QF bans pax for 7yrs re touching allegation

[elanshin]

I don't think any of us here can judge what is right, whether the ban was justified or not.

The world as it is very quick to set the narrative for any story whether it's right or wrong.

Cases of sexual harrassment/inappropriate touching is even harder. In some cases there is a creep involved, in others there's a very opportunistic woman looking to get something and knows that the system right now is gamed towards women.

 

[JohnK]

How do you know this and is it relevant

We have to make this assumption because the article is very light on actual information. In fact the article actually wants us to believe there was a serious assault.

Singapore police did nothing. That's a huge pointer to what actually went on.

If the man actually copped a feel of her breast, or groped her then I might genuinely believe there was an attempt at assault. So where did he actually touch her? I can assure you (and in a way I'm scared) that if I'm sitting in window seat and a lady is sitting in middle seat that I would more than likely touch her many times throughout the flight. Not intentional though.

Wife sits in middle seat and husband sits behind her in middle seat. We have to assume they did not ask for someone to move to be seated together.

Apparently it's a full flight. So the lady was assaulted and moved somewhere else. Where did she move? Another economy seat or business class? And as the article does not say you'd have to think the husband stayed put in his seat. In fact she was so traumatised that she went straight to the crew, not her husband. I can assure you if someone assaulted my wife they are going to have a very sore face for quite some time.

Then he orders drinks for lady in aisle seat. Oh wow? That's also bordering on assault. She also moved. Where did she go? Another economy seat or business class? Nice little trick right?

Also if he actually assaulted the lady then you'd think he'd actually get a lifetime ban, not a 7 year ban? Have Australian police been involved?

The article would have been much better off if they actually provided some information of what happened?

P.S. I think this was all planned in advance.

 

[Lynda2475]

Huge difference between accidently bumping elbows or knees moving in you seat or climbing over someon to go to the loo, and touching a woman's breast or inside thigh with your hand.

Lots of typical male victim blaming happening here.

Zero evidence the women were upgraded, reads as if they were moved to crew seats ( so less comfortable, backward facing, no ife) which is why crew members had to sit next to the accused on landing.

 

[p--and--t]

Singapore police did nothing.

Not true - they issued him a written warning

We have to assume they did not ask for someone to move to be seated together.

Total conjecture

And as the article does not say you'd have to think the husband stayed put in his seat.

Total conjecture

In fact she was so traumatised that she went straight to the crew, not her husband

Total conjecture

Where did she go? Another economy seat or business class? Nice little trick right?

Total conjecture

I could just as easily assume she was moved to the crew rest seats and as a consequence that is why crew members sat next to the man for the remainder of the flight. Pure conjecture though

 

[elanshin]

Huge difference between accidently bumping elbows or knees moving in you seat or climbing over someon to go to the loo, and touching a woman's breast or inside thigh with your hand.

Lots of typical male victim blaming happening here.

Zero evidence the women were upgraded, reads as if they were moved to crew seats ( so less comfortable, backward facing, no ife) which is why crew members had to sit next to the accused on landing.

At the same time there's no information about the rest either.

As I mentioned earlier, too little info and everything is conjectures and speculation.

The best we can read into this is QF handed this person a 7 year ban. Not whether he said/she said, maybe this happened, QF was right / wrong etc.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Huge difference between accidently bumping elbows or knees moving in you seat or climbing over someon to go to the loo, and touching a woman's breast or inside thigh with your hand.

Lots of typical male victim blaming happening here.

Zero evidence the women were upgraded, reads as if they were moved to crew seats ( so less comfortable, backward facing, no ife) which is why crew members had to sit next to the accused on landing.

Passengers would not be permitted to occupy crew seats at emergency exits during landing.

If there weren’t other seats in the plane they’d likely have to ask two male passengers to swap seats next to the man.

 

[Quickstatus]

Passengers would not be permitted to occupy crew seats at emergency exits during landing.

Did the 2 CC sit in the passenger seat until landing? It may be that those CC were supernumerary to the exit requirements of 1x CC per exit.

Some exits have 2 CC seats. Would this apply if 1 CC were at their allocated seat at the exit, and the passenger sat in the 2nd crew seat

 

[nancypants]

Did the 2 CC sit in the passenger seat until landing? It may be that those CC were supernumerary to the exit requirements of 1x CC per exit.

Some exits have 2 CC seats. Would this apply if 1 CC were at their allocated seat at the exit, and the passenger sat in the 2nd crew seat

Unless things have changed, I believe one needs to have an ASIC and be employed crew to sit in crew seats. My airline required you to work for that airline. Other airlines may differ and things may have changed

 

[RooFlyer]

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

Yes, that's the frightening thing, isn't it? Are we comfortable with that? Cross fingers its not you or me next.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Did the 2 CC sit in the passenger seat until landing? It may be that those CC were supernumerary to the exit requirements of 1x CC per exit.

Some exits have 2 CC seats. Would this apply if 1 CC were at their allocated seat at the exit, and the passenger sat in the 2nd crew seat

Could well have been supernumerary crew occupying the seats next to the man, although for *two* crew you’d have to think the man was capable of overpowering one. So something again we haven’t got the details on.

But to have a highly distressed passenger occupying a seat at the exit when crew are ready for an emergency? Seems very unlikely.

 

[p--and--t]

Unless things have changed, I believe one needs to have an ASIC and be employed crew to sit in crew seats. My airline required you to work for that airline. Other airlines may differ and things may have changed

But to have a highly distressed passenger occupying a seat at the exit when crew are ready for an emergency? Seems very unlikely.

I would think it unlikely that the passenger would have sat in an exit crew seat. Would be highly unusual but then again lots unusual things happen

I know nothing about this flight or the specific aircraft, but I have observed on a number of international flights where a row of regular passenger seats appear to be reserved near the rear of the aircraft for crew to take a break and sit in.

 

[p--and--t]

If there weren’t other seats in the plane they’d likely have to ask two male passengers to swap seats next to the man

Its stated in the media article that crew occupied the seats vacated by the two female passengers

 

[Quickstatus]

The best we can read into this is QF handed this person a 7 year ban. Not whether he said/she said, maybe this happened, QF was right / wrong etc.

And my question is not who said what, rather how did QF arrive at the number 7.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Its stated in the media article that crew occupied the seats vacated by the two female passengers

It’s an a380.

Yes, apparently two crew sat by the passenger, which means the two women must have been found seats elsewhere in the passenger cabin.

If the plane was truly 100% occupied, they’d have moved two other passengers, likely male, to occupy the seats by the offending passenger.

unless.. the passenger was qantas crew? That might explain why the husband was sitting in the row behind, and didn’t ask to move to be seated together. And might explain why they were able to sit at an exit. And might explain why Qantas took this action.

 

[p--and--t]

unless.. the passenger was qantas crew? That might explain why the husband was sitting in the row behind, and didn’t ask to move to be seated together. And might explain why they were able to sit at an exit. And might explain why Qantas took this action.

Anything is possible in the vacuum of relevant details.

As in my first post, one woman complaining - he said she said. Two woman complaining about the same guy, him physically moving to annoy the second, the police issuing a formal written warning and QF not just letting it go and making a stand leads me to believe something untoward happened.

I’ve certainly met a fair share of sleazebags over the years who think they did nothing wrong. BTW: I am male just in case anyone is making gender based assumptions.

 

[drron]

Again all conjecture. The guy denies he moved seats. From the Daily Mail article.

The man denies he switched seats and said he only touched the first woman on the knee to get her attention and ask her to wake him when meals arrived.

A representative authorised to speak for the man alleged that: 'Officials in Singapore told us women have been claiming ''unwanted sexual contact'' to get upgraded on long haul flights.'

So none of us know the facts.

 

[justinbrett]

Yes, that's the frightening thing, isn't it? Are we comfortable with that? Cross fingers its not you or me next.

Any company can ban you as long as it’s not discrimination. It happens all the time.

 

[JohnK]

I could just as easily assume she was moved to the crew rest seats and as a consequence that is why crew members sat next to the man for the remainder of the flight. Pure conjecture though

We just don't know. For whatever reason they have decided not to give us any information so we have to draw our own conclusions.

P.S. I take sexual assault seriously but not without proof. We can't give someone the opportunity to destroy another person just because if they feel like it. That should never be an option.

 

[p--and--t]

Any company can ban you as long as it’s not discrimination. It happens all the time.

As Josh-C and Jacquie-L found out

For whatever reason they have decided not to give us any information

Why should they

so we have to draw our own conclusions.

No we don't - just stick to the facts and admit what we don't know we don't know and not make up conspiracy theories.

can't give someone the opportunity to destroy another person just because if they feel like it.

Who destroyed his life. Who went to the press with this story? Not being allowed to fly an airline is not the end of the world?

 

[p--and--t]

Yes, that's the frightening thing, isn't it? Are we comfortable with that? Cross fingers its not you or me next.

Being banned from an airline “frightening” Lol.

Many members on here have self banned themselves from an airline.

There is nothing outstanding about this action. Give a bit too much lip to any gate agent on any airline in the world when they are having a bad day and you could get banned. Just need to watch a few episodes of the various TV series about airports to see some examples.