What a Goose

[buggerlugs]

http://www.news.com.au/travel/obnoxi...-1226540084247
Why would you get so blind ? I hope he has to pay Qantas back for all costs......

[ford71V8]

349 ****ed off passengers and all because of 1 ******** he believes he is somehow superior to everyone else.

I agree, stuck him with the $120k bill

[poppa smurf]

good grief!.....home to mummy young feller.....she probably doesn't want him either!

[bungarra]

Coming back to Perth from Darwin on a QANTAS flight and had to sit next to two drunk ferals, bad body odour and their language. Flighties still served them more bourbon and wine even threw in a freebie for them. Flighties served the last drink to them while starting descent. Shows the difference in flight crews.

[neptune blue]

bet he just gets a slap on the wrist. What a ****head

[ltd]

Not to worry, Qantas will get the money off him. They have a team of lawyers ready and waiting to chew people like him a new one. On the back of your ticket mentions all the indemnity between an airline and what constitutes willful actions on behalf of the passenger. Qantas will pursue this little cretin in a civil court for damages. Further, he'll be blacklisted to fly on Qantas again.
It's 21 to nrt so it would have been a high cycle 744.
Lucky he wasn't flying to Dallas, the fuel dump would have cost around $200K, then all the admin BS and hotels for the likely divert to Auckland would have added another $100K.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ltd

Not to worry, Qantas will get the money off him. They have a team of lawyers ready and waiting to chew people like him a new one. On the back of your ticket mentions all the indemnity between an airline and what constitutes willful actions on behalf of the passenger. Qantas will pursue this little cretin in a civil court for damages. Further, he'll be blacklisted to fly on Qantas again.
It's 21 to nrt so it would have been a high cycle 744.
Lucky he wasn't flying to Dallas, the fuel dump would have cost around $200K, then all the admin BS and hotels for the likely divert to Auckland would have added another $100K.

Ah now you would be in a position to know policy. What happened to the good old days when the skipper could legally subdue and handcuff him using "required" force as per CAR (whatever)

[ltd]

Originally Posted by flappist

Ah now you would be in a position to know policy. What happened to the good old days when the skipper could legally subdue and handcuff him using "required" force as per CAR (whatever)

Not 100% sure as to what they do now, no longer there - left in the beginning of the year.
QF now are only keeping 9 744's; the 6 ER's and 3 of the lowest cycle 744's. There's recently (in the last two years) been a change in policy on vertical integration on the big types, so quite a few int ops guys have left for domestic. Then there's the one shining hope of the side with the 789's which the little queer leprechaun cancelled the orders for. Those that were committing to the 789 when the 744's retired and to stay in int ops are given the option of the 788 by joining JQ - for a massive drop in salary. Not for me thanks.

Whilst I think for QF to survive there has to be substantial rationalisation in lieu of the QF Sales Act, this is just starting to get bizarre and sadly, there's lots of fantastic people there who are being put under unnecessary pressure.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by ltd

Not to worry, Qantas will get the money off him. They have a team of lawyers ready and waiting to chew people like him a new one. On the back of your ticket mentions all the indemnity between an airline and what constitutes willful actions on behalf of the passenger. Qantas will pursue this little cretin in a civil court for damages.

He'll just declare bankruptcy and they won't get a cent off him.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by stevz

He'll just declare bankruptcy and they won't get a cent off him.

That's it exactly. And then he won't care about being blacklisted because he won't be allowed to leave the country anyway.

[Simple6]

And I don't mind if he does declare bankruptcy and "get away with it". The implications of declaring bankruptcy should keep reminding him of his stupidity well into the future.

[atec77]

Originally Posted by Simple6

And I don't mind if he does declare bankruptcy and "get away with it". The implications of declaring bankruptcy should keep reminding him of his stupidity well into the future.

Does the old 12 years thing still apply ?

[MITCHAY]

Lol as if they will get $120k or anywhere near off this moron.

Dunno how he gets to drink himself into oblivion and no one notices. It's not like you magically have one sip and your in fairy land lol

[FGII-XR6]

violence will defiantly solve the problem [/sarcasm] still cant get over people whos idea of solving a problem it to bash someone senseless. it shows how many dangerous Neanderthals we still have in society

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Should have just punched the crap out of him and tied him up in the cargo bay, save $120,000 and everyone else the hassle.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Why did they need to dump fuel prior to landing? It was an 'emergency' landing, but not of a mechanical issue.

Does Cairns runway have a load limit perhaps and they were over?

Some people...... NFI.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Why did they need to dump fuel prior to landing? It was an 'emergency' landing, but not of a mechanical issue.

Does Cairns runway have a load limit perhaps and they were over?

Some people...... NFI.

I guess it was way too heavy to land. They don't dump that amount of fuel for no reason. It was an international flight so would have a lot.

If the plane had technical difficulties it would make sense because the less fuel the better because A) it would be lighter and B) less fuel to explode.

Honestly one guy on a plane of how many? Probably overkill to call emergency landing.

[FGII-XR6]

they can't land with a full load on board too heavy

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Why did they need to dump fuel prior to landing? It was an 'emergency' landing, but not of a mechanical issue.

Does Cairns runway have a load limit perhaps and they were over?

Some people...... NFI.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Why did they need to dump fuel prior to landing? It was an 'emergency' landing, but not of a mechanical issue.

Does Cairns runway have a load limit perhaps and they were over?

Some people...... NFI.

They would have been over maximum landing weight of the aircraft.

[stevz]

So where exactly do they dump 60,000 litres of fuel? Wouldn't this create a terrible environmental hazard?

[buggerlugs]

Originally Posted by stevz

So where exactly do they dump 60,000 litres of fuel? Wouldn't this create a terrible environmental hazard?

I have often wondered that to..........

[blackf6]

Originally Posted by stevz

So where exactly do they dump 60,000 litres of fuel? Wouldn't this create a terrible environmental hazard?

Avgas is straight kerosene without the blue dye. Doubtful they would of dumped the whole tank out though.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by teak81

Avgas is straight kerosene without the blue dye. Doubtful they would of dumped the whole tank out though.

Just being pedantic, Avgas, the fuel used in piston engines is 100RON low lead petrol, Avtur a.k.a JetA1, the fuel used in turbines is kero.....

As to where do they dump it?
Where they are told to dump it....

[Hayden1]

Originally Posted by stevz

So where exactly do they dump 60,000 litres of fuel? Wouldn't this create a terrible environmental hazard?

Considering the height and speed of the plane as well as weather conditions, the fuel would be well spread over a huge area. I think the turbulence left by the plane turns the dumped fuel into mist and by the time the mist has fallen to the ground it would have been evaporated. Not much would reach the ground I would think.
Someone also said they don't dump all 60000L of it which is true.

[Brent]

I realise there's strict protocols etc, but surely there has to be a better way of managing the odd nimrod than having to do what occurred here. Divert to Cairns (closed at the time); engage various services to re-open the airport; dump 60,000 litres of fuel; and ruin the plans of 349 other passengers in the process. God only knows how many people missed connecting flights etc due to this clown.

OK, if he had 4kg of C4 strapped to his waist then its a slightly different story, but this appeared, it would seem, to be your garden variety twatt who had one more can of bourbon than the cell count of his brain tissue. Noting the general populace, when you have 350 people in the one metal can at the same time, its a wonder these incidents don't occur more often. Needs to be some though put into how to handle this sort of thing without effectively terminating the flight.

[Jim Goose]

Ah... would you like to be locked inside a thin tube with some guy freaking out and becoming violent for several hours?

The other problem is that staff sometimes continue to serve alcohol to people who are already off their head before they even get on the plane. Then one needs to look at those who think its ok to get rotten drunk before boarding. What happens if the plane has a problem and you need to get off quickly should an accident occur? Are these drunken fools thinking about this before they board?

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Ah... would you like to be locked inside a thin tube with some guy freaking out and becoming violent for several hours?

Should be able to put them in a secure cell, like an animal transport cage, preferably in the cargo hold.......

[ltd]

Years ago there was a study done in terms of having a facility to isolate; ostensibly lock up violent and other unruly passengers and I believe a model was actually made which was separate from the cabin, however weight and potential losses deemed it to be too expensive.
You have to remember every kilo of dead weight costs the airline every time the plane flies as it is a kilo they're not being paid for (compared to say a passenger or freight), and weight is the mortal enemy of every aircraft. For example, the reason why planes only ever carry the amount of fuel needed to get to a destination is to avoid carrying extra weight (with margins built in).
The reason a 744 specifically does not fly over 33,000 feet early in the flight is because it's simply too heavy. These planes can carry over 160 tonnes of fuel and simply don't have enough puff to go fast enough at higher altitude which means a higher angle of attack, more drag and higher fuel burn. Most people are surprised to learn that the longer flights technically never have enough fuel to get to their destination, but as the airplane loses almost half its weight it gains efficiency and makes it with fuel to spare.

As for dumping fuel, below 10000 feet AGL has to be over ocean, above FL's are considered safe over terrain as the fuel being an aerosol evaporates before hitting the ground.

Finally, if this guy declares bankruptcy then he's at least going to have the sheriff's come round and collect whatever he owns.