QF bans pax for 7yrs re touching allegation

[Quickstatus]

Any company can ban you as long as it’s not discrimination. It happens all the time.

Correct. QF is under no obligation to carry any passenger for whatever reason.
However, whatever the "power" available to the airline, their C of C says they willl act reasonably. However, without due process and a certain level of objectiveness, arbitrariness comes to mind...

I dont know if QF is right or wrong, they may have more information than anyone else, including statements from the women/cabin crew. However as someone here said, in a he said /she said scenario, I would have thought consideration of a statement from the man would not have gone astray - even if it would not make a difference.

Then there is the ability of the passenger to travel on a number of airlines at least on that route. Isn't there as case for airlines to share their no fly list with other airlines?. What is good for one airline should be good for another - safety is binary after all.

 

[RooFlyer]

Being banned from an airline “frightening” Lol.

Oh, really. This is what the exchange you referenced was, in full:



So it was being banned on the basis of a mere allegation. Are you OK with being banned on the basis of an allegation made against you? With little or no ability to put your side?

Give a bit too much lip to any gate agent on any airline in the world when they are having a bad day and you could get banned.

Yes, but that's not a 'mere allegation' is it? Its direct interaction with the airline employee.

 

[justinbrett]

Oh, really. This is what the exchange you referenced was, in full:

View attachment 368955

So it was being banned on the basis of a mere allegation. Are you OK with being banned on the basis of an allegation made against you? With little or no ability to put your side?

It would seem you’ve banned me

 

[RooFlyer]

It would seem you’ve banned me

Don't understand that - but if it regards AFF, it wasn't me

 

[p--and--t]

Oh, really. This is what the exchange you referenced was, in full:

View attachment 368955

So it was being banned on the basis of a mere allegation. Are you OK with being banned on the basis of an allegation made against you? With little or no ability to put your side?



Yes, but that's not a 'mere allegation' is it? Its direct interaction with the airline employee.

If you act appropriately then there is nothing to fear except in vary rare unlikely circumstances that I will not be waiting to (not) happen.

Its like the people that panic when they see a police car or a speed camera. If you are not speeding and obeying the law - why the anxiety?

 

[RooFlyer]

If you act appropriately then there is nothing to fear except in vary rare unlikely circumstances that I will not be waiting to (not) happen.

In an ideal world, that would be true. Unfortunately there are people amongst us, who, for whatever reason, make unsubstantiated accusations - as a joke, to be spiteful, to get attention or a genuine misapprehension of what happened.

When this happens, again in an ideal world, those accusations are put to the person and their side sought, evidence considered and a fair decision made. However, as justinbrett noted, a mere accusation is sufficient for an airline to ban a pax. Now, that's the airline's prerogative, and under their T&Cs I doubt there is any come-back except in a court if the pax wanted to take it that far. But its not a fair situation.

Again, would you be OK with being banned on the basis of a (false) mere accusation by a fellow pax?

 

[elanshin]

Being banned from an airline “frightening” Lol.

Being banned from QF if you're from regional Australia can be more than a little inconvenient especially if QF is the only direct option to the major cities.

Many members on here have self banned themselves from an airline.

You choosing not to fly an airline is different to the airline doing it. You can always change your mind at any time.

Not saying that this is the passenger's circumstances but I can see situations in Aus where being cut off from QF can be life-changing.

 

[p--and--t]

gain, would you be OK with being banned on the basis of a (false) mere accusation by a fellow pax?

Ok with it - no - absolute not.
Likely to happen - highly unlikely.
Likelihood of not being able to put my side - unlikely but possible
Live in fear of it happening - not at all.
Troubled by not being able to fly on one airline - not at all.

 

[Quickstatus]

banned me

There is no due process . AFF should have a 14th amendment

If you act appropriately

Correction: "If the authority thinks you acted appropriately" irrespective of whether you did or not - which is actually the nub of this discussion....

Again I am not saying that QF is right or wrong, i just want to know how it arrived at the "7" without info from passenger in question.

 

[p--and--t]

without info from passenger in question.

Alleged by one party. None of us know if that is true.

 

[JohnK]

Lots of typical male victim blaming happening here.

Really?

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty or does that not apply to sexual assault? Way too easy to make an allegation if you do not need to provide any proof.

 

[oz_mark]

Really?

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty or does that not apply to sexual assault? Way too easy to make an allegation if you do not need to provide any proof.

For one thing, it's not a legal issue. Any business in Australia can refuse to service a customer (as long as their reasons don't breach things like anti-discrimination laws)
'

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Really?

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty or does that not apply to sexual assault? Way too easy to make an allegation if you do not need to provide any proof.

Innocent until proven guilty is a foundation of the law. Unfortunately it doesn’t translate well given we have an ‘open court’ and open justice system. Once a claim or case is filed, media can report on it, including the parties involved, unless a suppression order has been issued.

This means innocent parties can have their names spread on the internet, and the media seems more interested in the initial allegations than publishing a retraction or correction once the case is resolved.

It is grossly unfair in that respect.

But this case is a bit different, with the alleged perpetrator actually going to the media themselves.

Maybe they’re hoping for a further review of the case and the ban to be lifted. But the alleged ‘facts’ as reported don’t seem to be doing the man much favour.

 

[drron]

If you act appropriately then there is nothing to fear except in vary rare unlikely circumstances that I will not be waiting to (not) happen.

Its like the people that panic when they see a police car or a speed camera. If you are not speeding and obeying the law - why the anxiety?

And the first sentence unfortunately isn't true any more. I had a colleague hauled before the tribunal for sexual harassment of a junior colleague. his crime was to say "you are looking lovely today." Said as a compliment as us older doctors were used to doing. No longer.

 

[RooFlyer]

Lots of typical male victim blaming happening here.

Yes, the male could well be the victim in the situation, but I think it would be unfair to blame him.

 

[moa999]

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty or does that not apply to sexual assault? Way too easy to make an allegation if you do not need to provide any proof.

And how do you think that might be done to your standard?

Should every passenger wear a body-cam, or the airline install CCTV above every seat.

Many sexual assaults are person v person statements.

In this case I suspect (and it is speculation given the lack of facts) that Qantas staff have received two complaints from passengers, and some facts (like the person moving seats) were witnessed by staff. Wouldn't be at all surprised if other comments were made about the passengers 'state'.

That's enough for Qantas's internal review, and they've made a decision to ban.

It probably isn't for the Singapore Police, particularly if the women weren't willing to give a formal statement and/or committ to making themselves available at a future date if needed in court.

 

[BAM1748]

Based on the information provided, this would not get a conviction in an Australian court or it appears a Singaporean one.

If I was the person I would take QF on and bring it out in the court in Australia or the UK, if that's where the ticket/transaction/supply of service happened, get the evidence out there on table which is somewhat lacking in the reporting. But, only if I hadn't done anything wrong of course.

 

[Quickstatus]

this would not get a conviction in an Australian court or it appears a Singaporean one

Though the airline does/should not need a conviction. It rightfully can decline to provide services to anyone for any reason. However, the question is whether it acted "reasonably" as per its own Conditions of Carriage.

 

[RooFlyer]

Many sexual assaults are person v person statements.

Yes, but in this case it appears that on person didn't get a chance to say much at all before the decision against him was made. I think that's the point several of us are making - the aspect of fairness and 'due process', notwithstanding the airline doesn't have to be fair or provide due process.

 

[BAM1748]

Though the airline does/should not need a conviction. It rightfully can decline to provide services to anyone for any reason. However, the question is whether it acted "reasonably" as per its own Conditions of Carriage.

Exactly, hence I would take them on and ask for the evidence QF used to make a decision and who in QF made the decision to be put out there for scrutiny.