QF bans pax for 7yrs re touching allegation

[Quickstatus]

I would take them on

I think it is a no win because QF is under no regulation/legislation that requires it to transport all passengers. In the absence of same, a Court cannot force a commercial entity to transact with anyone

 

[justinbrett]

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

I guess it’s more you’ve banned yourself from my posts. But not exactly enforcing your ban

 

[JohnK]

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.

I'm really sorry but society really needs to move away from the notion that if a woman files for sexual assault then the man is automatically guilty.

This should never be the case as lives have been ruined out of spite and false allegations and this continues to occur everywhere around the world and I've not seen severe penalties handed out for false allegations yet.

So how do you apply that in reality? I don't know but there has to be some sort of proof or evidence. You can't just say "@JohnK touched my breast" where no one has seen the incident and expect JohnK to be prosecuted.

And yes @oz_mark any company in Australia can refuse to provide service but surely it can be construed as discrimination if they do not openly provide the reasons for refusing service?

 

[BAM1748]

I think it is a no win because QF is under no regulation/legislation that requires it to transport all passengers. In the absence of same, a Court cannot force a commercial entity to transact with anyone

I think you could in a civil case, my guess is QF would agree something on the steps of the court just prior.

 

[moa999]

appears that on person didn't get a chance to say much at all before the decision against him was made

Also speculation.

One can assume at some point he spoke to the crew. Also somewhere along the line he's claimed he didn't move seats - something that presumably the crew could verify or not.

If crew saw that he had moved to the middle seat, then reduces the weight/ truthfulness that can be put on the entire statement.

but society really needs to move away from the notion that if a woman files for sexual assault then the man is automatically guilty.

I suspect Qantas have a higher standard than that.
They also haven't named the person.

 

[justinbrett]

I think you could in a civil case, my guess is QF would agree something on the steps of the court just prior.

No, you could only do that if you claimed discrimination (based on the legislated list of protected attributes).

Businesses ban people all the time (especially in the hospitality & travel industries) - there is no legal recourse except for the above.

 

[Quickstatus]

I think you could in a civil case

Obviously can't be a criminal case as no one would suggest any criminality on the part of QF

Under what legal theory?
I can't see any law/regulation that QF has broken to allow a claim to be raised.

 

[RooFlyer]

Also speculation.

Sure, there’s quite a bit of it going on here and with respect, in your post as well.

 

[Quickstatus]

but surely it can be construed as discrimination if they do not openly provide the reasons for refusing service?

The burden of proving that fall on the claimant.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Strange case. Given that Qantas is defined as providing "regular public tranport" by legislation, one would think that banning someone where is is no legal case or conviction or adverse notice by a police authority is not actrually a legal act and the decision would be subject to civil court action for denial of rights of the individual?

 

[justinbrett]

Strange case. Given that Qantas is defined as providing "regular public tranport" by legislation, one would think that banning someone where is is no legal case or conviction or adverse notice by a police authority is not actrually a legal act and the decision would be subject to civil court action for denial of rights of the individual?

Means nothing. State based public transport ban people all the time.

 

[Quickstatus]

Given that Qantas is defined as providing "regular public tranport" by legislation

I think QF is licensed to provide transportation to the public via an Air Operator's License/Certificate. It just means it operate the business of a commercial airline and sell seats to the travelling public.

The AOC does not say that the airline must carry any or all passengers, nor does it say where, when or how often it must operate its services.

Are FIFO flights or subsidised regional flights any different?

State based public transport ban people all the time.

I cant see how an entity such as Transport for NSW would be able to ban certain people from catching a bus or train for a period of time like this, given that no ID is required to patronise these services.

 

[lovestotravel]

No big deal being banned from QF

Worst case just make the booking for a domestic flight under another name

 

[TheRealTMA]

I think QF is licensed to provide transportation to the public via an Air Operator's License/Certificate. It just means it operate the business of a commercial airline and sell seats to the travelling public.

The AOC does not say that the airline must carry any or all passengers, nor does it say where, when or how often it must operate its services.

Are FIFO flights or subsidised regional flights any different?

The Qantas sales act defines the services as "regular public transport".

 

[Quickstatus]

"regular public transport".

Sure, but the Air Operators Certificate is the actual license by which QF and other airlines operate under.
There is no requirement in the AOC for QF to provide carriage to anyone. In fat there is no requirement that QF must operate at all.

Imagine South Australians taking QF to court for not providing QFi services under the notion that it is a "public transport provider" and therefore required to provide a service

Worst case just make the booking for a domestic flight under another name

Interesting, I wonder if people have tried this. I imagine that people on law enforcement anti terrorism no fly lists have tried to change names, but QF is not a government entity and would not have visibility into name changes register or similar.

 

[oz_mark]

The Qantas sales act defines the services as "regular public transport".

It also defines what it means by a "regular public transport operation", and that is about timetables etc.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Sure, but the Air Operators Certificate is the actual license by which QF and other airlines operate under.
There is no requirement in the AOC for QF to provide carriage to anyone. In fat there is no requirement that QF must operate at all.

Imagine South Australians taking QF to court for not providing QFi services under the notion that it is a "public transport provider" and therefore required to provide a service

Yes but that's different from providing a service then withdreawing the service and banning a customer after the event for 7 years.

 

[Quickstatus]

banning a customer after the event for 7 years.

I still can't see that an airline is required by any Act to provide carriage to anyone and everyone (other than it has to follow certain Acts like the Anti Discrimination Act)

 

[JohnK]

I suspect Qantas have a higher standard than that.
They also haven't named the person.

Higher standard? LOL.

 

[justinbrett]

Yes but that's different from providing a service then withdreawing the service and banning a customer after the event for 7 years.

The Qantas sales act defines the services as "regular public transport".

Where does it say that private (or even public) companies have to provide RPT services regardless? (Assuming they do not fall under discrimination provisions).

Again, considering various state public transport bodies do issue bans, then clearly it doesn't.