Banned from QF (for a few months)

[sjk]

Is there a reason not to post the URL?

**** v Qantas Airways Limited (Civil Claims) [2016] VCAT 2202 (23 December 2016)

From an operational perspective, this is (basically) also how it gets handled in Japan:

...conditions were that Mr **** would need to meet with the Customer Service Manager on the flight to be assessed as to his suitability to board the flight, he would not be served any alcohol on the flight, and if there was any issue with his behaviour in flight that he would be met by Australian Federal Police in Sydney and removed from the flight.

 

[mannej]

A search on austlii website located the vcat case involving the op. Very interesting reading. I will it to others to read and make their own mind. But seriuosly i dont know of how many DYKWIA moments requires between 6 - 12 police to attend the lounge in Singapore

This was reported on in the media as well.

 

[Einherjar]

A search on austlii website located the vcat case involving the op. Very interesting reading. I will it to others to read and make their own mind. But seriuosly i dont know of how many DYKWIA moments requires between 6 - 12 police to attend the lounge in Singapore

Thanks for the headsup. Reading it now

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A search on austlii website located the vcat case involving the op. Very interesting reading. I will it to others to read and make their own mind. But seriuosly i dont know of how many DYKWIA moments requires between 6 - 12 police to attend the lounge in Singapore

I remember this now, it was posted here on AFF a while ago in the law thread.

**** v Qantas Airways Limited (Civil Claims) [2016] VCAT 2202 (23 December 2016)

 

[Einherjar]

Is there a reason not to post the URL?

**** v Qantas Airways Limited (Civil Claims) [2016] VCAT 2202 (23 December 2016)

From an operational perspective, this is (basically) also how it gets handled in Japan:

...conditions were that Mr **** would need to meet with the Customer Service Manager on the flight to be assessed as to his suitability to board the flight, he would not be served any alcohol on the flight, and if there was any issue with his behaviour in flight that he would be met by Australian Federal Police in Sydney and removed from the flight.

Only because I wasn't sure of the rules of DOXing someone even though they have provided sufficient information for it to be searched.

 

[Einherjar]

tldr? I particularly enjoyed points:
54
55
59

62
63

News articles:
Man wants payout from Qantas over faulty in-flight entertainment system

10-hour flight, 5 movies, $100: Qantas passenger takes action over broken in-flight entertainment system

Doing a google search on the person's surname and Qantas comes up with plenty

 

[hmmm]

A search on austlii website located the vcat case involving the op. Very interesting reading. I will it to others to read and make their own mind. But seriuosly i dont know of how many DYKWIA moments requires between 6 - 12 police to attend the lounge in Singapore

And nothing came of it.......

As others on here have said, Singapore or the Middle East are both countries/regions with little to no tolerance for ‘misbehaviour’. The fact they took no action whatsoever ought to speaks volumes. In fact, the officer in charge didn’t quite do ‘anything’.... he spent about 2 hours negotiating with the duty manager on my behalf, trying to resolve the matter. So yeah, make your own mind up about that.

 

[Bodie]

Ive definitely made up my mind.

 

[sjk]

Ive definitely made up my mind.

I have strong views regarding (1) the OP, (2) Mr. ****, and (3) a number of thread participants, but I'm as yet unconvinced that (1) and (2) are one and the same.

 

[Kerrodt]

Oh this deserves its own separate thread. I can see this beauty taking on a life of its own.

Mods....please?

*Wanders off to get popcorn*

Well, just when I thought it was safe to put the popcorn away and switch to a different channel someone finds the VCAT paperwork and posts it. What a read!!

None of us can know exactly how this went down, but my understanding is that it takes quite an effort to be banned.

I think we now know exactly how this went down and what the definition of “quite an effort to be banned” looks like. When you open the dictionary to page 12, or maybe it’s page 6, I’m not so sure, you will see the words “**** v Qantas Airways Limited (Civil Claims) [2016]“.

 

[rock86]

You "know" I had a DYKWIA moment? how could you possibly know that?

I wish people on here stop making baseless assumptions.

If your story is true on the first page, then the tribunal reading is interesting reading in line with your original outline of event, and paints a worse picture then a simple DYKWIA moment.

 

[love_the_life]

Interesting read. Confirms my thoughts and the behaviour of the OP in the lounge. Actually did he ever post that he was offered the original seat he had chosen? I may have missed that bit.

 

[Kerrodt]

Interesting read. Confirms my thoughts and the behaviour of the OP in the lounge. Actually did he ever post that he was offered the original seat he had chosen? I may have missed that bit.

The “facts” as per the VCAT document vary wildly from what we have been fed throughout this post by the OP, not just the fact that he was returned his original seat and allowed to board the flight in normal course.

 

[love_the_life]

I have strong views regarding (1) the OP, (2) Mr. ****, and (3) a number of thread participants, but I'm as yet unconvinced that (1) and (2) are one and the same.

Are you suggesting a large hoax?

 

[hmmm]

Is there a reason not to post the URL?

**** v Qantas Airways Limited (Civil Claims) [2016] VCAT 2202 (23 December 2016)

From an operational perspective, this is (basically) also how it gets handled in Japan:

...conditions were that Mr **** would need to meet with the Customer Service Manager on the flight to be assessed as to his suitability to board the flight, he would not be served any alcohol on the flight, and if there was any issue with his behaviour in flight that he would be met by Australian Federal Police in Sydney and removed from the flight.

That’s exactly what I was initially told would happen, but as I said earlier, 5 or so mins before the boarding call was made in the lounge, a man who I’d not dealt with before who was not in ‘full’ QF uniform (he was wearing dark trousers, a white shirt and a high vis vest) but without a visible name badge or security pass (even refusing to give me his name when asked) told me I wouldn’t be travelling that evening and I was to be rebooked onto the flight the next day. 4 or so hours before that, I received the ban by email from QF security.

As for posting the link, everything I’ve said to date, matches everything in the claim.

And for all the haters out there, Singapore police are not known for their tolerance. The fact they didn’t do anything (negative) to me seems to vindicate my belief that my conduct was not threatening or abusive or in any way illegal or warranting any further interest from them. The fact 12 officers initially showed up leads me to believe the Qf staff who asked for their assistance overexaggerated the severity of the situation and several of the officers left after establishing the issue wasn’t as serious as they were initially lead to believe.

 

[Einherjar]

... seems to vindicate my belief ...

Subjective. You are of the opinion that no action done by them means it's a knee jerk reaction by Qantas.

Objective. The information provided in the case (#54) :
Whether there were 6 or 12 police officers in attendance is immaterial. Even assuming only 6 officers attended as asserted by Mr X in the hearing, it would be open to the Tribunal to conclude that there must have been some concerns as to Mr X's behaviour to have warranted the police being summoned in the first place.

and (#59):
On the basis of the findings I have made in relation to Mr X more likely than not being under the influence of alcohol in the Qantas lounge and that he behaved in an abusive and aggressive manner towards Qantas staff, I find it was reasonable in all of the circumstances for Qantas to have issued the No Fly Notice to Mr X on 17 March 2016

Perhaps having law enforcement there was to ensure the situation is handled appropriately without escalating further harassment to staff?
We could go around having opinions on why action was or was not taken, perhaps they didn't want to deal with the paperwork and were satisfied you didn't physically harm other people with your ongoing rants:
(#31)

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

 

[JohnK]

How sure are you of this? My understanding is the operating carrier pays the lounge operator. But without being privy to the OW agreement, who knows...

If I'm flying Oneworld airlines in economy that does not entitle me to lounge access so using my QF Platinum/Lifetime Gold status to access lounges would mean Qantas pays for my lounge use.

Flying premium cabins is a different story.

 

[straitman]

And for all the haters out there, Singapore police are not known for their tolerance. The fact they didn’t do anything (negative) to me seems to vindicate my belief that my conduct was not threatening or abusive or in any way illegal or warranting any further interest from them. The fact 12 officers initially showed up leads me to believe the Qf staff who asked for their assistance overexaggerated the severity of the situation and several of the officers left after establishing the issue wasn’t as serious as they were initially lead to believe.

Just because people have a different take on things or disagree with you doesn’t make them haters.

 

[Matt_01]

I am just wondering if I understand all this correctly, as for the OP, yes you reached breaking point you have stated this here and on record via the link. What I struggle to understand is that you seem to think that you are the one that was hardly done by. I am not a lawyer, ex police etc. however I would have thought that attendance by the police has been brought on by your actions and the police Singapore police have made the determination that no criminal act has been committed, this is not vindication.

As I read through this thread:

• you had a bad trip
• you encountered some problems
• you reacted poorly
• he said/ she said arguments
• you got banned
• you had your day in court
• you still seem unhappy with the outcome
• you shared it it here

You indicated that you have been SG or WP for many years and also LTG (unless I am confused with another thread) so that is fair amount of travel and based on this you should know what is acceptable and what is not. I know you will most likely not agree but surly this whole event was started and contributed to by your actions?

By the way you never mentioned but what what was your 'requested' seat and what was the 'allocated' seat that started all this.

BTW did you actually win the case #60 seems to indicate your claim was dismissed

 

[FL360]

The point about Singapore security.... over there they make a lot of effort to prevent crime from happening, more actually to prevent events from even registered as a crime.
So the amount of police there was a preventative measure.
I got a mate who got bashed by a bouncer outside a Singapore night club, trying to prove his innocence with CCTV footage and tried to sue the bouncer, however got told off by the courts so it won't be registered as an assault case in Singapore.

I think AFF should make a WIKI on seat reservations so others who got to WP and SG etc by accident will know how to make max uses of their status.... but that's conflict of interest ;-)