Jetstar Perth taser incident

[RooFlyer]

Maybe so, but it is illegal to fly under a false name. So I doubt he would want to add to his trouble

"I'd like to see the airline policy about flying under a false name."

 

[Hvr]

"I'd like to see the airline policy about flying under a false name."

Commonwealth law is superior to 'airline policy', therefore the following is applicable:

CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SERIOUS DRUGS, IDENTITY CRIME AND OTHER MEASURES) ACT 2012 (NO. 167, 2012) - SCHEDULE 2​

Identity crime and air travel

is applicable: CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SERIOUS DRUGS, IDENTITY CRIME AND OTHER MEASURES) ACT 2012 (NO. 167, 2012) - SCHEDULE 2 Identity crime and air travel
Division 376 -- False identity and air travel


376.1 Definitions for Division 376

In this Division:

"air passenger ticket" , for a flight, means a ticket, or electronic record, on the basis of which a person is treated as being entitled to travel as a passenger on:
(a) the flight; or

(b) a journey that includes the flight.


"false" : identification information relating to a person is false if it is false in a material particular that affects the capacity of the information to be used (whether alone or in conjunction with other information or documents) to identify the person.

Note: For the meaning of identification information , see section 370.1.

376.2 False identification information--at constitutional airports

(1) A person (the defendant ) commits an offence if:

(a) the defendant uses information at a place; and

(b) the defendant does so reckless as to whether the information is used to identify the defendant as a passenger on a flight; and

(c) the information is identification information; and

(d) the information is false in relation to the defendant; and

(e) the place is a constitutional airport.


Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

 

[RooFlyer]

Commonwealth law is superior to 'airline policy', therefore the following is applicable:

Sorry, I should have put a in. With the quotes, I was imagining the reaction of a theoretical pax bailed up for flying under a false name.

 

[justinbrett]

Personally I think AU should have full ID checks for domestic flights.

You can't check into a hotel without ID.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Personally I think AU should have full ID checks for domestic flights.

You can't check into a hotel without ID.

ID for domestic flights serves no purpose related to the flight, or flight safety. Everyone is security screened.

I guess the primary purpose of ID is revenue control?

 

[TheRealTMA]

Personally I think AU should have full ID checks for domestic flights.

You can't check into a hotel without ID.

Pointless and overkill. Ticket is all that should be required. ID Check would not stop idiots and drunks. The AFP get their details on landing anyway.

 

[dajop]

ID for domestic flights serves no purpose related to the flight, or flight safety. Everyone is security screened.

I guess the primary purpose of ID is revenue control?

When this was last debated on AFF I think preventing interstate movement of criminals was a particularly important reason for the police.

But I agree it’s a nice feature of travelling within Australia that there is still an illusion of not living in a police state It’s also nice that loved ones can see passengers off and greet them at the gate. The way ID/ boarding pass checks are undertake in most jurisdictions that is not possible. I guess the checks could be done at the gate. But still I agree that it’s unnecessary.

 

[justinbrett]

ID for domestic flights serves no purpose related to the flight, or flight safety. Everyone is security screened.

I guess the primary purpose of ID is revenue control?

The fact this guy could in fact get on a plane despite being on a court order is a reason.

And also the AFP themselves have called for it.

It was never supposed to be like this. Before the days of online check in, photo ID was required at check in. It was a loophole when self check in started that was never rectified, and now people have grown used to not having it.

But yes, the article I read but can't find right now was from the AFP saying they want it to ensure people who shouldn't flying aren't.

Interestingly Jetstar still says you may be asked to provide ID when flying domestically.

 

[Quickstatus]

Interesting how the 2017 UA incident is interpreted differently to the 2023 JQ taser incident
Both were ordered to exit the aircraft, both resisted and in both cases law enforcement were involved. One eventually got an apology from the CEO after public pressure and also a confidential settlement, the other banned from flying in an aircraft at least until a court hearing.

Re police interactions: My car once got rammed by a NSW Police car. Boys in Blue very apologetic and exchange of information.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The fact this guy could in fact get on a plane despite being on a court order is a reason.

And also the AFP themselves have called for it.

It was never supposed to be like this. Before the days of online check in, photo ID was required at check in. It was a loophole when self check in started that was never rectified, and now people have grown used to not having it.

But yes, the article I read but can't find right now was from the AFP saying they want it to ensure people who shouldn't flying aren't.

Interestingly Jetstar still says you may be asked to provide ID when flying domestically.

Of course the AFP would want it. It wouldn’t be the first time law enforcement is keen to take away rights to make their job easier. Their reasoning counts for little.

If you don’t get on a plane, you could simply drive interstate. So an ID check isn’t going to stop a criminal fleeing.

The there are fake IDs, and even using a genuine ID where two people look similar, or ‘close enough’ to pass a check in desk.

Everyone needing to have ID to stop a couple of people? Doesn’t seem worth it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interesting how the 2017 UA incident is interpreted differently to the 2023 JQ taser incident
Both were ordered to exit the aircraft, both resisted and in both cases law enforcement were involved. One eventually got an apology from the CEO after public pressure and also a confidential settlement, the other banned from flying in an aircraft at least until a court hearing.

Since you mentioned it…

The rules are that pilots and cabin crew can issue instructions related to the safety of the aircraft, flight or persons on board. And passengers must comply with requests related to safety.

In Dr Dao’s case the request was not related to safety… and the airline had no lawful reason to ask him to leave.

For those who say passengers must comply with every crew instruction… putting your seat back upright during meal service? Closing your window shade during a daytime flight so passengers can sleep? Swap seats so a couple can sit together? How about leaving an aircraft because your seat is needed for a crew member to return home?

 

[justinbrett]

Of course the AFP would want it. It wouldn’t be the first time law enforcement is keen to take away rights to make their job easier. Their reasoning counts for little.

If you don’t get on a plane, you could simply drive interstate. So an ID check isn’t going to stop a criminal fleeing.

The there are fake IDs, and even using a genuine ID where two people look similar, or ‘close enough’ to pass a check in desk.

Everyone needing to have ID to stop a couple of people? Doesn’t seem worth it.

Oh that's a complete exaggeration. You really think having to show your ID once in your departure journey - for all of what - 15 seconds - is taking away your rights?

There's lots of other things we do with air travel to stop a couple of people.

 

[Quickstatus]

and the airline had no lawful reason to ask him to leave

Here is the rub. Both passengers refused to obey a cabin crew directive. I would say that such a refusal would be considered a safety issue by many in the industry and here in AFF. In both cases. Both passengers were already seated. There was no safety issue until both passengers refused the cabin crew directive.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Oh that's a complete exaggeration. You really think having to show your ID once in your departure journey - for all of what - 15 seconds - is taking away your rights?

There's lots of other things we do with air travel to stop a couple of people.

Ok, maybe not ‘taking away rights’, but it’s imposing something which isn’t really necessary. Just red tape.

 

[justinbrett]

Ok, maybe not ‘taking away rights’, but it’s imposing something which isn’t really necessary. Just red tape.

Kind of like masks during Covid?

 

[Hvr]

Oh that's a complete exaggeration. You really think having to show your ID once in your departure journey - for all of what - 15 seconds - is taking away your rights?

The TSA in the USA treat pax like scum when they're doing identification checks. Far too many 'do you want to fly today' comments and other forms of harassment. Private security guards on the scanners in Australia have been known to have a fair bit of attitude towards pax, so be careful what you wish for.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Here is the rub. Both passengers refused to obey a cabin crew directive. I would say that such a refusal would be considered a safety issue by many in the industry and here in AFF. In both cases. Both passengers were already seated. There was no safety issue until both passengers refused the cabin crew directive.

The police should have been called if the passenger became abusive, absolutely! But I wonder if there will also be a charge of failing to comply with a crew member instruction?

 

[Quickstatus]

fair bit of attitude towards pax

This
with authority comes attitude....power.....tyranny. Including cabin crew...
Im not saying that the specific JQ CC did anything wrong but the exercise of authority should be very measured...

 

[Quickstatus]

I wonder if there will also be a charge of failing to comply with a crew member instruction?

Yes I think there is

Q: what safety issue was caused by the taser passenger changing seats and then sitting where he sat?

CASA:

Failure to comply with any safety direction or instruction of a crew member

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 - Regs 91.575 and 91.580

Up to 50 penalty units. Each penalty unit is currently $222 (up to $11,100). Infringement Notice penalty $1,110.

 

[justinbrett]

So apparently you can already get asked for ID

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/police-given-id-check-powers-at-airports/news-story/2e7f68be4e7731223f033bd1f9323d26