Your rights for voluntary disembarkation of a plane In light of the ban by Qantas on the gentleman who asked to be removed from a flight transporting an asylum seeker (refer to

If you go past the headlines, it turns out the complainant had links to the protestors and it seems was just another part of the political theatre that runs rampant these days (far more important you shove your views down people's  throats than let them have their peaceful enjoyment of not being interfered with). If the complaint had said he was leaving for any other reason than he did, I doubt he'd be in this mess. The background suggests however that this was some failed attempt to start a mass exodus of the people, rising up against evil Qantas for transporting deportees for the Federal Government.

Qantas doesn't decline business without exceptionally good reason, and when certain facts apparently came to light later, it was only then (well after he left the plane) that Qantas didn't want to have anything further to do with him from what's on the grapevine. Qantas is a transport company, not a theatre venue for political stunts.

gippsflyer,

Agree with everything you said. Qantas is a transport company and not a theatre venue.

However are you suggesting that Qantas banned this person because of supposed links to the protestors?

Does an airline need proof to ban someone or is circumstantial evidence sufficient?

Are you also suggesting that in a completely different situation, if a passenger wishes to voluntarily disembark he or she may do so without any fear of reprecussion?

If the answer to that is "Yes", what are those circumstances and how is that different to this case (assuming no evidence that the person in question is related to the other protestor)?

Qantas isn't a criminal court, they aren't sending someone to jail (where the beyond reasonable doubt evidentiary standard is required). This is a civil matter and as such the evidentary standard enforced by the courts is balance of probabilities. Qantas has (according to the info on the grapevine) satisfied itself, on the relevant balance of probabilities test, that this pax is a disruptive passenger, and has thus elected not to carry him in future (I understand they've done the same with others linked to the events of that day).

As long as Qantas has reasonably satisfied itself, it's decision will survive any review by the appellate courts. The word is that it has.

Let's not confuse the issue of false imprisionment with what's happened here. Qantas didn't unlawful detain this person, nor was he threatened with action if he left. Qantas did, however, investigate the matter given the statements the pax made when he was onboard, and subsequently obtained information that led to this decision.

There isn't a right to Qantas' services, and unless a breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act can be shown, there is no error of law (which is why the fellow is seeking review at Tribunal, not a court of law).

With so many people traveling now days Airlines and passengers have to put up with the 10% that are feral or crazy! That's life ! disruptive and crazy people are out there just look at the news.

Hard to believe that it is only a few short years since 9/11 and we are being so flippant about whether we have the right to be allowed to leave an aircraft when we want to. Couple of reasons why, once you have boarded and sat down, you should probably stay.

First, if you get off, your baggage will have to be unloaded as well. How long is that going to take? You're going to need a pretty good excuse for delaying the flight while that happens.

Second, Once the doors close that plane is under the control of the pilot. For all the obsessing we do about the prettiness of sitting at the pointy end, flight is still an incredibly high risk and dangerous thing. So much can go wrong, and it is nearly always human intervention or fault that causes catastrophe. I for one am happy to give the captain that enormous responsibility to make decisions for all of us while we are on hers or his plane. If he or she says sit and buckle up, that is what I do. No distractions for the Captain and flight crew.

If, as in this case, that person wanting to leave was only on board for a political stunt, then they risk both the safety of fellow passengers and crew. Even if doors are still open and passengers boarding, you have a flight ready for take-off. It would be easy to imagine this escalating to violence in the cabin. There can be no tolerance for this nonsense, regardless of the cause.

Suggest the details of transporting deportees be kept secret in future to avoid this sort of risk.

Fonga,

I agree, When the door is closed, game over, captain's in-charge. Sit down and enjoy the ride.

I'm merely concerned about the time when doors are still open and you decide you do not wish to fly.

Ignoring the circumstances of this case, what are the rules? Are there reprecussions? Is there adequate transparency so that pax and crew are aware of their rights, roles and responsibilities.

Ok, here's a scenario. I board a plane, then get a text saying the meeting I was going to attend in Melbourne is cancelled and there is no need for my travel. I want to get off because I can get way more done back in the office and so inform the FA that I'm leaving as I step past boarding passengers. I haven't checked any luggage, so that's all good? Right?

Wrong. How can the airline take the risk that I may have checked in luggage and allow the plane to fly? Unaccompanied luggage is the biggest no-no in airline security. So do passengers have a right to leave if they want to? No, unless you deem it acceptable to either accept that sort of risk scenario, or the inevitable delay to the flight while records are checked and baggage unloaded.

It simply isn't feasible. Perhaps there is a case for stating the obvious in policy, but I think everyone is aware of what the expectations are when they board their flight.

It is certainly the case post 9/11 that it is extremely foolish to make "unusual or weird" statements while in, on, and around airports, security screening, and aircraft. People will proactively put you under intense scrutiny now, and will be very wary of you (to your detriment).

Best not to play the fool.

There is a remarkable amount of speculation and bush lawyering being engaged in here when 1. a cursory review of the conditions of carriage will answer some of these questions and 2. There is never a catch all rule to fit the myriad of possibilities.   When you enter the contract and then, in performance of the contract, step on to a plane, you have consented to Qantas exercising its judgement as to whether it reasonably considers it necessary to to refuse to carry you or to restrain you from leaving, see eg Cls 11.1 and 11.2 .  Each carrier gives its own examples in its conditions for what some of those circumstances will be. There is no hard and fast rule for every situation. Any dispute about a particular circumstance and whether Qantas has breached the conditions or whether Qantas was obliged to behave differently falls for determination according to the normal rules of contractual construction subject to overriding law.  The world is not explained by gut reactions to the Magna Carta and feverish appeals to vague notions of "freedoms".