So I saw on Flightradar that it landed at 22:30 in London and departed again at 00:13. I thought London has a midnight curfew. Or does doors closed or pushback count for the curfew?

CARST wrote:

So I saw on Flightradar that it landed at 22:30 in London and departed again at 00:13. I thought London has a midnight curfew. Or does doors closed or pushback count for the curfew?

There are exceptions for extraordinary circumstances. If a plane at 2am needs to divert or emergency they will land there. The curfew is for scheduled flights and they will avoid if possible but in this case the Qantas was late because of a diversion so they must have granted permission for the late takeoff.

hz747300 wrote:

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?

Tourettes springs to mind...?

EGTESkyGod wrote:

hz747300 wrote:

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?

Tourettes springs to mind...?

Or a panic attack, triggered potentially by the crowd and combined space and combination of other factors(medical history, drugs/alcohol). These incidents are not that unusual but they are rarely this aggressive.

ABpositive wrote:

EGTESkyGod wrote:

hz747300 wrote:

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?

Tourettes springs to mind...?

Or a panic attack, triggered potentially by the crowd and combined space and combination of other factors(medical history, drugs/alcohol). These incidents are not that unusual but they are rarely this aggressive.

An anxious A.nutter (whoa! that's a lot of alliteration!) seating in a 787 3-3-3 seating configuration might do the same thing.

vhtje wrote:

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.

londonistan wrote:

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

ABpositive wrote:

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.

Regardless of whether the passenger had been drinking before the flight, had taken medication or was suffering from mental illness there is no excuse of which some want to provide about putting a flight and fellow passengers and crew is danger Everyone who flies knows that they should follow the instructions from crew members at all times and behave in a responsible manner. This didn't happen in this case.

The passenger in question not only put his fellow passengers in danger but inconvenienced other passengers on other flights. Overall his actions affected over 1000 passengers which include

Original flight QF9 returning to PER. This flight was loaded with around 95 tonnes of fuel which a good proportion had to be dumped. On return to PER the flight was delayed over 12 hours so the flight crew could get adequate rest as they only have a 90 minute window on the PER-LHR route before they time out. All passengers had to accommodated which brings in more cost. Along with that here are costs for ground handling, the aircraft would have to be cleaned and re dressed again, ramp servicing the aircraft, good proportion of the food would need to be thrown out and flight had to be catered again.

The return flight QF10 was then delayed. By the time it arrived in PER the passengers not terminated in PER had to overnight in PER. The 3 redeyes to the east coast, BNE had already departed and both SYD and MEL would have been very close to closing boarding when QF10 arrived.

The delayed QF10 LHR-PER resulted in QF10 PER-MEL being cancelled. More passengers inconvenienced, those who use the flight to get to LAX would have either had to depart the night before or later that night and do the redeye over to MEL, SYD or BNE for a flight to LAX. Those using QF10 domestically or getting other international flights such as to NZ would have had to be booked onto other flights.

The aicraft VH-ZNC was positioned back to MEL empty, more costs to QF

QF95/96 MEL-LAX-MEL was cancelled resulting in more passengers being inconvenienced either having to be transferred to other flights or having to wait for the next available flight.

Qantas has already slapped a ban on this passenger from all Qantas and Jetstar flights. They are also considering billing him the $60,000 for the diversion.

https://thewest.com.au/news/qantas/disr ... b88954711z

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/a60 ... op-flight/

At the end of the day Qantas like every other airline is offering a service and expects those who board their aircraft to follow the rules of carriage. If they dont and have to divert its fair and reasonable for the airline to be compensated for the costs incurred. If that forces the passenger into bankruptcy the passenger has no one to blame but himself. There are consequences to his actions, he didnt follow the rules so he now has to live with the consequences.

Just for the record, I work for at PER airport prodominantly for Virgin and have seen first hand passengers being dragged off the plane for their behaviour and seen the effects it takes on the passengers and the crew, perhaps some of you could defend them before defending the offender

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...

In New Jersey and many other countries, petrol is pumped for you. One of the reasons I like NJ, especially in the winter. It's the little things, unlike the tax bill.

On a serious note, all tax paying jobs are honorable jobs. He'll need to work 2 or 3 of them to pay this bill...

qf789 wrote:

Regardless of whether the passenger had been drinking before the flight, had taken medication or was suffering from mental illness there is no excuse of which some want to provide about putting a flight and fellow passengers and crew is danger Everyone who flies knows that they should follow the instructions from crew members at all times and behave in a responsible manner. This didn't happen in this case.

Almost lost for words at that comment. You clearly have no concept of how adverse reactions or mental illness can affect people - the one size fits all 'everyone should follow the instructions' isn't remotely relevant in such context.

Tedd wrote:

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.

You haven't heard of job shaming? Wow you are a whole two days behind the times, get with it oldtimer! Its the current "outrage du jour" in Americaland. Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-45447257

PlymSpotter wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Regardless of whether the passenger had been drinking before the flight, had taken medication or was suffering from mental illness there is no excuse of which some want to provide about putting a flight and fellow passengers and crew is danger Everyone who flies knows that they should follow the instructions from crew members at all times and behave in a responsible manner. This didn't happen in this case.

Almost lost for words at that comment. You clearly have no concept of how adverse reactions or mental illness can affect people - the one size fits all 'everyone should follow the instructions' isn't remotely relevant in such context.

They shouldn't be flying then should they? People need to own their issues and act accordingly. Nobody has an absolute right to fly.

Does anyone know more about the perp? Was he from the Perth area?

I don’t have much carefactor for the person involved either tbh. Agree with qf789’s comments.

It’s well publicised it’s a long flight and that it pushes the boundaries a fair bit. And I’ve done it, I was on the flight the night before this guy went bunta and spoiled it for everyone.

The decision made to get the plane down and on the ground was correct - you don’t need to have this sort of stuff happen which can escalate quickly. This sort of stuff unnecessarily puts customers and crew at risk. People shouldn’t have to worry about whether they’re going to have to get involved with a punch on when they get on a plane.

If it was related to alcohol he deserves to cop it hard. If it’s drugs the same.

If it’s mental illness then people need to take accountability for their actions. Obviously those with a severe mental issue or disability are likely to have a carer with them and that’s fine. But if it’s because a bipolar person forgot to take their tabs and then got on the plane well...

I’m suspecting it’s an alcohol thing and wouldn’t be surprised if it was a fifo worker who’d be on the turps hard for most of the day.

sevenair wrote:

They shouldn't be flying then should they? People need to own their issues and act accordingly. Nobody has an absolute right to fly.

Does anyone know more about the perp? Was he from the Perth area?

And if it's the first time? It can't be assumed there is prior knowledge of all potential issues - ironically somewhat like the majority of aviation accidents, it can take a 'perfect storm' of factors to reveal something serious. Same goes for physical medical issues, but we don't see people claiming that anyone who might be as risk of a heart attack doesn't have a right to fly.

This is though all hypothetical until a cause is known.

BAINY3 wrote:

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.

*After 2AM in a few rural counties.

...So practically speaking, no, it has not changed.

he could be stuffed or drunk