Pax removed from QF838 MEL-DRW 02 Feb

[medhead]

Totally irrelevant unless you can come up with some Aviation rules they broke.

esseeeayeenn,

Please correct me if I'm wrong but non of the mentioned persons advocated the breaking of aviation regulations.

Oh I see my mistake. Only aviation related rules are sacrosanct. Ignore my last.

 

[straitman]

Trouble is, that's not what had been said at all. The analogy is to those who say "it's the law" we must follow it. The German naz_s made it the law to steal from and kill minorities. It's an extreme analogy but it illustrates the point that "it's the law" is a weak argument.

This comment applies to many in this thread not just you.

Now, I'm also sure there were a number of Germans who protested the law and were killed for it. I'd love to know if they were selfish people as well.

Before anyone goes accusing me of any sort of BS. Look inwards and answer the question posed re morality. Is "it's the law" a valid answer?

There are many laws in our society that we 'must' mindlessly obey IF we want to lead 'normal' lives so in many cases the answer to your question is YES.

Oh I see my mistake. Only aviation related rules are sacrosanct. Ignore my last.

That is a long stretch of the bow. Nobody at any point suggested that only aviation law is sacrosanct.

 

[medhead]

There are many laws in our society that we 'must' mindlessly obey IF we want to lead 'normal' lives so in many cases the answer to your question is YES.

Mindless laws that have no moral element were not raised.

That is a long stretch of the bow. Nobody at any point suggested that only aviation law is sacrosanct.

That is precisely what is suggested by saying that civil disobedience by the people named has no bearing because they never broke aviation laws in their protesting. That is precisely what is suggested by saying aviation laws are somehow so special that they must never be broken to protest morality issues.

 

[RooFlyer]

Mindless laws that have no moral element were not raised.



That is precisely what is suggested by saying that civil disobedience by the people named has no bearing because they never broke aviation laws in their protesting. That is precisely what is suggested by saying aviation laws are somehow so special that they must never be broken to protest morality issues.

Can you be more precise, please?

 

[Walter_Plinge]

So you expect passengers to follow the rule of law, even when the government does not?
Deporting asylum seekers back to the country from which they fled is réfoulment, and contrary to international law.

"International law" is just bollocks. It doesn't apply to Australia...or any country.

 

[drron]

Oh I see my mistake. Only aviation related rules are sacrosanct. Ignore my last.

Look at the relevant post.what you have used in the quote of mine was a reply to the previous post which was a reply to straitman who had said that people who would not obey aviation laws would not be welcome on any plane he was piloting.
esseeeayeenn then generalised quoting cases that had nothing to do with aviation laws hence my reply.As usual you want to shaft me for something that I did not say.

 

[medhead]

Can you be more precise, please?

Nope. There is no point based onDrron reply.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

O/T sorry, but just to correct your mis-understanding of how AFF Flight tracker work .

Seriously mate, it is obvious from a cursory glance that the flightmap and the data don't match.

 

[UP4014]

Wow, went away from this thread and came back and still going on.

Love AFF.

Matt

 

[RooFlyer]

Seriously mate, it is obvious from a cursory glance that the flightmap and the data don't match.

Yes, mate, I think that was agreed up-thread . There was a bit more than that in my post. .

But isn't it great that we are now mates! I think the mods may have been a bit concerned about some of the tone of some of the posts ( moi? ) but now its just a debate between mates.

So in the spirit of mateship, I should apologise. Obviously my post above wasn't clear about how AFF Flight Tracker, and like programs such as Flight Memory, work. You enter data, (or import it from another source) particularly the start/finish airport, and the dates, times, airline etc and the program plots the flight map from the data. So if one finds the two in conflict, one would usually trust the data, as its the more primary thing. Hence my observations above.

I know when I imported my data from Flight Memory, it was a dogs breakfast when it came out the AFF Flight Tracker side. But I fixed it OK; there are still some glitches in there, but not material in the scheme of things.

But as we've agreed that some things are amiss in your case, and I know you'll be onto Admin to assist in getting it fixed, I'm happy to only discuss what has been ventured within this thread about places visited and dates. No worries, mate.

So that leaves me to wonder. If some-one in general had an absolute, fervent and resolute belief in human rights; took others to task for complaining if they are inconvenienced when protests happen (after all, there could be another Ghandi or Mandela in the making); and believed that some governments, such as Qatar abuse their people or guest workers so that the HR champion may consider avoiding even transiting there - then should one be taking holidays in certain countries (such as holidaying in Egypt under Hosni Mubarek) or transiting like-governed emirates such as Dubai, today? Just think of the Dubai emirate's attitude to gays; to females; to foreign workers; even to Australian businessmen shafted by locals and imprisoned then trapped in the country?

There was a lot of debate here on AFF when Qantas did the Emirates tie-up and started using Dubai as a destination and transit port. A number of people, protesting about the conditions in Dubai, said they would abandon Qantas for that and/or fly other routes to Europe. They put their backsides where their morals told them.

Not sure if everyone here has done that.

Each to their own conscious, I guess.

 

[straitman]

[mod hat]There is no need to shut the thread though it is being watched closely.
In saying that I obviously need to remind a few people regarding the forum rules on personal attacks.
It's very simple, attack the topic and not any individual.[/mod hat off]

[mod hat]STICK TO THE TOPIC PLEASE PEOPLE. [/mod hat off]

 

[esseeeayeenn]

But as we've agreed that some things are amiss in your case, and I know you'll be onto Admin to assist in getting it fixed, I'm happy to only discuss what has been ventured within this thread about places visited and dates. No worries, mate.

I have carefully examined all the data in my AFF flight tracker and it matches the visual display in the map exactly.
There is nothing for Admin to fix.

I apologise that this is off topic but I wanted to correct the impression that there had been some error in the flight tracker.

 

[RooFlyer]

Intrigued by the OP, I did a bit of Google research (OK, that's limited!) on the Tamils and their use of the airline industry for protests. This one appears to have been the zenith of their effectiveness.

1987: Tamils strip off at Heathrow
A group of Tamils from Sri Lanka seeking asylum in Britain protested at Heathrow airport by removing their clothes as they were about to be deported.
Twelve male members of a 64-strong group, who arrived in the UK last week on a Bangladeshi aircraft, stripped off on the tarmac in freezing weather conditions. Amid a frenzied scuffle with security personnel they were forcibly placed onto the awaiting aircraft which was bound for Dhaka. But they were removed soon afterwards after their loud protests onboard drew complaints from fellow passengers and resulted in the pilot refusing to take-off.

As far as stripping off is concerned, they may wish to try harder:



Better than bombs of course.

 

[Hvr]

And now some consequences from the walk off by the pax.

Qantas passenger claims to have been banned after asylum seeker walk-out

Qantas has banned a Melbourne man from flying with them after he asked to be removed from a flight taking an asylum seeker from Melbourne to Darwin for deportation.

<snip>

Four days later, having made it to Darwin with a different airline, the pair went to Darwin airport for their Qantas trip home to Melbourne.


Mr Leary said a Qantas manager told them they could not board their flight because they were subject to a no-fly ban and a security review.


In a letter sent a fortnight after the initial incident, Qantas informed Mr Leary that the ban would be in place until further notice while the security review was undertaken.


"Your actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated," the letter said.
The flight ban applies to all Qantas or Jetstar flights as well as any codeshare flight operated by another airline, such as Emirates. Mr Leary's Qantas Club and Frequent Flyer membership has been also suspended.

Will be interesting to hear the final outcome of the dispute between QF and the pax involved. Guess you could say he made his point at the expense of his points.

 

[TomVexille]

Will be interesting to hear the final outcome of the dispute between QF and the pax involved. Guess you could say he made his point at the expense of his points.

That would be the risk you take if you decide to disrupt a business. They can refuse to do further business with you.

 

[amaroo]

That's my good news story done for the day

Terrific stuff!

 

[VHOEJ]

I would hope VA and TT would also consider banning him but I doubt it.

 

[nick.wall]

A bit early to be calling for him to be added to a TSA style no fly list isn' it?

From most of the accounts in the press the gentleman and his colleague were on a business trip, as they probably do from time to time given they were both described as executives, and had nothing to do with the protest and just got caught up in a situation they'd preferred not been in the middle of.

Those same articles suggest a conflict of sorts broke out in the cabin. Some people find conflict situations particularly distressing, upsetting even traumatic regardless of the circumstances, i.e. without the 'humanitarian' context here. Indeed, cannot conflicts, even if only verbal be described as an occurrence of violence? His business partner is said to have become particularly uncomfortable with the situation and no longer wanted to be on the plane. He is said to also have requested to leave as a measure of support for his colleague.

Given Qantas failed to ensure peaceful and harmonious surroundings, indeed they had a situation some may describe as a form of violence going on and they weren't even in the air yet, how was he to be assured they could manage the cabin in the air? Or that there wasn't someone else who was going to flare up later on? What if he or his colleague were nervous flyers and QFs failure to control the cabin had tipped their anxieties over the edge? What if they'd had some exposure to violent situations in the past that made the whole thing that much more confronting? As they had to endure a delay to endure anyway to deal with the actual protester it does't seem particularly unreasonable to let anyone else who suddenly didn't want to fly off the plane as well. Maybe if they'd handled the situation better the gentleman and his colleague wouldn't have wanted to leave in the first place.

On a side note, it is interesting to watch their facebook page during their self induced public relations nightmares that seem to be a regular occurrence. Not a peep from the usual fan club defending them on this one. Says something, although I doubt they're listening.

FWIW, to put my views in context, I'm not particularly concerned that they chose to honor a booking from the immigration department. At the same time based on whats been reported thus far I don't feel particularly sympathetic for them copping flak in their treatment of the business executive. They could have arguably saved themselves a lot of PR grief, unless it is their intention to get bad PR, if they'd dealt with the situation with a little more common sense and a little less chest puffing letter writing on a template that seems more suited to someone that caused a serious incident.

One hopes they treat their own staff better in traumatic situations.

 

[woodborer]

A bit early to be calling for him to be added to a TSA style no fly list isn' it?

Hyperbolic nonsense.

From most of the accounts in the press the gentleman and his colleague were on a business trip, as they probably do from time to time given they were both described as executives, and had nothing to do with the protest and just got caught up in a situation they'd preferred not been in the middle of.

The article makes clear they wished to be romved as they were not comfortable with the treatment of the asylum seeker.

Those same articles suggest a conflict of sorts broke out in the cabin. Some people find conflict situations particularly distressing, upsetting even traumatic regardless of the circumstances, i.e. without the 'humanitarian' context here. Indeed, cannot conflicts, even if only verbal be described as an occurrence of violence? His business partner is said to have become particularly uncomfortable with the situation and no longer wanted to be on the plane. He is said to also have requested to leave as a measure of support for his colleague.

They wished to be removed due to the treatment of the asylum seeker. They introduced that context by asking to be removed for that reason. Perhaps they should have asked to be removed as they did not feel comfortable to fly in the situation.

Given Qantas failed to ensure peaceful and harmonious surroundings, indeed they had a situation some may describe as a form of violence going on and they weren't even in the air yet, how was he to be assured they could manage the cabin in the air? Or that there wasn't someone else who was going to flare up later on? What if he or his colleague were nervous flyers and QFs failure to control the cabin had tipped their anxieties over the edge? What if they'd had some exposure to violent situations in the past that made the whole thing that much more confronting? As they had to endure a delay to endure anyway to deal with the actual protester it does't seem particularly unreasonable to let anyone else who suddenly didn't want to fly off the plane as well. Maybe if they'd handled the situation better the gentleman and his colleague wouldn't have wanted to leave in the first place.

What evidence of violence is there? All I can see is that people refused to sit down. Nothing violent about that. Again, they asked to be removed due to the treatment of the asylum seeker.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

yeah... if they'd just said they don't feel comfortable continuing with the flight they would have been ok.

but to link it directly to a 'political' motive means they are on the no-fly list.