John Aravosis makes the catch:
They didn’t just ban t-shirts, they banned all speech, verbal as well. So if I as a customer find Qantas’ policy offensive does that mean we can throw them off their airlines? How about a religious extremist customer who is offended when I tell him I’m gay?
People who can’t control their screaming kids definitely offend me. Yep, from now on I’m flying Qantas.
TenguPhule
It’s hard work to earn a taxpayer bailout through crappy business practices.
Jake
Does this apply to the flight attendants as well? I mean, if I’m opposed to all forms of alcohol consumption, hearing a steward offer someone a drink would make me pretty angry. What if I’m a vegan and I hear: “Here’s your Chicken Marsala, sir.” What if I’m a fundamentalist Christian and someone says “Hello.” HELL? What kind of way is that to greet someone?
Man, I may have to fly Quantas just to fuck with people.
SeesThroughIt
I dunno…I think Eastern Airlines’ ill-fated “mandatory crying babies” flights was the shortest-lived airline policy.
Krista
It’s all a ploy to save money. They’ll sell tickets, wind up kicking everybody off of the flight before they’ve even started taxiing, decide to cancel the flight, but nobody will get their money back because they were kicked off. It’s brilliant.
Pb
Qantas never crashed. Definitely flying Qantas. Oh boy.
Zifnab
But… we still get to keep all our frequent flier miles, right?
ConservativelyLiberal
I heard the new logo for Quantas is going to be the elephant. Everyone knows how safe and secure we all feel with an elephant at the controls.
Next time, we walk to Australia. Better yet, we will stay home and spend our money here. They obviously don’t need it.
ThymeZone
Silly thread. You don’t have free speech on an airliner.
The old bromide about “fire in a crowded theater?” Multiply times a hundred on an airplane. Not only are you in a crowded, narrow theater, you are in one that is about to leave the ground and throw you all through the air at 500 miles per hour.
The rules are a little different there. It’s not a support group, it’s not civics class, it’s not a lounge with wings. Do we really have to revisit this topic again?
I say, good for Qantas. Their safety record has in the past been the envy of the industry. It’s not because they are dumb.
Sit down, buckle up, and shut up. Don’t like it? Get out.
Halffasthero
I agree with Thymezone. The issue isn’t George Bush. The issue is airline safety this time. The potential for opening up the plane to “free speech” is way too hazardous. There is all the opportunity under God’s green earth to make your political statement at any other time. While thousands of feet in the air is not one of them. The pilot is the “captain of the ship” from the moment it pulls from the hangar to the moment it reaches its destination. As one comedian might have said, they are not interested in justice, they want quiet. More power to them.
SeesThroughIt
Because I know you’re just dying to know the LGF take on this, here it is:
Which is funny, because I totally look forward to being trapped on a plane with a right-wing shit-for-brains.
ThymeZone
Don’t ask, don’t tell.
Krista
I do agree with you, TZ, but don’t you think they’re painting things quite broadly here? The guy in the t-shirt was being an asshat, absolutely. But they already have a policy for dealing with passengers who are being disruptive, right? So why the need to specify “comments with the potential to offend”? I just think it has the potential for the proverbial can of worms…
PeterJ
I always wonder how much money Qantas made thanks to that quote. There must be lots and lots of people that whenever they hear the name Qantas that phrase automatically pops up in their heads. It did for Pb, and it sure did for me.
ThymeZone
Well, I think the answer to your first question is, why not? They make the rules.
The whole point here is that the airline is standing behind its staff and crews. The employees are empowered to do what it takes, and can, and will, take people off airplanes for whatever reason they deem appropriate at the time. I think the airlines know that their employees demand and must have that level of support, and this is just a way to show it.
Air travel is at the pleasure of the carrier. Sorry but that’s just the way it is, and must be. It was pretty much always that way but 911 just greatly reinforces it.
uptown
My Australian cousins won’t even use Qantas unless forced to. Crappy, state supported, so called airline.
rachel
Yes. Part of it goes something like: don’t let these people on the plane.
ThymeZone
From an Australian air travel site. Last time I saw a number, Qantas was carrying 18+ million passengers a year.
Sometimes you have take things you see on a blog with a grain of salt.
Punchy
This is a spoofer’s made-in-heaven quote. So, 9-11 “reinforces” that we cannot wear anti-Bush shirts? Please explain–in detail–the threat posed by a piece of cloth. Are you saying, MINUS THAT SHIRT (should he choose to cover it with a sweatshirt), that he SUDDENLY LOSES ALL CRAZY POWER??? Upon removal of said cotton-T, that person is now fit to fly? If you say “no”, than on what basis are you denying him/her flight? If you say “yes”, than that’s just fucking insane.
Either way, the net result is this: you’re making a cotton t-shirt into a weapon that could bring down a plane. Please explain.
ThymeZone
Nope. I’m saying exactly what I’m saying, which is what I’ve been saying on this topic since it showed up in here with the Minneapolis Islam thing a couple months back:
The airline decides who flies. Specifically, the crews and the gate agents. They are empowered to make the calls, and the airlines must, will, and do stand behind them. Period. The ultimate call is made by the captain of the airplane, and his call will not be reversed by any other authority. What’s more, if the airline is pressed, it will demonstrate by the most assertive means that it stands behind the crews. For a long list of reasons, all of which seem to have been lost on you and some others here, because you are in love with the social and other aspects of the issue and can’t see the realities of the issue … in fact, refuse to see them, because that would put a dent in your righteous indignation.
The airlines will decide who flies, and in the particular case, the gate agents and then the crews will decide, and their decisions are pretty much final.
If you don’t like it, you can always try the bus, the train, or your car. But if you are going overseas, your options are limited.
Get a clue, man. You are making a social argument about a situation that is not governed by social contracts. It’s governed by laws of the sea and air.
Punchy
Funny. So airline can deny Black people from flying…becuase…as you say…THEY make the rules, and not…say…the 14th Amendment? So an airlines started by some Holocaust deniers can refuse to serve Jews? Because, as you say….THEY make the rules? Lemmie make sure I’m clear on your statement–an airline can discriminate b/c it has the power to override Federal law? Gee, didn’t learn that in my civics class.
Please answer my question–if said passenger removes this offending T-shirt, can he/she then fly? If not, why? Are you about to argue that a passenger poses a danger ONLY BECAUSE of some extra INK on his/her shirt?
And PLEASE explain what this means:
“Laws of the sea and air”???? What in the hell is that?
ThymeZone
Basically it means that when you step on a ship or an airplane, the captain makes the rules. The “rights” you think you had on the ground or shore don’t necessarily apply. You don’t have freedom of speech on an airplane. You have the freedom that the captain grants you.
Don’t try to take that well-known, widely accepted principle and reduce it to an absurdity. It doesn’t mean that a captain can be a tyrant and wreak pain and destruction at will upon his crew and passengers. It means that within the bounds of reason, and true to the requirements of safety of the vessel, passengers, and cargoes, and in accordance with accepted practice as understood by the community of people who do these things, the captain gets to decide who travels and who does not, and he is under NO constraints other than the ones I listed.
In this case, the world’s premier international airline has made a judgement to reinforce its crews’ judgement and made what some here are calling a bad call.
To believe that, one would have to think that this airline doesn’t know its business well enough to make such a judgement and that you and a few loudmouth bloggers know better. That in itself is a ridiculous proposition.
Go ahead and ignore the realities of it, though. Really, it’s accomplishing so very much and helping the situation so much.
I have answered this question the same way here for about three months now, but you don’t like the answer, and I am getting pretty fucking sick of repeating it.
The answer is, the captain, the crew and the gate agents decide who flies. PERIOD. Within the guidelines they are given, that’s the way it works. If you don’t like it, all due respect, that’s too bad. It isn’t going to change.
If their decision doesn’t fit with your genteel social sensibilities, that’s too bad. Other concerns OVERRIDE THOSE and you clearly do not understand those, or care to.
Stop being an ass. Contact the offices of some major airlines and talk it over with them. Maybe you will listen to them. I doubt it, but at least you will have something to do to keep you busy.
Punchy
Oh, go fuck off. I posed a real, honest, and applicable question–which you disagree with–so that’s me “being an ass”? Take your self-righteous, all-knowing bullshit and put it you-know-where.
First:
This is complete bullshit. A captain cannot just make up rules. He cannot allow passengers to do whatever he feels like. His COMPANY sets the rules and he abides by them. Again, if this were not the case, any racist pilot could cherry-pick his passangers. This is both illegal and against company policy.
Second: why say this:
but then say this:
Seems like quite a contradiction. Sorry, buddy, since you think it’s an “absurdity” for me to bring up Blacks not flying but it’s NOT an absurdity to consider people being denied flights due to ink on a t-shirt…well..then…either we’ll just disagree or you’ll continue to fight the ridiculous fight.
ThymeZone
No, which I have answered, and answered correctly, many times going back to last year.
Read what I wrote. I said that he applies the guidelines that are the accepted practice. That includes the airline. But on the plane, he is the decider, and the only decider.
If you can find a case in airline history where a captain has been reprimanded or punished for making such a call, please bring it up. I’m closer than the average bear to the industry over the years, and I have never heard of such a thing. I know how the system works, and it works as I have described it.
If you don’t want to believe it, fine. I don’t care.
Uh no, it is certainly not a contradiction, it’s the opposite of a contradiction. Others can judge, you can think whatever you like, you don’t want to get this, and you are just being an horse’s ass.
You win, civil rights attorneys will now decide who flies and who doesn’t. Okay?
I’m done with you.
Punchy
Fixed.