Qantas tells Airbus and Boeing to sharpen their pencils re Project Sunrise and sends their “best and final offers” back to the drawing board.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... gs9rKwXiCQ

a36001 wrote:

brucetiki wrote:

Qantas have issued a cease and desist notice to Will.I.Am following his social media outburst for disobeying crew instructions on a recent Qantas flight.

https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/rapper-w ... e34f7360ac

I hope the flight attendant sues this third rate entertainer for defamation! who does he think he is? and as for those two from Queensland, please! and am very impressed Qantas has backed their employee! There is more to this story that has been reported I am sure, the federal police are not called to meet a aircraft without cause. The defamation laws in Australia are take a lot more seriously than in the US It would be smart for him to retract the accusation publicly issue his apologies and save himself a lot of time stress and money! Qantas bank account are deeper then his

I won’t delve into the incident itself and allow an investigation to decide if racism was involved. But as a former front line staff at a major airline - more needs to be done to protect front line staff from social media abuse. It should be illegal to video someone in public and post and share their name and face. This crew member will likely be recognised and many flights, and be judge by many passengers, with follow up accusations of racism regardless of guilt. Just look at the two pathetic excuses for signers the veronicas for jumping on the bandwagon.

The hard part is clearly social media footage has had its place in many situations involving law enforcement in other countries, and Australia is very very far from being immune from racism, but I do feel more should be done to protect front line staff in customer service roles from being filmed every time a passenger isn’t happy.

smi0006 wrote:

a36001 wrote:

brucetiki wrote:

Qantas have issued a cease and desist notice to Will.I.Am following his social media outburst for disobeying crew instructions on a recent Qantas flight.

https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/rapper-w ... e34f7360ac

I hope the flight attendant sues this third rate entertainer for defamation! who does he think he is? and as for those two from Queensland, please! and am very impressed Qantas has backed their employee! There is more to this story that has been reported I am sure, the federal police are not called to meet a aircraft without cause. The defamation laws in Australia are take a lot more seriously than in the US It would be smart for him to retract the accusation publicly issue his apologies and save himself a lot of time stress and money! Qantas bank account are deeper then his

I won’t delve into the incident itself and allow an investigation to decide if racism was involved. But as a former front line staff at a major airline - more needs to be done to protect front line staff from social media abuse. It should be illegal to video someone in public and post and share their name and face. This crew member will likely be recognised and many flights, and be judge by many passengers, with follow up accusations of racism regardless of guilt. Just look at the two pathetic excuses for signers the veronicas for jumping on the bandwagon.

The hard part is clearly social media footage has had its place in many situations involving law enforcement in other countries, and Australia is very very far from being immune from racism, but I do feel more should be done to protect front line staff in customer service roles from being filmed every time a passenger isn’t happy.

These situations are extremely difficult for all involved, as perception is something that seems to be a key ingredient in events and the interpretation of what transpired.

We weren’t on the plane, so we can’t know what happened and how each individual involved acted, but will.i.am has certainly made some very strong accusations there in a very public way.

IndianicWorld wrote:

These situations are extremely difficult for all involved, as perception is something that seems to be a key ingredient in events and the interpretation of what transpired.

We weren’t on the plane, so we can’t know what happened and how each individual involved acted, but will.i.am has certainly made some very strong accusations there in a very public way.

I can't comment on this case, but I do recall a white American passenger on a Qantas domestic flight acting with much affront that he was told to stow his electronic devices and disconnect them from the USB sockets for take-off. Maybe a cultural misunderstanding?

That said, I have encountered many fantastic Qantas flight attendants and then some who belong to the school of repeatedly talk slowly, loudly and sarcastically to non-English speakers (eg to Japanese passengers on a flight to Japan) in the vain hope that they will understand you. No attempts at using gestures or searching for someone who might be able to interpret, even within the crew. It's very embarrassing and doesn't speak well of their training or their behaviour in overseas ports when the shoe is on the other foot.

allrite wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

These situations are extremely difficult for all involved, as perception is something that seems to be a key ingredient in events and the interpretation of what transpired.

We weren’t on the plane, so we can’t know what happened and how each individual involved acted, but will.i.am has certainly made some very strong accusations there in a very public way.

I can't comment on this case, but I do recall a white American passenger on a Qantas domestic flight acting with much affront that he was told to stow his electronic devices and disconnect them from the USB sockets for take-off. Maybe a cultural misunderstanding?

That said, I have encountered many fantastic Qantas flight attendants and then some who belong to the school of repeatedly talk slowly, loudly and sarcastically to non-English speakers (eg to Japanese passengers on a flight to Japan) in the vain hope that they will understand you. No attempts at using gestures or searching for someone who might be able to interpret, even within the crew. It's very embarrassing and doesn't speak well of their training or their behaviour in overseas ports when the shoe is on the other foot.

Speaking to a passenger who is unable to understand instructions for what ever reason, be it language or disability should be handled with care by crew (and 99.9% of Qantas crew are professionals at doing this) the use of the emergency cards and hand gestures is usually the way to communicate and works nearly all the time. This is part of the emergency procedures training and is a subject not taken lightly.

I was victim to absolutely atrocious profiling by a customer service agent at CDG contracted by Singapore Airlines ground staff a few years ago - it was one of the most humiliating moments of my life. Saying that, I did put forward an official complaint and the agent was apparently put on probation. To this day I wonder if he would’ve been fired on the spot had I filmed the encounter. Saying that, I don’t think it needs to be plastered on social media to 13 million people - especially considering Will.i.am was obviously posting in the heat of the moment. I also find it hilarious The Veronica’s tried to cash in on the moment by saying it was the same flight attendant as their encounter, which is extremely unlikely and also 100% confirmable by QF.

MEL really needs to bite the bullet and move Qantas over to a "Terminal 5" next to JQ and integrate Terminal 1 into the international terminal. T1 needs a significant upgrade to the concourses anyway - they are pretty bad, especially Concourse C, the amenities are hopeless. And it saves on building an entirely new midfield terminal, while providing extension opportunities (Concourse A). Could shift all narrowbody flights to C and half of B.

And yes, the hodge podge of design is emblematic of the piecemeal approach APAC takes to developing MEL. They really don't couldn't care less though - I've met some of their executive team. Zero interest in aesthetic appeal.

That communal waiting area approach is one of the reasons I hate travelling through British airports - constantly eyeing the boards from some overpriced cafe, anxious you'll miss the gate flash up then rushing to a gate you aren't familiar with. I hope it's not adopted here.

a36001 wrote:

Speaking to a passenger who is unable to understand instructions for what ever reason, be it language or disability should be handled with care by crew (and 99.9% of Qantas crew are professionals at doing this) the use of the emergency cards and hand gestures is usually the way to communicate and works nearly all the time. This is part of the emergency procedures training and is a subject not taken lightly.

Seat belts, window shades and seat reclines for take-offs and landing are the usual issues. In one case it was the cabin manager who was the culprit for the poor customer service and I would say less than 99.9%. But then I've seen plenty of awful passengers who believe they are entitled and don't much care for customers who do not treat service staff with respect.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Qantas are now offering to provide "legal support" if the flight attendant opted to bring a defamation case. The airline must be very confident of no wrong-doing to, in effect, publicly threaten a passenger with legal action.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 53bod.html

This is also a very good move to more broadly show support to the QF crew and let them know that in cases like this, the airline has their back and so they should be prepared to continue to carry out their duties and not be cowed by 'celebs' throwing a hissy fit.

This all went pear shaped the moment the passenger took it upon themselves to publicly name and photograph the crew member. I really hope the flight attendant starts legal action with the backing of Qantas against this passenger, as not doing so will have huge ramifications to all crew world wide! You don't want to be a position where is it acceptable to put the names and photographs of crew members on social media without their approval for what ever reason or gripe you may feel you have.

B747 VHOEH Ops ILO B737 today’s QF443 SYD-MEL QF458 MEL-SYD due to MEL weather.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Third PS research flight will be in 16 December

https://twitter.com/airlineroute/status ... 40224?s=21

aerokiwi wrote:

MEL really needs to bite the bullet and move Qantas over to a "Terminal 5" next to JQ and integrate Terminal 1 into the international terminal.

Fat chance Qantas would ever agree to that.

a36001 wrote:

This all went pear shaped the moment the passenger took it upon themselves to publicly name and photograph the crew member. I really hope the flight attendant starts legal action with the backing of Qantas against this passenger, as not doing so will have huge ramifications to all crew world wide! You don't want to be a position where is it acceptable to put the names and photographs of crew members on social media without their approval for what ever reason or gripe you may feel you have.

The "casualness" of American pax and crew when it comes to boarding and landing procedures is quite interesting when you compare this to how QF operates.

In saying that I've encountered a number of senior QF FAs who have crosses to bear, and that is exacerbated by a pax's nonchalant behaviour. Which probably explains the Veronicas situation as well. Some FAs do have power trips and I think that needs to be acknowledged. However, it is good to see an organisation backing their employee. From a PR exercise this is brilliant.

Legally speaking, I'm not sure if the FA would be successful in a defamation case. Proving someone is racist is just as difficult to prove someone's perception that something is racist is wrong. You would also need to prove loss of earnings.

getluv wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

MEL really needs to bite the bullet and move Qantas over to a "Terminal 5" next to JQ and integrate Terminal 1 into the international terminal.

Fat chance Qantas would ever agree to that.

It would be more likely that VA adopt the T5 move which is actually a long ADL style terminal parallel to the non-existent second E-W runway. T3 is even worse than T1 and it would be possible to build T5 then relocate VA and then knock down T3 and start from scratch. Whatever happens, before T5 or a midfield terminal can be built, an automated people mover system needs to be included given the terminal complex would spread out over at least 1.5 kms from end to end with the T5 option and even further with a midfield international terminal.

This will be curious to see in action during construction. That QF terminal needs some work, understandable QF weren't willing to invest when they were about to hand the lease back to APAM

You could say that but the whole terminal has looked shabby for years. The link between Concourses B & C is still looking unfinished nearly 20 years after it was built.

qf789 wrote:

Third PS research flight will be in 16 December

https://twitter.com/airlineroute/status ... 40224?s=21

This seems to say that the third flight will be JFK - SYD. I thought it was supposed to be LHR - SYD. which is correct?

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Third PS research flight will be in 16 December

https://twitter.com/airlineroute/status ... 40224?s=21

This seems to say that the third flight will be JFK - SYD. I thought it was supposed to be LHR - SYD. which is correct?

Gemuser

Even Kochie & Sunrise (no pun intended) may have had enough of these stunts by the third flight

getluv wrote:

Legally speaking, I'm not sure if the FA would be successful in a defamation case. Proving someone is racist is just as difficult to prove someone's perception that something is racist is wrong. You would also need to prove loss of earnings.

The recording and naming of the flight attendant by Will.I.Am would make any defamation case stronger one would think.

Either way, hopefully QF have banned Will.I.Am from flying on QF/JQ indefinitely to further support their staff.

brucetiki wrote:

getluv wrote:

Legally speaking, I'm not sure if the FA would be successful in a defamation case. Proving someone is racist is just as difficult to prove someone's perception that something is racist is wrong. You would also need to prove loss of earnings.

The recording and naming of the flight attendant by Will.I.Am would make any defamation case stronger one would think.

Either way, hopefully QF have banned Will.I.Am from flying on QF/JQ indefinitely to further support their staff.

The FA would have to prove she has suffered loss.

Gemuser wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Third PS research flight will be in 16 December

https://twitter.com/airlineroute/status ... 40224?s=21

This seems to say that the third flight will be JFK - SYD. I thought it was supposed to be LHR - SYD. which is correct?

Gemuser

Two of the three flights were always originating from JFK.

QF original press release:
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... australia/

tullamarine wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Third PS research flight will be in 16 December

https://twitter.com/airlineroute/status ... 40224?s=21

This seems to say that the third flight will be JFK - SYD. I thought it was supposed to be LHR - SYD. which is correct?

Gemuser

Even Kochie & Sunrise (no pun intended) may have had enough of these stunts by the third flight

I think there will be a lot less media excitement for the 2nd JFK-SYD flight as its already been done and the LHR-SYD one was arguably much more impressive (in the public eye anyway). Lets be frank, the real reason for these flights is media attention not research and QF has absolutely nailed it. Would be great to see them run the last flight from REK (technically closer than LHR to SYD but in public view would seem further) or from PDL (or SMA) in Azores as this is the antipodean of SYD and could market it that way... though I'm not sure the aircraft has the legs for that! Might be stretching it a bit far. Would be an amazing market achievement though...

getluv wrote:

The FA would have to prove she has suffered loss.

The test is whether there was damage done to your personal or professional reputation. You do not need to prove that actual losses/damage has occurred.

SYDSpotter wrote:

getluv wrote:

The FA would have to prove she has suffered loss.

The test is whether there was damage done to your personal or professional reputation. You do not need to prove that actual losses/damage has occurred.

She has kept her job at Qantas. No loss has occurred. The damage has to be quantifiable.

She would also have to prove that Will.i.am’s feeling racially vilified is false. Very difficult to prove.

getluv wrote:

She has kept her job at Qantas. No loss has occurred. The damage has to be quantifiable.

She would also have to prove that Will.i.am’s feeling racially vilified is false. Very difficult to prove.

Not quite as simple as "needing to quantify the loss", although the damages awarded (if so proven) will be limited without significant quantification.

For online defamation, what is needed is:
If you can prove that you are the subject of a communication to a third party that contains false statements which may damage your reputation, you may be able to make a defamation claim.

To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things:
1. That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts
2. That you or your business were clearly identified in it
3. That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.

Ultimately there may be a case here, but does QF really want this dragged through the courts? I think all parties should just move on.

ArtV wrote:

getluv wrote:

She has kept her job at Qantas. No loss has occurred. The damage has to be quantifiable.

She would also have to prove that Will.i.am’s feeling racially vilified is false. Very difficult to prove.

Not quite as simple as "needing to quantify the loss", although the damages awarded (if so proven) will be limited without significant quantification.

For online defamation, what is needed is:
If you can prove that you are the subject of a communication to a third party that contains false statements which may damage your reputation, you may be able to make a defamation claim.

To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things:
1. That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts
2. That you or your business were clearly identified in it
3. That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.

Ultimately there may be a case here, but does QF really want this dragged through the courts? I think all parties should just move on.

The lady was shammed on her social media accounts. She than had other celebrities shame her again in the media. I suspect she will have a valid claim. Regardless of the he said / she said arguments, she was simply doing her job, which is to (1) comply with the instructions from her employer if reasonable to do so; and (2) not act in a negligent manner (It would have been remiss if she simply walked away).

The consequences are: if a flight attendant starts to feel fear / anxiety from a passenger objecting to their requests / instructions, an aircraft could be turned back to the gate so that the matter can be dealt with by security.

In real terms the guy should feel ashamed for what he did to the flight attendant. It is not reasonable for a flight attendant to put up with this abuse for doing her job.

travelhound wrote:

ArtV wrote:

getluv wrote:

She has kept her job at Qantas. No loss has occurred. The damage has to be quantifiable.

She would also have to prove that Will.i.am’s feeling racially vilified is false. Very difficult to prove.

Not quite as simple as "needing to quantify the loss", although the damages awarded (if so proven) will be limited without significant quantification.

For online defamation, what is needed is:
If you can prove that you are the subject of a communication to a third party that contains false statements which may damage your reputation, you may be able to make a defamation claim.

To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things:
1. That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts
2. That you or your business were clearly identified in it
3. That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.

Ultimately there may be a case here, but does QF really want this dragged through the courts? I think all parties should just move on.

The lady was shammed on her social media accounts. She than had other celebrities shame her again in the media. I suspect she will have a valid claim. Regardless of the he said / she said arguments, she was simply doing her job, which is to (1) comply with the instructions from her employer if reasonable to do so; and (2) not act in a negligent manner (It would have been remiss if she simply walked away).

The consequences are: if a flight attendant starts to feel fear / anxiety from a passenger objecting to their requests / instructions, an aircraft could be turned back to the gate so that the matter can be dealt with by security.

In real terms the guy should feel ashamed for what he did to the flight attendant. It is not reasonable for a flight attendant to put up with this abuse for doing her job.

Agree.
Furthermore her job might now be untenable seeing as how she was identified and could be subject to further abuse from passengers.

ArtV wrote:

getluv wrote:

She has kept her job at Qantas. No loss has occurred. The damage has to be quantifiable.

She would also have to prove that Will.i.am’s feeling racially vilified is false. Very difficult to prove.

Not quite as simple as "needing to quantify the loss", although the damages awarded (if so proven) will be limited without significant quantification.

For online defamation, what is needed is:
If you can prove that you are the subject of a communication to a third party that contains false statements which may damage your reputation, you may be able to make a defamation claim.

To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things:
1. That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts
2. That you or your business were clearly identified in it
3. That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.

Ultimately there may be a case here, but does QF really want this dragged through the courts? I think all parties should just move on.

Those three points have not been proven, sorry. If Will.i.am felt racially vilified then you cannot prove it is false.

travelhound wrote:

ArtV wrote:

getluv wrote:

She has kept her job at Qantas. No loss has occurred. The damage has to be quantifiable.

She would also have to prove that Will.i.am’s feeling racially vilified is false. Very difficult to prove.

Not quite as simple as "needing to quantify the loss", although the damages awarded (if so proven) will be limited without significant quantification.

For online defamation, what is needed is:
If you can prove that you are the subject of a communication to a third party that contains false statements which may damage your reputation, you may be able to make a defamation claim.

To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things:
1. That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts
2. That you or your business were clearly identified in it
3. That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.

Ultimately there may be a case here, but does QF really want this dragged through the courts? I think all parties should just move on.

The lady was shammed on her social media accounts. She than had other celebrities shame her again in the media. I suspect she will have a valid claim. Regardless of the he said / she said arguments, she was simply doing her job, which is to (1) comply with the instructions from her employer if reasonable to do so; and (2) not act in a negligent manner (It would have been remiss if she simply walked away).

The consequences are: if a flight attendant starts to feel fear / anxiety from a passenger objecting to their requests / instructions, an aircraft could be turned back to the gate so that the matter can be dealt with by security.

In real terms the guy should feel ashamed for what he did to the flight attendant. It is not reasonable for a flight attendant to put up with this abuse for doing her job.

Without knowing the facts I don’t think you can prove she was doing her job correctly. She should be ashamed for it, not at all. Customers are never right and I understand they’re dealing with idiots left, right and centre but that’s the job. If you don’t like it, get a new one or learn how to deescalate the situation.

getluv wrote:

ArtV wrote:

getluv wrote:

She has kept her job at Qantas. No loss has occurred. The damage has to be quantifiable.

She would also have to prove that Will.i.am’s feeling racially vilified is false. Very difficult to prove.

Not quite as simple as "needing to quantify the loss", although the damages awarded (if so proven) will be limited without significant quantification.

For online defamation, what is needed is:
If you can prove that you are the subject of a communication to a third party that contains false statements which may damage your reputation, you may be able to make a defamation claim.

To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things:
1. That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts
2. That you or your business were clearly identified in it
3. That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.

Ultimately there may be a case here, but does QF really want this dragged through the courts? I think all parties should just move on.

Those three points have not been proven, sorry. If Will.i.am felt racially vilified then you cannot prove it is false.

travelhound wrote:

ArtV wrote:

Not quite as simple as "needing to quantify the loss", although the damages awarded (if so proven) will be limited without significant quantification.

For online defamation, what is needed is:
If you can prove that you are the subject of a communication to a third party that contains false statements which may damage your reputation, you may be able to make a defamation claim.

To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things:
1. That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts
2. That you or your business were clearly identified in it
3. That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.

Ultimately there may be a case here, but does QF really want this dragged through the courts? I think all parties should just move on.

The lady was shammed on her social media accounts. She than had other celebrities shame her again in the media. I suspect she will have a valid claim. Regardless of the he said / she said arguments, she was simply doing her job, which is to (1) comply with the instructions from her employer if reasonable to do so; and (2) not act in a negligent manner (It would have been remiss if she simply walked away).

The consequences are: if a flight attendant starts to feel fear / anxiety from a passenger objecting to their requests / instructions, an aircraft could be turned back to the gate so that the matter can be dealt with by security.

In real terms the guy should feel ashamed for what he did to the flight attendant. It is not reasonable for a flight attendant to put up with this abuse for doing her job.

Without knowing the facts I don’t think you can prove she was doing her job correctly. She should be ashamed for it, not at all. Customers are never right and I understand they’re dealing with idiots left, right and centre but that’s the job. If you don’t like it, get a new one or learn how to deescalate the situation.

How do you deescalate a person shaming you on social media and than having their followers abusing you on your own personnel social media accounts?

The guy should be ashamed of himself. There is no way she could reasonably defend herself from such actions.There are social graces that keep society functioning.

Qantas have said publicly that they could not substrate any of will.i.am's claims. Presumably they, at least, spoke to the other crew members before saying that. For the company to put their own reputation on the line suggests strongly to me that they are confident that the flight attendant did nothing wrong. It's one thing to support your employee, but Qantas are the ones suggesting defamation so they are clearly not concerned about being in an indefensible possition if the matter escalates further.

travelhound wrote:

getluv wrote:

ArtV wrote:

Not quite as simple as "needing to quantify the loss", although the damages awarded (if so proven) will be limited without significant quantification.

For online defamation, what is needed is:
If you can prove that you are the subject of a communication to a third party that contains false statements which may damage your reputation, you may be able to make a defamation claim.

To claim compensation for reputational damage, you must be able to prove three things:
1. That the defamatory material was published, and that the statements in the publication are not substantiated by facts
2. That you or your business were clearly identified in it
3. That it caused or is continuing to cause harm to your reputation.

Ultimately there may be a case here, but does QF really want this dragged through the courts? I think all parties should just move on.

Those three points have not been proven, sorry. If Will.i.am felt racially vilified then you cannot prove it is false.

travelhound wrote:

The lady was shammed on her social media accounts. She than had other celebrities shame her again in the media. I suspect she will have a valid claim. Regardless of the he said / she said arguments, she was simply doing her job, which is to (1) comply with the instructions from her employer if reasonable to do so; and (2) not act in a negligent manner (It would have been remiss if she simply walked away).

The consequences are: if a flight attendant starts to feel fear / anxiety from a passenger objecting to their requests / instructions, an aircraft could be turned back to the gate so that the matter can be dealt with by security.

In real terms the guy should feel ashamed for what he did to the flight attendant. It is not reasonable for a flight attendant to put up with this abuse for doing her job.

Without knowing the facts I don’t think you can prove she was doing her job correctly. She should be ashamed for it, not at all. Customers are never right and I understand they’re dealing with idiots left, right and centre but that’s the job. If you don’t like it, get a new one or learn how to deescalate the situation.

How do you deescalate a person shaming you on social media and than having their followers abusing you on your own personnel social media accounts?

The guy should be ashamed of himself. There is no way she could reasonably defend herself from such actions.There are social graces that keep society functioning.

That’s not defamation.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Qantas have said publicly that they could not substrate any of will.i.am's claims. Presumably they, at least, spoke to the other crew members before saying that. For the company to put their own reputation on the line suggests strongly to me that they are confident that the flight attendant did nothing wrong. It's one thing to support your employee, but Qantas are the ones suggesting defamation so they are clearly not concerned about being in an indefensible possition if the matter escalates further.

Pax on the flight have also come out in defence of the singer. There’s no denying QF have won the PR war though. I mean even Miranda Divine is on their side.

getluv wrote:

travelhound wrote:

getluv wrote:

Those three points have not been proven, sorry. If Will.i.am felt racially vilified then you cannot prove it is false.



Without knowing the facts I don’t think you can prove she was doing her job correctly. She should be ashamed for it, not at all. Customers are never right and I understand they’re dealing with idiots left, right and centre but that’s the job. If you don’t like it, get a new one or learn how to deescalate the situation.

How do you deescalate a person shaming you on social media and than having their followers abusing you on your own personnel social media accounts?

The guy should be ashamed of himself. There is no way she could reasonably defend herself from such actions.There are social graces that keep society functioning.

That’s not defamation.

Section 365 of the criminal code is very clear on the term defamation.

(b) intending to cause serious harm to the relevant person or any other person or without having regard to whether serious harm to the relevant person or any other person is caused; commits a misdemeanour. Maximum penalty—3 years imprisonment.

travelhound wrote:

getluv wrote:

travelhound wrote:

How do you deescalate a person shaming you on social media and than having their followers abusing you on your own personnel social media accounts?

The guy should be ashamed of himself. There is no way she could reasonably defend herself from such actions.There are social graces that keep society functioning.

That’s not defamation.

Section 365 of the criminal code is very clear on the term defamation.

(b) intending to cause serious harm to the relevant person or any other person or without having regard to whether serious harm to the relevant person or any other person is caused; commits a misdemeanour. Maximum penalty—3 years imprisonment.

Defamation has to be proven first. It’s not defamation if it’s true.

Read the legal definition of defamation like another poster has put up a few posts ago. I suggest you start there.

Whether he “intended” is also another argument.

Re: Qantas and Will.i.am

I wasn't on the flight so I don't want to speculate on what did or didn't happen without first hand knowledge, but to me it was completely unreasonable on Will.i.am's part to reveal her identity on social media no matter how bad her alleged conduct. If he felt she was out of line he should have dealt with it privately with Qantas.

Also I'm not buying he didn't realise his laptop had to be stowed for take off. Personally I only do around 5-6 sectors a year and I know perfectly well that larger electronic items cannot be used for take off and landing. As a musician I'm guessing he flies a little more often than I do.

Will.i.am was discriminated against by QF crew, but not because he's black. They discriminated against him because he's an arrogant dick who refused to switch off his laptop and put it away, and by the sounds of things dismissively talked back to them (eg saying "Chill out"). Anybody who did this would copy the same treatment from QF crew, because anybody who did this would be an arrogant dick.

getluv wrote:

travelhound wrote:

getluv wrote:

That’s not defamation.

Section 365 of the criminal code is very clear on the term defamation.

(b) intending to cause serious harm to the relevant person or any other person or without having regard to whether serious harm to the relevant person or any other person is caused; commits a misdemeanour. Maximum penalty—3 years imprisonment.

Defamation has to be proven first. It’s not defamation if it’s true.

Read the legal definition of defamation like another poster has put up a few posts ago. I suggest you start there.

Whether he “intended” is also another argument.

So the celebrity cries racism - raises the onus of proof issue. If an FA is following safety procedure, then that is hardly discriminatory. If the reaction to any disagreement was by the book, i.e. informing police, then again that is hardly discriminatory. All passengers, regardless of race, would be subjected to the same treatment.

Intent - the celebrity publishes his version of events and identifies their opposing party on a public forum to express outrage and incite sympathy. The side effect being that by doing so he exposes the opposing party to harassment. It is reasonable to expect the celebrity to know this was the outcome.

And there is no need for someone claiming to be defamed to proved material hard in a financial sense. Material harm can include their own reputation and emotional/physical wellbeing. The online harassment should suffice.

I suspect that there is a cultural issue here. Landing procedures in the US are far more laid back than in most other parts of the world I travel. Window shades, reclined seats, even movement around the plane until very late in the landing process is all seemingly tolerated. Throw in the entitlement culture of celebrities and you've got an inevitable outrage/injustice case.

Also note that the celebrity reposted some obviously sarcastic mocking tweets from people ridiculing him. Raising the possibility that others purporting to be on the flight were actually also taking the pi**, but it was all just a little too deadpan and subtle.

Definitely agree US airlines are more lax on passengers listening to briefings and even mobile phone use, and have been for many years.

I suspect it's a matter of perspective.
FA, doing their job, approaches a number of passengers wearing headphones, listening to loud music and focusing on laptops. All other pax are attentive. All the pax approached just happen to be black men.

As for defamation, my bush lawyer read of it is.
Damages for defamation are available for things such as hurt and stress, although in quantum would typically be well below where you can prove loss of earnings (as per the recent actors cases and I suspect Bill Spedding in the future).

Aggravated damages could also apply in this case due to the reach of his social media, likely reaction of some fans (additional abuse) and failure to remove the tweet or apologise

aerokiwi wrote:

getluv wrote:

travelhound wrote:

Section 365 of the criminal code is very clear on the term defamation.

Defamation has to be proven first. It’s not defamation if it’s true.

Read the legal definition of defamation like another poster has put up a few posts ago. I suggest you start there.

Whether he “intended” is also another argument.

So the celebrity cries racism - raises the onus of proof issue. If an FA is following safety procedure, then that is hardly discriminatory. If the reaction to any disagreement was by the book, i.e. informing police, then again that is hardly discriminatory. All passengers, regardless of race, would be subjected to the same treatment.

Intent - the celebrity publishes his version of events and identifies their opposing party on a public forum to express outrage and incite sympathy. The side effect being that by doing so he exposes the opposing party to harassment. It is reasonable to expect the celebrity to know this was the outcome.

And there is no need for someone claiming to be defamed to proved material hard in a financial sense. Material harm can include their own reputation and emotional/physical wellbeing. The online harassment should suffice.

I suspect that there is a cultural issue here. Landing procedures in the US are far more laid back than in most other parts of the world I travel. Window shades, reclined seats, even movement around the plane until very late in the landing process is all seemingly tolerated. Throw in the entitlement culture of celebrities and you've got an inevitable outrage/injustice case.

Also note that the celebrity reposted some obviously sarcastic mocking tweets from people ridiculing him. Raising the possibility that others purporting to be on the flight were actually also taking the pi**, but it was all just a little too deadpan and subtle.

A majority of his followers are not in Australia. The damage to this women’s reputation is very, very limited. Given QF are backing her, her professional reputation is fine.

I don’t think it’s an entitlement issue. It’s pure arrogance.

If this to go to court, her whole work history would have to be called out. Her demeanour, QF practices, testimonials from other passengers and crew, the AFP officers (who didn’t even charge him in the end) would need to be heard.

Unfortunately we live in a world where you can’t really tell a POC that if they perceive to be racist that they are wrong. It’s a similar argument that can be applied to many minorities if they feel vilified. I doubt a judge would be inclined to rule on this.

Qantas' main concern is for the well being of their employee, situations such as the late Charlotte Dawson should still ring loud and clear and nobody wants a repeat of that! The actions of this so called entertainer who is obviously holding onto the little fame they have left by creating a social media storm with the accompanying harassment, death threats and bullying that could very well end in total disaster for the employee and family! How do we know what her mental state is right now? I sincerely hope she has deleted all social media platforms. Qantas HR will be monitoring this.
No one can tell me that he did not know what he was doing or what the outcome would be by him naming and posting the employees photo on line!

vhqpa wrote:

Also I'm not buying he didn't realise his laptop had to be stowed for take off. Personally I only do around 5-6 sectors a year and I know perfectly well that larger electronic items cannot be used for take off and landing. As a musician I'm guessing he flies a little more often than I do.

I'm like you, in that I only do a handful of sectors each year. I often bring a tablet on board for IFE and until one airline (I think JQ) specifically said that tablets with keyboards attached need to be stowed, I always wondered if tablets were considered larger personal electronic items, let alone a laptop (which I know definitely fits the definition of larger personal electronic items). Still, I'm always aware of when cabin crew are wandering through the aircraft, in case one does want me to stow my tablet - and of course I'd immediately obey the crew member.

Ultimately noise cancelling headphones or not you should have some awareness of who is around you on a flight (especially cabin crew).

brucetiki wrote:

vhqpa wrote:

Also I'm not buying he didn't realise his laptop had to be stowed for take off. Personally I only do around 5-6 sectors a year and I know perfectly well that larger electronic items cannot be used for take off and landing. As a musician I'm guessing he flies a little more often than I do.

I'm like you, in that I only do a handful of sectors each year. I often bring a tablet on board for IFE and until one airline (I think JQ) specifically said that tablets with keyboards attached need to be stowed, I always wondered if tablets were considered larger personal electronic items, let alone a laptop (which I know definitely fits the definition of larger personal electronic items). Still, I'm always aware of when cabin crew are wandering through the aircraft, in case one does want me to stow my tablet - and of course I'd immediately obey the crew member.

Ultimately noise cancelling headphones or not you should have some awareness of who is around you on a flight (especially cabin crew).

Some specify in their announcements "larger tablets like iPad pros and laptops now need to be stowed". Can't remember which airline but I've heard it several times.

D7A330 wrote:

brucetiki wrote:

vhqpa wrote:

Also I'm not buying he didn't realise his laptop had to be stowed for take off. Personally I only do around 5-6 sectors a year and I know perfectly well that larger electronic items cannot be used for take off and landing. As a musician I'm guessing he flies a little more often than I do.

I'm like you, in that I only do a handful of sectors each year. I often bring a tablet on board for IFE and until one airline (I think JQ) specifically said that tablets with keyboards attached need to be stowed, I always wondered if tablets were considered larger personal electronic items, let alone a laptop (which I know definitely fits the definition of larger personal electronic items). Still, I'm always aware of when cabin crew are wandering through the aircraft, in case one does want me to stow my tablet - and of course I'd immediately obey the crew member.

Ultimately noise cancelling headphones or not you should have some awareness of who is around you on a flight (especially cabin crew).

Some specify in their announcements "larger tablets like iPad pros and laptops now need to be stowed". Can't remember which airline but I've heard it several times.

NZ allows them but they need to be used in tablet mode (ie the keyboard folded away).

Interesting article about the Australia-UK/Europe market.

https://www.anna.aero/2019/11/19/the-kangaroo-route-sees-2-2-million-passengers/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a Hawaiian A330 parked outside the Qantas hangar at BNE with its engine cowlings open. I assumed that it had gone tech during a turnaround HNL-BNE-HNL but it appears that HA444 hadn't had a delay of more than 1 hour over the past week. Does anyone know what it's doing there?

EK413 wrote:

Interesting article about the Australia-UK/Europe market.

https://www.anna.aero/2019/11/19/the-kangaroo-route-sees-2-2-million-passengers/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for that, very interesting, especially the fact that there is more AU-UK traffic than UK-AU!

On another note, QF are taking their time with announcing the new HND flight. I wonder with both ANA and JAL going with SYD, they might now be thinking of switching to MEL?

RyanairGuru wrote:

There's a Hawaiian A330 parked outside the Qantas hangar at BNE with its engine cowlings open. I assumed that it had gone tech during a turnaround HNL-BNE-HNL but it appears that HA444 hadn't had a delay of more than 1 hour over the past week. Does anyone know what it's doing there?

Qantas handle maintenance for the HA A330 fleet, have been for a couple of years now. Sometimes they'll just rotate them through HA443/444 rotations and other times they'll ferry them in/out from HNL.

I'm thinking Qantas may go with Melbourne for its Haneda flight as since it may be able to codeshare with JAL on its Sydney service.

Before NH doubled its service at Sydney, a codeshare would have virtually impossible due to competition concerns, but now it more than likely to be OK. Qantas and JAL will still be restricted on how much codesharing they can do but with increased flights from their competition, a window has been opened on limited codesharing.

RyanairGuru wrote:

There's a Hawaiian A330 parked outside the Qantas hangar at BNE with its engine cowlings open. I assumed that it had gone tech during a turnaround HNL-BNE-HNL but it appears that HA444 hadn't had a delay of more than 1 hour over the past week. Does anyone know what it's doing there?

Qantas do their heavy maintenance in BNE.

Pcoder wrote:

I'm thinking Qantas may go with Melbourne for its Haneda flight as since it may be able to codeshare with JAL on its Sydney service.

Before NH doubled its service at Sydney, a codeshare would have virtually impossible due to competition concerns, but now it more than likely to be OK. Qantas and JAL will still be restricted on how much codesharing they can do but with increased flights from their competition, a window has been opened on limited codesharing.

You may be right but what great need is there for Qantas to fly to Haneda from Melbourne. It's not like the competition will be.

My guess is double daily out of Sydney matching ANA. QF won't want to give a competitive advantage to NH is my reasoning.

Latest Rumour is that EK’s MEL-SIN will leave around 2am local. Not unexpected when you look at how inefficient the current timing is considering a 777 is parked for close to 17 hours on the ground.