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating wealth. The effects of rent-seeking are reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[SUP][1][/SUP] and, potentially, national decline.

Current studies of rent-seeking focus on the manipulation of regulatory agencies to gain monopolistic advantages in the market while imposing disadvantages on competitors. The term itself derives, however, from the far older practice of gaining a portion of production through ownership or control of natural resources and locations.

... except its pretty obvious Quickstatus isn't talking in theories of Economics. Cut-and-pasting Wikipedia isn't the solution to every argument.

SRSLY?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

I am interested if that can be quantified by way of a source, or if it is opinion only?

You can download and read a recent relevant government report about the percentages found to be genuine refugees here.

Key facts:
The final outcome of applications for refugee status by "illegal" maritime arrivals was 100% in 2008-9, 98.8% in 2009-10, 95.3% in 2010-11, 91.3% in 2011-12 and 88% in 2012-2013.
So an average of 94.68% of asylum seekers were found to be genuine refugees.
The final outcome of OTHER applications for the same years was 45.4%, 51.1%, 43.4%, 44.6% and 48.4%. An average of 46.58%.

So although "boat people" are demonised and characterised as "rent seekers" [sic] (I think they probably meant "bludgers"), they are:
(a) overwhelmingly found to be genuine refugees; AND
(b) more than TWICE as likely to be genuine refugees as asylum seekers who arrive by air or apply through other channels.

The idea that they are obstructing some "more genuine" refugees is therefore exposed as a shibolleth.

Sometimes cutting and pasting the facts can dispel prejudice and misinformation.

I will continue to look for statistics on the employment / welfare dependency of refugees and update you when I find some.

 

[toowongman]

I will continue to look for statistics on the employment / welfare dependency of refugees and update you when I find some.

Let it go. We don't care - this is AFF not the refugee advocate chat forum.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

I was replying to a direct question from mannej.

I am interested if that can be quantified by way of a source, or if it is opinion only?

Now back to discussing champagne and excess baggage allowances.