QF bans pax for 7yrs re touching allegation

[Quickstatus]

Well for one

Again, how is the ban duration decided?
What metric does the "internal panel" use?

nothing to do with conditions of carriage.

This one does.

This thread is about alleged sexual assault on a long haul flight in international territory.

It is relevant - it is about how QF deals with misconduct on its flights. I'm not saying it's wrong or right , I'm asking about the process by which QF arrives at the "7" years. For me if the story was corroborated it would be a lifetime ban. Why not more or less than 7 years. Why do disruptive people who cause mayhem by diverting flights often get nothing.

I would also have preferred QF to ask for the fellow's submission just so people can see it was reasonably considered - even if the panel does not change its mind.

 

[RooFlyer]

Hmmm first time poster, only registered minutes before this. Credibility?

Fair questions before this line - but everyone has a first post. Sometimes they sign up and post, others leave it years. I can't see how posting immediately affects 'credibility'.

Welcome to AFF @Jabberwocky Do you have some background on that you are saying?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

How do you know this and is it relevant

I have been assigned a seat separate to my partner on more than one occasion and if the cabin is full what option do you have. If they are middle seats, who is going to swap with you unless they are also a separated couple.

Why did a second woman report him for buying her drinks she didn’t want?

Why did he move to the middle seat to annoy another person?

Think about how many threads there are about QF doesnt care about its passengers and doesnt take any action. Something’s happened here for the crew to actually move into the seat alongside him and not in their crew seats. QF isnt going to risk being on the front page for nothing

Something a bit odd. Of course the man didn’t buy drinks, per the article he ordered them. Presumably from the crew, and why didn’t the woman in the aisle seat say ‘no’ when the crew were taking the order?

I think the man going to the press has given his side to the story. There’s obviously a lot more than we are being told.

I was wondering about the 7 years, but it does make for an easy date to remember. Rather than, say, 2027.

 

[justinbrett]

What metric does the "internal panel" use?

Court conviction.

 

[Quickstatus]

Court conviction.

And then how does it translate to lifetime?.
And this one to 7 years
And others nothing or 12months?.

 

[p--and--t]

Again, how is the ban duration decided?
What metric does the "internal panel" use?


This one does.


It is relevant - it is about how QF deals with misconduct on its flights. I'm not saying it's wrong or right , I'm asking about the process by which QF arrives at the "7" years. For me if the story was corroborated it would be a lifetime ban. Why not more or less than 7 years. Why do disruptive people who cause mayhem by diverting flights often get nothing.

I would also have preferred QF to ask for the fellow's submission just so people can see it was reasonably considered - even if the panel does not change its mind.

I would seriously doubt anybody on here, nor in the media report has any idea what transpired at Qantas during or after the flight. There could have been quite a bit of interrogation of the passenger on the flight by more senior staff. What happened at the airport? Why did Singapore police issue with him with a written warning.

We will never know the full story from the five sides (3 x passengers, police and QF). The decision has been made. The "appeal" was considered and refused.

All the rest is conjecture.

 

[justinbrett]

And then how does it translate to lifetime?.
And this one to 7 years
And others nothing or 12months?.

Do you not understand the difference between an allegation and a court conviction?

Secondly, the victim in this is a passenger, vs a QF staff member in the other. It's very common for punishments to be more severe when directed towards a staff member (ie penalty for assaulting a police member is more than assaulting a member of the public)

QF doesn't need to prove guilt to ban pax, a mere allegation is enough.

 

[Quickstatus]

QF doesn't need to prove guilt to ban pax, a mere allegation is enough.

Agree. QF is not a court/tribunal. The rules a court/tribunal is bound by does not bind QF.

However, and again, how does QF decide how many years in sin bin it wants to impose?.

 

[p--and--t]

Why do disruptive people who cause mayhem by diverting flights often get nothing.

Horses for courses.

If the person in question is having a mental episode and goes troppo and while frightening for other passengers they will be treated differently to someone who allegedly harassed two women "in sound mind".

Nothing is perfect in this world and I am cynical enough to consider that if it was in J or F and the passenger was Platinum or a politician then the outcome may have been different.

Also different airlines have different policies and tolerance levels and attitudes to what constitutes offensive behaviour between and man and a woman.

 

[Quickstatus]

We will never know the full story from the five sides (3 x passengers, police and QF). The decision has been made.

Correct. My question is how QF came to "7" years. QF has the right to decide on a course of action. We dont know how QF applies whatever metric it has. Or maybe it does not have a metric except it does say it will act reasonably. What does that mean?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Correct. My question is how QF came to "7" years. QF has the right to decide on a course of action. We dont know how QF applies whatever metric it has. Or maybe it does not have a metric except it does say it will act reasonably. What does that mean?

There are pax who book tickets unaware a ban is still in effect.

Don’t want this guy booking tickets on the wrong date, so 2030 is easy for everyone to remember?

 

[Quickstatus]

Don’t want this guy booking tickets on the wrong date, so 2030 is easy for everyone to remember?

That would be arbitrary then

 

[p--and--t]

Correct. My question is how QF came to "7" years. QF has the right to decide on a course of action. We dont know how QF applies whatever metric it has. Or maybe it does not have a metric except it does say it will act reasonably. What does that mean?

I seriously doubt there is a metric.

Pure Conjecture: Lifetime for proven/evidence/conviction (not as a result of mental health), Less than lifetime toss of the coin for allegation without enough evidence to charge.

 

[Lynda2475]

If someone is violent on a flight, I do not think the mental health card should make any difference to the length of their ban, they have clearly shown they are not reliably managing their illness putting others at risk.

Mental illness is easy to fake, give an out for it and every cough that commits a crime on a flight will be saying they have a mental illness which is miraculously diagnosed after they are charged.

You already see it in schools with some parents pushing for their kid to be diagnosed with ADHD or other neuro divergennt conditions they dont have so they get extra time in exams or other special consideration.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If someone is violent on a flight, I do not think the mental health card should make any difference to the length of their ban, they have clearly shown they are not reliably managing their illness putting others at risk.

Mental illness is easy to fake, give an out for it and every cough that commits a crime on a flight will be saying they have a mental illness which is miraculously diagnosed after they are charged.

You already see it in schools with some parents pushing for their kid to be diagnosed with ADHD or other neuro divergennt conditions they dont have so they get extra time in exams or other special consideration.

You’ve hit the nail on the head.

Genuine cases of mental illness are exactly that. The person can’t really be held responsible.

Those that ‘make it up’ would have a high bar to pass, including relevant supporting medical papers. And having that on record. But no doubt some get away with it. Hopefully only a very small number.

 

[Lynda2475]

The person can’t really be held responsible.

Could not disagree more, mental illness can be managed with medication. And while it may be factor in behaviours it does not absolve someone from their actions entirely.

If someone having a psychotic episode violently kills or assualts someone the victim impact is the same and therefore the punishment should be the same, albeit with extra psychiatric provisions.

Too much compassion for the criminal, not enough for innocent victims and their family.

If someone really can't control their tendency to harm and kill they shouldn't be in free society to do it again. The safety of the many outweighs the right of the violent one.

 

[p--and--t]

Could not disagree more, mental illness can be managed with medication. And while it may be factor in behaviours it does not absolve someone from their actions entirely.

If someone having a psychotic episode violently kills or assualts someone the victim impact is the same and therefore the punishment should be the same, albeit with extra psychiatric provisions.

Too much compassion for the criminal, not enough for innocent victims and their family.

If someone really can't control their tendency to harm and kill they shouldn't be in free society to do it again. The safety of the many outweighs the right on the violent one.

That's an opinion/preference. There would be many that agree with you. However, not the law, and not how the courts work in Australia, and not how sentences are usually decided.

All irrelevant to the case the thread is about as the alleged offender says he didn't do anything wrong, not claiming dispensation other than a denial, he hasn't been charged and it is not alleged he went rampant in a mental episode.

 

[p--and--t]

[OT}

Interesting to compare a youtuber disparaging an airlines service on a flight after the event is banned for life. (QR)

Ironically a large group of women travelling on the same airline had illegal internal searches and assault and the airline initially refused to take any responsibility or issue an apology. (QR)

An alleged sexual harassment on a different airline is determined to be 7 years. (QF)

Different airlines, different countries, different "horses for courses".

[OT]

 

[drron]

Again, how is the ban duration decided?
What metric does the "internal panel" use?


This one does.


It is relevant - it is about how QF deals with misconduct on its flights. I'm not saying it's wrong or right , I'm asking about the process by which QF arrives at the "7" years. For me if the story was corroborated it would be a lifetime ban. Why not more or less than 7 years. Why do disruptive people who cause mayhem by diverting flights often get nothing.

I would also have preferred QF to ask for the fellow's submission just so people can see it was reasonably considered - even if the panel does not change its mind.

There is this incident from a few years ago where a grossly intoxicated man refused to go back to his set,shouted abuse at passengers and staff and was eventually was handcuffed by staff. He got a 5 year ban. Doesn't seem to fit with the current case ban.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[Lynda2475]

Well that says more about the different cultures wrt to respect (well complete lack of in the case of Qatar) for women.

The only thing it shows is that airlines can set their own rules wrt whom they can exclude following an incident.

If QF were excluding potential passengers based on race or sexual orientation or gender, they would fall foul of consumer laws. But to exclude from future travel based on poor prior behaviour is allowable.

The lesson here is keep your hands to yourself, if you want to pick up try a dating up and learn about consent, women should be able to fly without needing to fend off creeps.

If your seat neighbour has headphones on or their eyes closed, guess what they don't want to talk to you, take a hint. If they give you short sharp answers they don't want to chat, take a hint.

From what i read the women were reseated in crew seats and crew took their seats there was no upgrade of the accusers.