Tonight's QF9 PER-LHR has turned back approximately an hour and a half into flight due to a disruptive passenger

https://thewest.com.au/news/qantas/qant ... b88954696z

As a result of the return crew have clocked out and flight has been rescheduled

Depart PER 1200 Sunday
Arrive LHR 2150 Sunday

QF10 new schedule departing Sunday
Depart LHR 2320
Arrive PER 2230 Monday

Times quoted above are from QF's flight status and are subject to change. There is the possibility that they may need to overnight at LHR is departure is any later which would mean the second time this has happened in the past week after ZNF went tech last Sunday resulting in the aircraft departing LHR on Monday instead

I really hope that QF takes legal action against the passenger in question of which the passenger should pay for any expenses occurred including fuel and hotel expenses that have arisen to the return to PER.

Yes totally agree. I'd been cheesed off (being polite) if someone did that on my flight. At least some of the passengers might be able to get away on the 2 a bit earlier. But what time is the 10 going to arrive in MEL? Very early next day I guess.

That’ll be a very expensive restitution the pax will have to pay. Might just have to wait tables or pump petrol for the rest of his life.

I guess the thought of a 17 hour flight made the pax go nuts!

It would be interesting to find out how much fuel they had to dump. Just an hour into the flight, you'd have about 16h of fuel - around 96t.

The MLW of a 789 is 192,000kg; I'm assuming a TOW of around 258-260,000kgs from PER, based on an OEW of 128,500kg, fuel of 100,000kgs and payload of 30,000kgs, so they'd probably have to burn around 70,000kgs to land ...

Imagine getting that bill in the post!

jmc1975 wrote:

That’ll be a very expensive restitution the pax will have to pay. Might just have to wait tables or pump petrol for the rest of his life.

First sentence is a fair prediction. Second sentence makes absolutely no sense. 'Job shaming'? Waiting tables, just like working at Trader Joe's, is an honorable job. And everybody 'pumps petrol' every time they fill up their vehicle. Unless one is in New Jersey...

no point pursuing payment- sure QF will win in the courts, but pax will just declare bankruptcy.

mga707 wrote:

jmc1975 wrote:

That’ll be a very expensive restitution the pax will have to pay. Might just have to wait tables or pump petrol for the rest of his life.

First sentence is a fair prediction. Second sentence makes absolutely no sense. 'Job shaming'? Waiting tables, just like working at Trader Joe's, is an honorable job. And everybody 'pumps petrol' every time they fill up their vehicle. Unless one is in New Jersey...

Crikey, thats a bit "PC" of you, he was just conveying there would be hardship for him. I`d go a lot further & suggest total
ban on air travel for life, two weeks in jail, & finally removal of his bollocks without anaesthesia of any kind. Perhaps this
may be helpful as some kind of deterent in the future.

eta unknown wrote:

no point pursuing payment- sure QF will win in the courts, but pax will just declare bankruptcy.

Where a passenger is unable to pay restitution in a lump sum, QF can obtain a distraint on wages/ salary, with the court determining how much the person is able to pay in instalments.

Declaring bankruptcy may do the person more harm, particularly if they are buying a house because the trustee appointed has the authority to sell assets, including the house. Employment and future credit could be affected. A person would also need to obtain written permission from the trustee to travel overseas.

QF has previously obtained compensation orders. I think airlines pursuing claims from disruptive passengers is fair and proper because unless those passengers are made accountable for their actions, air travel will continue to become burdensome to both the airlines and other passengers.

I wonder if this guy’s a Aussie coz we already have too many bloody bogans embarrassing our country when flying among countries.

This will be a very expensive compensation order, given that you now have to deal with two complete crews plus their passengers stranded in London another day (although passengers could be rebooked onto CX or BA), and the likelihood of having to carry another set of crews on the next QF9 (which, if Australia goes by the one FA rule per 50 pax, that would be 10 FA and 4 pilots), along with re-accommodating passengers and whatever fuel had to be dumped.. I'm assuming 4 pilots because the length of the flight requires that many pilots to avoid timing out.

As for other flights, I have to wonder if QF49 or QF95 is going to have a flight canceled (more likely QF95, with passengers rerouted through BNE or SYD).

aemoreira1981 wrote:

This will be a very expensive compensation order, given that you now have to deal with two complete crews plus their passengers stranded in London another day (although passengers could be rebooked onto CX or BA), and the likelihood of having to carry another set of crews on the next QF9 (which, if Australia goes by the one FA rule per 50 pax, that would be 10 FA and 4 pilots), along with re-accommodating passengers and whatever fuel had to be dumped.. I'm assuming 4 pilots because the length of the flight requires that many pilots to avoid timing out.

As for other flights, I have to wonder if QF49 or QF95 is going to have a flight canceled (more likely QF95, with passengers rerouted through BNE or SYD).

If everything goes all well at LHR there should only be about a 10 hour delay

Its nearly 1230pm here now in PER. QF9D has just pushed back. QF10 is about half an hour out from PER. This delay has also caused QF71 PER-SIN delayed as it looks like there was the possibility of QF9 & 10 being on the ground at the same time at gates 18 & 20. QF71 has just been towed to Gate 18, original departure was suppose to be 1155 then pushed back to 1235 but looks like it will be at least another hour till it departs,

Tomorrow QF95 MEL-LAX will either be delayed or cancelled. If its delayed it will probably wont fly out much before 7am Tuesday morning.

On QF's flight status the PER-MEL leg is scheduled to depart PER at 2340 and arrive in MEL at 510

Here is the latest on what happened, the AFP boarded the flight upon landing and the passenger was escorted off the aircraft

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/qantas ... b88954692z

Due to the delays of QF9/10 Monday's QF95/96 MEL-LAX is now cancelled

a19901213 wrote:

I wonder if this guy’s a Aussie coz we already have too many bloody bogans embarrassing our country when flying among countries.

I'm not sure if his narionality is known. If it was known that he was British the Oz press would be all over that. The fact that the articles I've read don't mention his nationality makes me wonder if he's Australian or if it's not known. If he was Australian I'd imagine the press there would play it down.

Does flights always return to their departure destination in such events or could they have continued to destination ? I mean they apparently were half way through the journey ....

I wonder if on some of these ULH flights they should have a 'jail' on them, a room perhaps in a non-window area of the plane to put such terrible behaving pax into so not to disrupt the flight.
As to the return to PER, it was likely chosen due for legal reasons to the airline, to protect the rights of the accused, to minimize logistical hassles at another airport they might have diverted to and as others have noted, the thin margin of crew time.

Mortyman wrote:

Does flights always return to their departure destination in such events or could they have continued to destination ? I mean they apparently were half way through the journey ....

They werent half way through the journey, not even close. The flight turned back about an hour and half in flight, at the time they were west of Shark Bay/Carnarvon. There are reports the disruptive passenger locked him in the toilet for an hour. Ultimately it was the captain's choice to return to Perth and considering they would have had to put up with this passenger's behavior for another 16 hours if the flight had continued. They could have continued and diverted elsewhere but that could have been even worse, stranded in a foreign country, maybe an airport QF doesnt serve, no ground crew or support for the passengers etc. Another thing to take into account is that this flight has very little room for delays, diversions etc before the the crew times out

Mortyman wrote:

Does flights always return to their departure destination in such events or could they have continued to destination ? I mean they apparently were half way through the journey ....

"Halfway through the journey" is extremely optimistic. If the news llink is right they had been in the air for just 1 h 30 or so.

They should check if he received any payments from competing airlines recently. Being agitated an hour and a half into the flight is very unusual. People either get drunk or start panicking. The former happens further into the flight, the latter happens ealier. And his behavior (as described by fellow passengers) is very strange, too. The guy got up, went down the cabin, sat down, got up again and started shouting. That looks very... fake. Maybe it was all a prank from Sir Richard "Virgin" Branson?

BREECH wrote:

They should check if he received any payments from competing airlines recently. Being agitated an hour and a half into the flight is very unusual. People either get drunk or start panicking. The former happens further into the flight, the latter happens ealier. And his behavior (as described by fellow passengers) is very strange, too. The guy got up, went down the cabin, sat down, got up again and started shouting. That looks very... fake. Maybe it was all a prank from Sir Richard "Virgin" Branson?

I doubt this was a prank, most likely a person with a mental/psychological health problem, maybe drunk or under the influence of a drug they had a bad affect from or a combination of those factors.

Pushing it pretty fine for the LHR curfew. Due in at 21:47 which was the ETD from LHR. Assuming no less than a 70-90 min turnaround, won’t depart much before 23:00 I’d say, at a push.

Although I’m sure LHR will allow a departure until 00:30 at least given the special conditions.

Can someone explain how a Saturday delay on PER-LHR causes a Monday MEL-LAX flight to cancel? Are they stealing a crew and/or plane in order to get things back into normal rotation sooner?

BREECH wrote:

They should check if he received any payments from competing airlines recently. Being agitated an hour and a half into the flight is very unusual. People either get drunk or start panicking. The former happens further into the flight, the latter happens ealier. And his behavior (as described by fellow passengers) is very strange, too. The guy got up, went down the cabin, sat down, got up again and started shouting. That looks very... fake. Maybe it was all a prank from Sir Richard "Virgin" Branson?

Unless you take some narcotic.....

qf789 wrote:

I really hope that QF takes legal action against the passenger in question of which the passenger should pay for any expenses occurred including fuel and hotel expenses that have arisen to the return to PER.

That's a little harsh, given we do not yet know the circumstances that caused the passenger's poor and erratic behaviour. What if he'd been prescribed a sleeping tablet by his doctor for the long haul flight, a tablet he had not taken before (or indeed had been prescribed a new drug for some other purpose), and after taking it on board, he reacted badly to it?

What if his behaviour was caused by him falling ill, such as suffering an allergic reaction to something he had eaten in airport?

If one of those happened to you, would you be happy to forced to pay?

Obviously if the guy was drunk and belligerent because of that, then fair enough, but the linked article simply does not give enough information. I'd rather wait to hear the full story before rushing to judge him.

hOMSaR wrote:

Can someone explain how a Saturday delay on PER-LHR causes a Monday MEL-LAX flight to cancel? Are they stealing a crew and/or plane in order to get things back into normal rotation sooner?

The way QF rotates their 789's go as follows

MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL-LAX-MEL

The MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL rotation takes 48 hours 40 minutes

To put it another way

Saturday MEL-PER 1515-1715
Saturday PER-LHR 1845-525+1
Sunday LHR-PER 1315-1300+1
Monday PER-MEL 1430-1955
Monday MEL-LAX 2140-1905
Monday LAX-MEL2355-825+2
Wednesday MEL-PER-LHR

This is why they needed 4 frames before that started PER-LHR. Also note depending on the day it would be MEL-SFO not MEL-LAX

mga707 wrote:

And everybody 'pumps petrol' every time they fill up their vehicle. Unless one is in New Jersey...

And Oregon, unless anything has changed recently.

Tedd wrote:

I`d go a lot further & suggest total ban on air travel for life, two weeks in jail, & finally removal of his bollocks without anaesthesia of any kind. Perhaps this
may be helpful as some kind of deterent in the future.

Might work for a male passenger. What would you suggest for a female.

qf789 wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

Can someone explain how a Saturday delay on PER-LHR causes a Monday MEL-LAX flight to cancel? Are they stealing a crew and/or plane in order to get things back into normal rotation sooner?

The way QF rotates their 789's go as follows

MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL-LAX-MEL

The MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL rotation takes 48 hours 40 minutes

To put it another way

Saturday MEL-PER 1515-1715
Saturday PER-LHR 1845-525+1
Sunday LHR-PER 1315-1300+1
Monday PER-MEL 1430-1955
Monday MEL-LAX 2140-1905
Monday LAX-MEL2355-825+2
Wednesday MEL-PER-LHR

This is why they needed 4 frames before that started PER-LHR. Also note depending on the day it would be MEL-SFO not MEL-LAX

Thanks. Somehow, I was thinking the flight rotation would take a bit longer.

FCAFLYBOY wrote:

Pushing it pretty fine for the LHR curfew. Due in at 21:47 which was the ETD from LHR. Assuming no less than a 70-90 min turnaround, won’t depart much before 23:00 I’d say, at a push.

Although I’m sure LHR will allow a departure until 00:30 at least given the special conditions.

There is no way its going to get there at 2147, the flight took off at 1245 PER time, that would indicate a flight time of 16 hours and 2 minutes which simply wont happen. The quickest flight time is 16 hours and 25 minutes with the average being 16 hours and 52 minutes. Its due in at 2228 (putting the flight time at 16 hours 43 minutes) and due to depart LHR at 2355

If it were up to me, I'd divert to DXB or SIN and offload the passenger.

qf789 wrote:

FCAFLYBOY wrote:

Pushing it pretty fine for the LHR curfew. Due in at 21:47 which was the ETD from LHR. Assuming no less than a 70-90 min turnaround, won’t depart much before 23:00 I’d say, at a push.

Although I’m sure LHR will allow a departure until 00:30 at least given the special conditions.

There is no way its going to get there at 2147, the flight took off at 1245 PER time, that would indicate a flight time of 16 hours and 2 minutes which simply wont happen. The quickest flight time is 16 hours and 25 minutes with the average being 16 hours and 52 minutes. Its due in at 2228 (putting the flight time at 16 hours 43 minutes) and due to depart LHR at 2355

I was going by the timing on FR24. Not too far off in the end, but you are correct, due in now at 22:23. Let’s hope their turnaround is smooth, 23:55 is jousting it I think but not impossible.

vhtje wrote:

qf789 wrote:

I really hope that QF takes legal action against the passenger in question of which the passenger should pay for any expenses occurred including fuel and hotel expenses that have arisen to the return to PER.

That's a little harsh, given we do not yet know the circumstances that caused the passenger's poor and erratic behaviour. What if he'd been prescribed a sleeping tablet by his doctor for the long haul flight, a tablet he had not taken before (or indeed had been prescribed a new drug for some other purpose), and after taking it on board, he reacted badly to it?

What if his behaviour was caused by him falling ill, such as suffering an allergic reaction to something he had eaten in airport?

If one of those happened to you, would you be happy to forced to pay?

Obviously if the guy was drunk and belligerent because of that, then fair enough, but the linked article simply does not give enough information. I'd rather wait to hear the full story before rushing to judge him.

Yes, I agree.Too much harshness here - nobody knows anything from those two (identical!) articles. What happened to innocent til proven guilty?

Just flew over me in East London. Landing 15 or so hours late on a 17 hour sector just in time for all the transport to shut down

2355 looks optimistic, lets hope the Heathrow gods don't change their mind about an outside of curfew departure.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

If it were up to me, I'd divert to DXB or SIN and offload the passenger.

A choice between whipping or caning?

Confuscius wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

If it were up to me, I'd divert to DXB or SIN and offload the passenger.

A choice between whipping or caning?

Plus it burns off excess fuel end avoids the environmental issues of dumping fuel.

AirKevin wrote:

mga707 wrote:

And everybody 'pumps petrol' every time they fill up their vehicle. Unless one is in New Jersey...

And Oregon, unless anything has changed recently.

It has changed in the past year or so. People can pump their own gas in Oregon now.

AirKevin wrote:

mga707 wrote:

And everybody 'pumps petrol' every time they fill up their vehicle. Unless one is in New Jersey...

And Oregon, unless anything has changed recently.

Tedd wrote:

I`d go a lot further & suggest total ban on air travel for life, two weeks in jail, & finally removal of his bollocks without anaesthesia of any kind. Perhaps this
may be helpful as some kind of deterent in the future.

Might work for a male passenger. What would you suggest for a female.

One can never be sure these days!

Maybe he had a medical condition?

flyingclrs727 wrote:

If it were up to me, I'd divert to DXB or SIN and offload the passenger.

Then you have a plane and crew out of position and without enough hours to get to Heathrow, and no 787 crews at DXB as that's an A388 station (if DXB). Thus the decision was made to return to PER, which is also likely closer than anywhere else too.

Also, right now, there is zero slack in the B789 fleet. QF has 6 frames...4 (VH-ZNA/C/D/F) are needed for LHR-PER-MEL-LAX or SFO, and 2 are needed for BNE-LAX-JFK (VH-ZNB/E). The next plane is likely going to provide one spare plane.

As for a departure curfew---what are the penalties at LHR for such?

a19901213 wrote:

I wonder if this guy’s a Aussie coz we already have too many bloody bogans embarrassing our country when flying among countries.

Like every Jetstar flight to Bali for example?

OzRogOne wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

I wonder if this guy’s a Aussie coz we already have too many bloody bogans embarrassing our country when flying among countries.

Like every Jetstar flight to Bali for example?

Or at the Phuket airport too.

I also wondered why wouldn't they accommodate passengers onto EK's flights via DXB since they have the special relationship with Qantas? Or, up to Singers, to catch the rerouted Qantas flight to London? Anyways, does anyone know if the passenger was mocked and booed as the AFP excorted him off the plane?

hz747300 wrote:

OzRogOne wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

I wonder if this guy’s a Aussie coz we already have too many bloody bogans embarrassing our country when flying among countries.

Like every Jetstar flight to Bali for example?

Or at the Phuket airport too.

I also wondered why wouldn't they accommodate passengers onto EK's flights via DXB since they have the special relationship with Qantas? Or, up to Singers, to catch the rerouted Qantas flight to London? Anyways, does anyone know if the passenger was mocked and booed as the AFP excorted him off the plane?

You then need to ferry in a B789 crew to rescue the plane or ferry it to LHR or PER...and you also have to take care of the two crews on QF9. This is a route requiring two complete crews.

itisi wrote:

Maybe he had a medical condition?

Totally agree with you. Everyone is jumping for punitive actions when this passenger could have mental or other medical issues which (despite the sentiment of some on the forum) can be beyond individual's control.

A thought just entered my mind, and it may have been raised before... Could a holding pen be installed somewhere on the long haul aircraft (perhaps below deck) to imprison disruptive passengers? Surely it's better to contain them somewhere and carry on with the journey rather than waste thousands of dollars worth of fuel by jettisoning, thousands of dollars for passenger accommodation, thousands of dollars in late fees and delays and any other costs I haven't covered?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

If it were up to me, I'd divert to DXB or SIN and offload the passenger.

Then you have a plane and crew out of position and without enough hours to get to Heathrow, and no 787 crews at DXB as that's an A388 station (if DXB). Thus the decision was made to return to PER, which is also likely closer than anywhere else too.

You wouldn't have any crews at DXB, since QF no longer routes their A380s through there at all.

EGTESkyGod wrote:

A thought just entered my mind, and it may have been raised before... Could a holding pen be installed somewhere on the long haul aircraft (perhaps below deck) to imprison disruptive passengers? Surely it's better to contain them somewhere and carry on with the journey rather than waste thousands of dollars worth of fuel by jettisoning, thousands of dollars for passenger accommodation, thousands of dollars in late fees and delays and any other costs I haven't covered?

It creates more problems than it solves IMO. How would it work in any sort of emergency situation? In a situation that threatens the aircraft and passengers, you have the possibility of crew forgetting there is someone imprisoned elsewhere within the aircraft, or having to waste precious time to retrieve them. You wouldn't be able to have them down there for landing, unless there was a crew member and some form of evacuation route also, but if they caused that much of a disturbance you wouldn't want them back in the main cabin either in the event that they lose the plot again.

Restraint kit and diversion/offload is still the most feasible option I think...

EGTESkyGod wrote:

A thought just entered my mind, and it may have been raised before... Could a holding pen be installed somewhere on the long haul aircraft (perhaps below deck) to imprison disruptive passengers? Surely it's better to contain them somewhere and carry on with the journey rather than waste thousands of dollars worth of fuel by jettisoning, thousands of dollars for passenger accommodation, thousands of dollars in late fees and delays and any other costs I haven't covered?

ltbewr wrote:

I wonder if on some of these ULH flights they should have a 'jail' on them, a room perhaps in a non-window area of the plane to put such terrible behaving pax into so not to disrupt the flight.
As to the return to PER, it was likely chosen due for legal reasons to the airline, to protect the rights of the accused, to minimize logistical hassles at another airport they might have diverted to and as others have noted, the thin margin of crew time.

Sounds like you guys are recommending naughty corners for planes

I did think it sounds good at first but I think it's much more complicated than that. I got thinking about very, very inebriated pax. They could black out and choke on their own vomit and by the time the crew notices it could be too late. At least if they're put in a quiet part of the plane to sober up and end up blacking out and choking on their own vomit, someone will notice the smell and sounds quicker and the crew and/or a medical practitioner can have a go at resuscitating the poor bloke.
What about passengers with mental health issues? There are reasons why known suicidal prisoners wear special clothing when incarcerated.

Then you have to take into account the safety of the crew and other pax. Is it better to throw a pax who clocked a F/A in a holding cell and risk them committing suicide, or have them restrained in an economy seat but then the risk of them getting up and hitting someone else?

It appears that the FAA doesn't require sedatives in to be on board of planes and even then you can't give them to people who have consumed lots of alcohol.

EGTESkyGod wrote:

A thought just entered my mind, and it may have been raised before... Could a holding pen be installed somewhere on the long haul aircraft (perhaps below deck) to imprison disruptive passengers? Surely it's better to contain them somewhere and carry on with the journey rather than waste thousands of dollars worth of fuel by jettisoning, thousands of dollars for passenger accommodation, thousands of dollars in late fees and delays and any other costs I haven't covered?

You’d open a whole raft of legal problems going down that path. How do you get the passenger into said holding pen without physically handling the passenger? Huge problems just there, not to mention potentially putting the crew in danger. The scope for abuse and misuse of the holding pen is huge.

I can just see the huge outcry when someone get put in this holding pen as an overreaction. It would put the airline in a lot of trouble.

vhtje wrote:

You’d open a whole raft of legal problems going down that path. How do you get the passenger into said holding pen without physically handling the passenger? Huge problems just there, not to mention potentially putting the crew in danger. The scope for abuse and misuse of the holding pen is huge.

I can just see the huge outcry when someone get put in this holding pen as an overreaction. It would put the airline in a lot of trouble.

True, it's just a thought I had. I guess it would have to be regular seating but in a sealed off area not advertised as a holding pen or anything. The point is surely it would be better to isolate / separate the problem passenger rather than the obvious inconveniences of a flight returning to the departure airport.

EGTESkyGod wrote:

True, it's just a thought I had. I guess it would have to be regular seating but in a sealed off area not advertised as a holding pen or anything. The point is surely it would be better to isolate / separate the problem passenger rather than the obvious inconveniences of a flight returning to the departure airport.

No the point is the need is to get the aircraft back on the ground at the nearest airport as soon as possible, for the safety of the crew and of the other passengers, and to get the uncontrolled passenger into the hands of law enforcement and/or medical personnel who are qualified to deal with the situation. An uncontrolled passenger puts the crew and other passengers at risk; extending the time the passenger is onboard prolongs this risk.

vhtje wrote:

No the point is the need is to get the aircraft back on the ground at the nearest airport as soon as possible, for the safety of the crew and of the other passengers, and to get the uncontrolled passenger into the hands of law enforcement and/or medical personnel who are qualified to deal with the situation. An uncontrolled passenger puts the crew and other passengers at risk; extending the time the passenger is onboard prolongs this risk.

OK, I get that, and I agree... But MY point is that if there is a sealed area where the problem passenger can be detained then he/she is not "uncontrolled". As for law enforcement, that could be arranged at whichever airport they end up flying to whether it is the destination or a diversion. Or post a so-called "Air Marshall" aboard every flight, or give the F/A's the power to detain problem passengers.

Now clearly from your last response you will make the argument that getting the aircraft on the ground as soon as possible is the priority, and I agree. Certainly my flight training was to get the aircraft on the ground in the quickest/safest way. However, what I am saying is that if there is a way to SAFELY detain a problem passenger then it would make more sense to do that and continue the flight. If the passenger cannot be safely detained and poses a threat to the aircraft then of course the aircraft should divert and get down ASAP. Hypothetically, a passenger screaming and shouting doesn't necessarily constitute a threat to the aircraft and safe detention of that passenger allows the aircraft to continue and (hypothetically) saves a) environmental damage through jettisoned fuel and the greenies that go with it, b) the cost of replacing that fuel, c) the cost of accommodating the passengers appropriately, d) the cost of replacement crews to avoid hours being maxed out, e) the obvious inconvenience of all the above points and more.

In summary, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just suggesting there may be alternative ways of doing things.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

hz747300 wrote:

OzRogOne wrote:

Like every Jetstar flight to Bali for example?

Or at the Phuket airport too.

I also wondered why wouldn't they accommodate passengers onto EK's flights via DXB since they have the special relationship with Qantas? Or, up to Singers, to catch the rerouted Qantas flight to London? Anyways, does anyone know if the passenger was mocked and booed as the AFP excorted him off the plane?

You then need to ferry in a B789 crew to rescue the plane or ferry it to LHR or PER...and you also have to take care of the two crews on QF9. This is a route requiring two complete crews.

I think you all misunderstood me, I was not suggesting the flight carry on to Dubai, rather, upon return to PER, the passengers could have been accommodated onto EK's flights, and / or through Singapore to London. I agree that sending the 789 to Dubai would not be a good move.

Does anyone know what he was yelling? What medical condition would make someone act out at just the worst time, and still permit one to fly?