Jetstar in-air fight

[Quickstatus]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

why not just ban ALL alcohol on the entire plane.

after all if people can't smoke on board, surely drinkers should be able to do without a drink for the duration.

Then just stock more bottled water, etc to make up for the dehydration, etc ??

Actually will be less dehydration as alcohol is a diuretic

 

[Gold60]

Fortunately it was airplane and diversion was couple of hours. If such happened on a cruise, then?

chain them to the propeller shaft for the duration ??

 

[NSWP]

The police in coughet should have charged them and put them before the courts, give them 12 months in the local slammer. By sending them back they get off virtually scot free. So what if Qantas Group bans them, plenty of other carriers will take their money. Clowns.

Now a little off topic, but in my former life I was involved in law enforcement at Mascot Airport. Back then, Australian Defence Force bods were given complimentary membership of the Qantas Club as Qantas was the Defence Force carrier. Many a soldier/sailor/airman went way over the top on the grog in the lounge and was denied boarding on the aircraft, if they played up, we were called and they were charged and/or given the blue light taxi to the Military Detention Centre @ Holsworthy.

Other times we were called to the arriving aircraft to escort drunks/assailants etc off the aircraft as they had played up on the flight, on most occasions the flight crew did not want to give statements or proceed as they 'did not want to go to court' if any charges were defended. Pretty weak most the flight crews were, frustrating.

I blame them and the airlines, too free with the demon drink. Bring on random breath testing at the gate, over .05%, denied boarding and no refunds.

 

[Quickstatus]

The police in coughet should have charged them and put them before the courts, give them 12 months in the local slammer. By sending them back they get off virtually scot free. So what if Qantas Group bans them, plenty of other carriers will take their money. Clowns.

Now a little off topic, but in my former life I was involved in law enforcement at Mascot Airport. Back then, Australian Defence Force bods were given complimentary membership of the Qantas Club as Qantas was the Defence Force carrier. Many a soldier/sailor/airman went way over the top on the grog in the lounge and was denied boarding on the aircraft, if they played up, we were called and they were charged and/or given the blue light taxi to the Military Detention Centre @ Holsworthy.

I blame them and the airlines, too free with the demon drink.

they never got to HKT

 

[ashleyn]

Isn't it about time all airlines got real about this problem ? Don't allow p!ssed people onto the plane, simple. Once onboard, the crew have some control over how much they serve and so observe RSA guidelines.

 

[dajop]

Isn't it about time all airlines got real about this problem ? Don't allow p!ssed people onto the plane, simple. Once onboard, the crew have some control over how much they serve and so observe RSA guidelines.

It seems a lot of the time 2.5 litres of DF spirits are the problem .... not so much serving of alcohol or people being drunk pre-flight. This would mean some sort of quarantining of DF alcohol.

 

[ksthommo]

Now a little off topic, but in my former life I was involved in law enforcement at Mascot Airport. Back then, Australian Defence Force bods were given complimentary membership of the Qantas Club as Qantas was the Defence Force carrier. Many a soldier/sailor/airman went way over the top on the grog in the lounge and was denied boarding on the aircraft, if they played up, we were called and they were charged and/or given the blue light taxi to the Military Detention Centre @ Holsworthy.

Was a good deal when Qantas first offered defence force members qantas club membership around 95/96, it was never complimentary.

 

[Quickstatus]

Apparently each of the Jetstar6 got a double security escort.

Would be a long duty schedule for these security agents.

Depart SYD 1650 Arrive SYD 0615

Add 3 hours either side

Just under 20 hours door to door

They may have been given a JQ premium seat outbound but would have to be in Y next to one of the Jetstar6 most likely put in a middle seat at the very rear of the aircraft.

Would these be casually employed agents?

 

[Meggsy]

A Jetstar spokesman today announced that the 6 men have been banned from flying on any Jetstar or Qantas flights and that the company is considering their position on recovering the costs of the disruption from the men.
Good to see this action and I hope they follow through with the cost recovery. Slim chance I know but it just might make a few of the dopes wake up to them selves.

 

[Quickstatus]

Apparently Jetstar released a media statement about this but I have been unable to find it.

 

[Quickstatus]

A Jetstar spokesman today announced that the 6 men have been banned from flying on any Jetstar or Qantas flights and that the company is considering their position on recovering the costs of the disruption from the men.
Good to see this action and I hope they follow through with the cost recovery. Slim chance I know but it just might make a few of the dopes wake up to them selves.

On another level, while airlines like this one can insert clauses into their terms of carriage enabling them to recover costs, the same does not apply for passengers.

While most agree that cost recovery is reasonable in this case, I am intrigued that passenger rights to recoveries of their costs are restricted by the same terms of carriage.

 

[anat0l]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

How about no. Why should the majority have to suffer "Nanny state" type policies for the actions of the minority?

Because it is easier to push the "nanny state" agenda through parliament and the courts rather than trying to convince a collective of spineless judges and a gaggle of politicians with the moral resolve of a chestnut to actually enact better laws and consequences that would see drunken idiots who cause these kinds of incidents punished to an earnest degree which would be reflective of their actions.

And to hell with this "I was drunk therefore I was not in control of my normal behaviour" - you caused yourself to be drunk, you bear the ultimate responsibility, not some other party. The defence lawyers will take this field day to court, and woe betide those poor lawyers would have more morals to know they are defending someone who should know better for themselves and should be in prison.


Until the justice system actually clamps down really hard on adverse behaviour on board (terrorism notwithstanding, which seems to be "adequately" punished), then no one is going to take this seriously. The irony is that people commit criminal acts on board that would have severe consequences if done on the ground, and many walk away scot free! What stupid logic is that? But no, legal processes are too long, jurisdiction is a better argument than the act itself, there are too many defences and too many spineless magistrates to actually mete out justice (probably because enough of them have a rose-coloured glasses image of flying from only flying J or F).


If random breath testing were brought in with a strict 0.05 BAL before boarding, I think most of AFF would be forcibly offloaded.

 

[JohnK]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

Only on Jetstar. Not quite.

Just a question, do they undergo hand to hand combat training and such? I am sure even modern day police would struggle to engage in the restraint of violent alcohol-fuelled pax in the confines of an aircraft cabin whilst unarmed.

Unfortunate situation, my priority would obviously just be get the plane on the ground asap. Which it seems they did?

I was on QF24 a few years ago where we flew BKK-CNS-SYD to drop off a drunk bogan. He was drunk and calm before boarding but then started asking for 2 drinks such as beer and an apperitif! LOL. When he was refused service he started to get louder and out of control. Stole the inflight scotch 2-3 times.

There were AFP on the flight for a different reason. One sitting next to me and the drunk bogan was 1 row behind in opposite aisle. They got involved when the drunk bogan was out of control. Very hard to restrain and I believe he broke free of the plastic restraints a few times.

I believe he got off lightly when finally went to court.

 

[Meggsy]

Apparently Jetstar released a media statement about this but I have been unable to find it.

I picked it up in the ninemsn news feed earlier this evening.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

Because it is easier to push the "nanny state" agenda through parliament and the courts rather than trying to convince a collective of spineless judges and a gaggle of politicians with the moral resolve of a chestnut to actually enact better laws and consequences that would see drunken idiots who cause these kinds of incidents punished to an earnest degree which would be reflective of their actions.

And to hell with this "I was drunk therefore I was not in control of my normal behaviour" - you caused yourself to be drunk, you bear the ultimate responsibility, not some other party. The defence lawyers will take this field day to court, and woe betide those poor lawyers would have more morals to know they are defending someone who should know better for themselves and should be in prison.


Until the justice system actually clamps down really hard on adverse behaviour on board (terrorism notwithstanding, which seems to be "adequately" punished), then no one is going to take this seriously. The irony is that people commit criminal acts on board that would have severe consequences if done on the ground, and many walk away scot free! What stupid logic is that? But no, legal processes are too long, jurisdiction is a better argument than the act itself, there are too many defences and too many spineless magistrates to actually mete out justice (probably because enough of them have a rose-coloured glasses image of flying from only flying J or F).

I think you need to preface that with 'in my opinion'

The acts that people commit on board would have severe consequences on the ground? By jetstar's own statement these men were 'disruptive among themselves' (not against other passengers). No charges were laid by either indonesian or australian federal police (yet).

They got loud and obnoxious. Not a great example of public behaviour, but what sort of penalty do you want? Our prisons would be full after every Friday and Saturday night clubbing in most Aussie cities.

Spineless judges? They are bound by the laws determined by parliament. Who elects parliament? You do. We all do.

 

[anat0l]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

I think you need to preface that with 'in my opinion'

I thought that was kind of a given. Everyone would like their system to be the one.

Our prisons would be full after every Friday and Saturday night clubbing in most Aussie cities.

That would only be an issue assuming that the majority of the population presumes that even criminals are still afforded human rights which would preclude stuffing them any more than a certain number of prisoners per square metre of secured enclosure.

I suppose in all seriousness then, you can still be arrested if you fight in public on the ground, even if it's people you know and don't really want to beat the c*** out of. Also, it's only one day or so since the incident; law enforcement still needs to get their ducks in a row to get the right charges. You bring the wrong charges against someone and that gets thrown out even before court; you've evaporated most of your opportunity to prosecute. Indonesian police didn't even get the chance before they got shipped off; unless it was drugs they probably wouldn't have given a ****.

Spineless judges? They are bound by the laws determined by parliament. Who elects parliament? You do. We all do.

The law is not absolute. This is why sentences can vary, and to be more to the point, in some cases it's not so much that the judge didn't find them guilty, but what sentence was given as a result that has been insulting and spineless. One level above that, no matter if the case is decided by a magistrate or a jury, there will always involve a decision based on a balance (in civil law, balance of probabilities; in criminal law, beyond reasonable doubt) that again is not absolute (it simply has to "fit" a description of what the decision reflects).

Case in point - how many drunken incidents (not just planes) with damage or assault have gone before a judge, and the judge lets off the offender with almost no fine, probably no conviction, and the defence has either been that the person was not acting in normal character, was intoxicated and thus lacked personal control, was remorseful for their actions (yeah, right, over my dead body you fake actor), blah blah blah blah blah...... airline or property is left holding the bag, and we wonder if Darwin was on a coffee break.

The extent to which a judge can sentence is dictated by law; that's why there needs to be more action around this to stiffen the legal processes and punishments. Now I'm sure someone is going to say that increasing punishments or the like has little to no effect on deterring unwanted behaviour. I guess we could lobby for the "nanny state" option which bans alcohol on flights, but I suspect that's not too popular even if it might be easier to pass it through parliament.

Who elects parliament? Yeah, no need to remind us of our democratic ineptitude.....

 

[JohnK]

I blame them and the airlines, too free with the demon drink. Bring on random breath testing at the gate, over .05%, denied boarding and no refunds.

Why .05%? That is nowhere near drunk and why lump everyone in the same bracket?

And yes I have never had an accident driving under the influence of alcohol yet I have had accidents sober. Go figure....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

...in some cases it's not so much that the judge didn't find them guilty, but what sentence was given as a result that has been insulting and spineless.

...

The extent to which a judge can sentence is dictated by law; that's why there needs to be more action around this to stiffen the legal processes and punishments. Now I'm sure someone is going to say that increasing punishments or the like has little to no effect on deterring unwanted behaviour.

I mentioned this site before I think for those who might be interested in approaches to sentencing: You Be The Judge

This site gives an opportunity for you to be a virtual judge' and pass sentence on four actual cases. You get to hear the evidence and have the full range of options in determining punishment. The results may surprise you.

The media has selected a case here to sensationalise. I'm not sure trial by media is always fair either?

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

I foresee Jet* will bring them home, they will cough and moan about how hard done by they are and they are just hard working aussie battlers from the 'burbs who were misunderstood and then they will disappear into the Current Affair archives, where they belong.

Unless one of them is a deadbeat dad with outstanding child support but going on exotic vacations, they will drag out the ex defacto for that one.

If one of them is a deadbeat dad with outstanding child support he wouldn't get the chance of going on an exotic vacation outside the country anyway as he'd be flagged to customs then return to checkin accompanied by AFP saying he was no longer able to travel on the flight.

Their passport photo page was posted by the media so likely to have been give. them by DPS police for a small "admin fee". Have passengers been banned by airlines due to poor behaviour?

It seems an ever increasing number are joining the list. Some airlines can flag pax so would be alerted when they make and future bookings so they can be monitored.

in relation to some of the passengers it appears jetstar might have a responsibility to get them home? Two passengers were involved in the brawl, yet all six were removed from the aircraft. the four not involved... on what basis can an airline dump them in a foreign country?

It's in the conditions of carriage somewhere. If pax continuously disobey instructions from crew in addition to the other more serious misdemeanours such as compromising the safety of fellow pax with drunken behaviour and fighting then the airline owes them diddly squat.

I think there's a bit more to the story here. Why were they allowed to board in sydney? why were the served more alcohol on board? why weren't the crew monitoring the consumption of any duty free? or at least confiscate any duty free until arrival? if the pilots spoke to the passengers on several occasions, was the cost of a diversion fully explained? And how effective was pilot training in being able to de-escalate the situation if they spoke 'several times' but nothing changed?

im not condoning any passenger action here, but other passengers on board should be able to fly knowing the airline and crew are looking to enforce as safe an environment as possible.

They wouldn't have been offloaded prior to the flight in SYD if they did not appear to be drunk when boarding. The pax may not have been served any alcohol by the crew inflight as the article states that they hooked into their Hennessy XO duty free cognac which shows they have blatant disregard for any form of authority as the cabin crew on JQi always mention during the welcome on board PA that the consumption of one's own alcohol onboard the aircraft is strictly prohibited.

the airline equally has a duty to provide a safe environment for other passengers. an airline can't simply stand by and allow a riot on board because crew don't want to get involved.

my issue is not so much whether the airline owes the Bali 2 (not 6) and responsibility, but whether there is a responsibility to the other 300.

we have seen on the qantas documentary that crew do confiscate alcohol, and inform the captain, when passengers are consuming their own alcohol on board. if a crew member feels uncomfortable doing that, maybe it is an issue of appropriate training to be developed by the airline.

I believe the Fremantle Media peeps filming Ready for Take Off have got some footage for series 3 of a FIFO worker at PER (displaying all the attriubutes of someone on ice - no surprises there) going off his nut and using just about every expletive under the sun at staff because he'd left his mobile phone on an aircraft. The AFP were called but let the guy walk. Be interesting to see if the footage makes the final cut.

I blame them and the airlines, too free with the demon drink. Bring on random breath testing at the gate, over .05%, denied boarding and no refunds.

In that case can we please have mandatory drug testing at the boarding gate as well for flights to/from DPS & HKT plus any flight ex DRW or PER to curb the ridiculous amounts of FIFO workers getting iced up before the homeward bound flights after 21 day swings. I'm not saying every FIFO worker uses ice however, it seems that a huge majority of offenders have a workplace that is either on a rig or underground.

It seems a lot of the time 2.5 litres of DF spirits are the problem .... not so much serving of alcohol or people being drunk pre-flight. This would mean some sort of quarantining of DF alcohol.

If people can't follow airline policy and abstain from drinking their DF alcohol the only other way to deal with the problem would be to prohibit any duty free alcohol carried in the cabin on flights to DPS or HKT.

Was a good deal when Qantas first offered defence force members qantas club membership around 95/96, it was never complimentary.

An ADF friend joined the QP around then and ISTR the figure of AUD100.00 was mentioned but not sure if that was the annual charge and the joining fee was waived?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

It's in the conditions of carriage somewhere. If pax continuously disobey instructions from crew in addition to the other more serious misdemeanours such as compromising the safety of fellow pax with drunken behaviour and fighting then the airline owes them diddly squat.



They wouldn't have been offloaded prior to the flight in SYD if they did not appear to be drunk when boarding. The pax may not have been served any alcohol by the crew inflight as the article states that they hooked into their Hennessy XO duty free cognac which shows they have blatant disregard for any form of authority as the cabin crew on JQi always mention during the welcome on board PA that the consumption of one's own alcohol onboard the aircraft is strictly prohibited.


If people can't follow airline policy and abstain from drinking their DF alcohol the only other way to deal with the problem would be to prohibit any duty free alcohol carried in the cabin on flights to DPS or HKT.

I agree re off-loading for the two pax involved - but the other four? We'd need to know the extent to which they actually posed a problem to the aircraft and crew.

According to the article I read last night (dated yesterday, but the content could have been drawn up before that) jetstar is quoted as saying they are unable to confirm whether cabin crew served the pax alcohol. JQ can only confirm a decision was made at some point during the flight to refuse the service of alcohol.

Passengers don't need to be 'drunk' to be refused carriage. An airline only needs to believe a passenger is 'under the influence' of alcohol or drugs (JQ conditions of carriage 10.1). Again, we'd need to know some more of what actually happened.

Banning the outright carriage of alcohol is probably not necessary. Crew could confiscate DF on a case by case basis if required.