Jetstar in-air fight

[Denali]

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

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.

Really? Did not know this at all.

Well as they have been banned from Jet* and Qantas, I guess coming to a Tiger or VA flight soon....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

Really? Did not know this at all.

Parents with overdue child support can be prevented leaving if they fail to pay or fail to enter into a satisfactory arrangement to pay overdue support. No idea what the terms are for an 'arrangement' to pay. But implies you can still be overdue but making some payment and still be allowed to travel: https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/collection-and-enforcement-methods-child-support

 

[aaronm]

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

Well as they have been banned from Jet* and Qantas, I guess coming to a Tiger or VA flight soon....

Given the mens' names are already public, I wonder if VA has also preemptively added them to a no-fly list?

 

[Quickstatus]

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

Jetstar may have a liability here:

Civil aviation regulation 1998, 256


Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft (1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any aircraft.
Penalty 5 units

 

[juddles]

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

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

spot on. You are 100 % correct.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

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).


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

FYI being drunk is not an excuse at law, unless someone else administered the alcohol against your will.

 

[Anna]

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

Jetstar may have a liability here:

Civil aviation regulation 1998, 256


Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft (1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any aircraft.
Penalty 5 units

Where did you find that reference? I can't find any such regulation on legislation.gov.au :?: Is there a word/s missing from the title you have given?

Anyway, the subregulation you have quoted does not impose any legal obligation on JQ. It puts the legal obligation on the person not to enter an aircraft while drunk. If I could find the regs you were referring to I was going to look for another subregulation that might say something like "An aircraft operator shall not allow a person in a state of intoxication to enter any aircraft", which would put the obligation on JQ.

 

[anat0l]

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

Jetstar may have a liability here:

Civil aviation regulation 1998, 256


Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft (1) A person shall not, while in a state of intoxication, enter any aircraft.
Penalty 5 units

So whose fault is it if you enter an aircraft intoxicated?

FYI being drunk is not an excuse at law, unless someone else administered the alcohol against your will.

That depends - an oft used defence is that the establishments apparently caused you to be drunk, when if you were otherwise not, you would not do what you did. Reasoning that backwards, it's not your fault you did what you did and hence you get off the hook.

Notwithstanding the very flimsy lines on what responsible service of alcohol is (let's not bandy on the definitions here - we've argued that enough ad nauseum - pun intended - on other threads), that defence overall is - most of the time - pretty much full-on BS. One assumes full responsibility for their actions; if they render themselves incapacitated through intoxication which they wilfully did themselves (e.g. by ordering and consuming drinks, etc.), then that is your fault.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

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

So whose fault is it if you enter an aircraft intoxicated?



That depends - an oft used defence is that the establishments apparently caused you to be drunk, when if you were otherwise not, you would not do what you did. Reasoning that backwards, it's not your fault you did what you did and hence you get off the hook.

Notwithstanding the very flimsy lines on what responsible service of alcohol is (let's not bandy on the definitions here - we've argued that enough ad nauseum - pun intended - on other threads), that defence overall is - most of the time - pretty much full-on BS. One assumes full responsibility for their actions; if they render themselves incapacitated through intoxication which they wilfully did themselves (e.g. by ordering and consuming drinks, etc.), then that is your fault.

There are three different concepts here which risk being conflated.

First, does voluntary consumption of alcohol excuse you from criminal or civil liability for your actions while intoxicated.
The answer to that is firmly "no".

Second, if someone contributed to your state of intoxication, can they share some of the responsibility and liability?
A bar which irresponsibly continues to serve you when you are already drunk might have a finding of contributory negligence against them and have some civil liability for what you did.
In terms of criminal liability they might have committed an offence themsleves, but that wouldn't be a defence to whatever you are charged with.

The third issue is more obscure and a little difficult. Some criminal offences are offences of specific intent. You have to form an intention to do a specific thing.
Intoxication can sometimes mean you were incapable of forming the required intent. However, this would almost inevitably mean you would be convicted of a lesser offence.
An offence with the same elements except the requirement for specific intent. So you would not avoid criminal liability completely.

 

[Quickstatus]

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

Where did you find that reference? I can't find any such regulation on legislation.gov.au :?: Is there a word/s missing from the title you have given?

.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 256 Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft


But as the airline has operational control of the aircraft it would be the airline's legal responsibility to regulate who can get on?.

Sort of like using a seatbelt in a car- the responsibility is on the driver to ensure the passengers wear a seatbelt. If a passenger takes off the seatbelt without the driver knowing it's still the driver who cops the fine and demerits

Or like someone jumping off a cliff and breaking their neck due to their own stupidity but they can successfully sue the council for not puttingup a barrier.

So while the Jetstar2-6 might not escape legal liability for Jetstars costs, this might be mitigated perhaps as Jetstar let them on - may be dependant on witnesses who may testify that they were drunk on but boarding.

 

[Anna]

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

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 256 Intoxicated persons not to act as pilots etc or be carried on aircraft

But as the airline has operational control of the aircraft it would be the airline's legal responsibility to regulate who can get on?.

Sort of like using a seatbelt in a car- the responsibility is on the driver to ensure the passengers wear a seatbelt. If a passenger takes off the seatbelt without the driver knowing it's still the driver who cops the fine and demerits

Or like someone jumping off a cliff and breaking their neck due to their own stupidity but they can successfully sue the council for not puttingup a barrier.

So while the Jetstar2-6 might not escape legal liability for Jetstars costs, this might be mitigated perhaps as Jetstar let them on - may be dependant on witnesses who may testify that they were drunk on but boarding.

Ok it's 1988 Regs not 1998 - makes a difference On a skim-read I couldn't find a regulation imposing any such obligation on JQ. It's not 'sort of like using a seatbelt in a car' because it's an obvious question of fact whether someone is using a seat belt or not. It is extremely difficult, next to impossible, to prove intoxication just by someone's appearance. "They looked drunk" or "they acted like they were drunk" or even "I saw them drink 20 shots" doesn't prove that they were drunk. So imposing a legal obligation on an airline not to let someone in a state of intoxication on an aircraft is only going to work if that airline is going to test everyone somehow, and there's a clear definition of intoxication in the regs. "Please blow into this" at the gate is just not going to happen

Sorry but I don't see how this is legally anything like someone jumping off a cliff? What case are you talking about?

I highly doubt these pax are going to be able to reduce the amount of costs they are up for by arguing "we were so drunk JQ should never have let us on board". Just wouldn't work, even if we were talking about negligence, which we aren't because them having to pay costs is not going to be through a negligence action against them.

 

[Borisdog]

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

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.

I'm not letting this one pass, particularly as a FIFO worker.

Do you have even the slightest evidence to support that preposterous piece of hyperbole? Or you just repeating the sweeping generalisations you've heard elsewhere?

 

[Hvr]

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.

Yet another example of Jet* and Qantas being one organisation when it suits them.

Oh and I totally agree with their announcement, these men have proven they are not suitable to fly ever again.

 

[Quickstatus]

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

Ok it's 1988 Regs not 1998 - makes a difference On a skim-read I couldn't find a regulation imposing any such obligation on JQ. It's not 'sort of like using a seatbelt in a car' because it's an obvious question of fact whether someone is using a seat belt or not. It is extremely difficult, next to impossible, to prove intoxication just by someone's appearance. "They looked drunk" or "they acted like they were drunk" or even "I saw them drink 20 shots" doesn't prove that they were drunk. So imposing a legal obligation on an airline not to let someone in a state of intoxication on an aircraft is only going to work if that airline is going to test everyone somehow, and there's a clear definition of intoxication in the regs. "Please blow into this" at the gate is just not going to happen

Sorry but I don't see how this is legally anything like someone jumping off a cliff? What case are you talking about?

I highly doubt these pax are going to be able to reduce the amount of costs they are up for by arguing "we were so drunk JQ should never have let us on board". Just wouldn't work, even if we were talking about negligence, which we aren't because them having to pay costs is not going to be through a negligence action against them.

maybe so let's see what happens

 

[G00r]

Jetstar should seek to recover ALL costs from these six idiots.

Hitting them in the pocket might assist with their education about how to behave in public.

I agree with this.
Then, put up nice big posters in the gates of common holiday destinations:
"If your actions or behaviour disrupts this flight, you could be up for:
Fuel, crew hours, landing fees, security costs etc, like these dickheads *inserts photos* who decided to play fisty-cuffs.
They are now paying back $65,000 and have been banned from flying"

If alcohol were to be banned on aircrafts, I'd switch to trains/ships.

 

[Denali]

Me to my husband on Saturday night: There is a thread about the Jet* 6 and someone suggested they ban all alcohol from all flights.

Husband: Considering you've told me about threads where people being particular about the champagne they're served, I can see the AFF'ers now. "Viva la revolution... To the lounge we go!"

 

[NZflygirl]

Is the ban for life or just 5 yrs?

I do think their names should be shared to other airlines and maybe "beep" on boarding scan so can be taken aside for a quick reminder about behaviour, staff having a low threshold for intervening, and then board. I think a limitation of 5 yrs would be good for the boarding chat because people do deserve the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and one day these people might be 70 and I can't quite imagine them being at the same risk of brawls. Of course they would be notified of this process at the time of being banned from an airline. I realise this is a reactive measure rather than preventative but follow up is good. I'm hoping these guys don't fly too often. I think at least ban for 10 yrs from the airline they flew would be good.

I wonder if crew could be armed with a bit of pepper spray or a taser for physical altercations?

 

[Gold60]

i must admit, my suggestion of banning alcohol completely on all aircraft is a tad extreme and unfair on those good folk who do the right thing - these good folk far outweigh the wrongdoers in numbers. it should/could be a LAST resort.

as someone else here said, maybe banning the consumption to DF alcohol and enforcing this ban would be fairly effective.

you could also do the old Services alcohol serving thing - two cans, per man, PERHAPS. But on a plane, maybe two drinks per hour -

 

[Denali]

....
as someone else here said, maybe banning the consumption to DF alcohol and enforcing this ban would be fairly effective.

Well to be honest, I thought you weren't suppose to consume DF alcohol during your flight. Even though I don't drink alcohol, I also don't need to be told not to bring my own cans/bottles of coke on the plane to drink during the flight either.

These guys are no different from people misbehaving at clubs or restaurants or footy games, some people are always going to act like cough*wits when they are out and supposedly having a good time because they always need booze to have a good time. Says a lot about their personality in general.

 

[mannej]

Well to be honest, I thought you weren't suppose to consume DF alcohol during your flight. Even though I don't drink alcohol, I also don't need to be told not to bring my own cans/bottles of coke on the plane to drink during the flight either.

These guys are no different from people misbehaving at clubs or restaurants or footy games, some people are always going to act like cough*wits when they are out and supposedly having a good time because they always need booze to have a good time. Says a lot about their personality in general.

Unless you fly BI where it is BYO!