Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs - Gang members on pacific blue flight

A couple of weeks ago Mrs Oranjemakker was traveling from Auckland to Christchurch on an evening pacific blue flight. She called me from check in to tell me there were some patched gang members (Mongrel mob I think) waiting in the gate lounge to board. Apparently their demeanour was quite intimidating.

i called up the airport police from Christchurch and they knew about it, and were on their way to the airplane. they were however boarded by the airline. Crew were not happy either. my wife was at other end of the plane and never determined if they were offloaded or not, but why on earth were they even allowed to check in?

if I was on a plane with these people I would ask to be taken off. i think its appalling. My wife understandably just kept her head down and did not want to get involved.

Has anyone had any other experience of this anywhere and what is done normally? i though airlines had quite broad discretion to offload pax, but maybe not?

I'm not sure having an 'intimidating demeanour' is a crime: You're saying all they did was look a bit rough? And they should have been off-loaded for that reason?

Until there is a crime, or even a threat of a crime surely the airline has to honour the purchased tickets.

Its not in anyone's interests to have a situation where one group of passengers can demand other passengers be removed based simply on their appearance. Think back to those terrible times after Sept 11 2001 where British holiday travellers with darker skin were removed from flights simply because someone freaked out and thought they were terrorists. Or Rosa Parks...

there were some patched gang members (Mongrel mob I think) What does this mean?


Sorry but I don't understand.....

Sorry but I don't understand.....



Patched = wearing gang patches ( insignia ) .

I'm not sure having an 'intimidating demeanour' is a crime: You're saying all they did was look a bit rough? And they should have been off-loaded for that reason?

Until there is a crime, or even a threat of a crime surely the airline has to honour the purchased tickets.

Its not in anyone's interests to have a situation where one group of passengers can demand other passengers be removed based simply on their appearance. Think back to those terrible times after Sept 11 2001 where British holiday travellers with darker skin were removed from flights simply because someone freaked out and thought they were terrorists. Or Rosa Parks...

Thanks Steward, i probably should have been a but clearer, as per kiwiandrew's post, they were wearing their Mongrel Mob jackets and their red bandanas. The jackets had hte full insignia on them. They were in a way in "full uniform".

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongrel_Mob
"The gang’s colours are predominantly red and black. The patches usually feature a swastika and a Bulldog wearing a German Stahlhelm which supposedly is an image intended to offend as it is a British Bulldog wearing the helmet. The patch is worn on the back of "patched members" – those considered loyal and trustworthy within the gang. The patch can also be tattooed on the member's body."

I agree passengers should not just be able to be removed because of another passenger's whims, but I think this is something entirely different. The gang in question is a very nasty criminal enterprise, and its safe to say that if not all the very large majority of members will be active criminals.

Its part of a bigger issue in New Zealand where there are moves to make wearing of gang insignia illegal (and already have been in one city), so this is more than just some kind of prejudice.

i say again, i would not want to be on plane with them. A lot can happen up there. I think their presence by itself present a clear "threat of a crime"

Stewardo, I just reread your post a saw this.

Or Rosa Parks...

What the?!?

To put Rosa Parks, an icon of the civil rights movement, into the same category as Mongrel Mob gang members is completely ridiculous.

I trust you were joking?

I gather they flew on the plane and you are still alive. No drugs were sold down the aisle, no daughter was raped in the bathroom, the pilot didn't get his head smashed in and the flight attendant didn't buy a baggy of dope from them.

I dont get it - they are just flying. Would you call the cops if you saw them on the streets, riding a train, catching a bus, going to Mcdonalds? As far as I know, New Zealand is still a free country and until they have committed a crime, they have the right to travel.

One person's "gang" is another guys group of mates. Not all gang members are criminals. I repeat - not all gang members are criminals.

I know many guys I grew up with in Australia who are members of gangs and I certainly would not group them in the class of "terrorists and killers" that should be denied boarding. Granted, they are no angels, but I would rather have a beer with them than someone who lives in a bubble.

Dave

I've seen the Cronulla Sharks football team boarding a Pacific BLue AKL flight before. They were also in full uniform... perhaps they should have been offloaded also?

Madness

I gather they flew on the plane and you are still alive. No drugs were sold down the aisle, no daughter was raped in the bathroom, the pilot didn't get his head smashed in and the flight attendant didn't buy a baggy of dope from them.

I dont get it - they are just flying. Would you call the cops if you saw them on the streets, riding a train, catching a bus, going to Mcdonalds? As far as I know, New Zealand is still a free country and until they have committed a crime, they have the right to travel.

One person's "gang" is another guys group of mates. Not all gang members are criminals. I repeat - not all gang members are criminals.

I know many guys I grew up with in Australia who are members of gangs and I certainly would not group them in the class of "terrorists and killers" that should be denied boarding. Granted, they are no angels, but I would rather have a beer with them than someone who lives in a bubble.

Dave

Thanks Dave, so I live in a "bubble" do I?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/bikie-brawl-watched-by-security-men-20090323-97gf.html

"THE wild brawl between bikies at Sydney Airport in which a man was bludgeoned to death had started with pushing and shoving 15 minutes earlier in view of security officers, raising serious questions over the adequacy of airport security.

Yesterday the Federal Government ducked calls for an inquiry into security arrangements despite court evidence the fight began about 1.30pm on Sunday and ended when the Sydney man Anthony Zervas was bashed to death on the airport floor at 1.45pm.

It emerged yesterday security guards had helped move passengers away from an initial melee but the fight was able to develop until Mr Zervas, the brother of a Hells Angel, was dead.

Yesterday the Premier, Nathan Rees, announced an extra 75 police officers would be allocated to the gang squad, increasing its numbers to 125, in response to Mr Zervas's murder, the latest development in bikie violence in Sydney. The murder investigation would be called Strikeforce Raptor.

The investigation hit a snag yesterday when it was discovered that the quality of the CCTV footage from the terminal was poor. The Herald understands the footage is not clear enough to make an identification.

Mr Rees pledged to introduce legislation by the end of June that would mean certain motorcycle gangs would be "proscribed" - as occurs with terrorist organisations - with bikies able to be jailed for their membership.

"This is a new low in the activities of these criminal gangs," Mr Rees said. "Once, they kept these things between themselves. This has now overlapped into the public domain. That's why we're taking it so seriously; that's why we've moved very swiftly today."

The Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, said: "If these people want to act like terrorists, we'll deal with them like they're terrorists."

It is understood the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, opposes what he believes are the more draconian measures in the legislation, which is modelled on South Australian laws and which the Government first began discussing with police before Christmas.

But the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, called for the legislation to be rushed into Parliament this week.

Mr Rees said there was no concern about security at Sydney Airport, saying Mr Zervas's death had been an "isolated incident".

But the federal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, said the public had a "right to be alarmed" and called for an emergency meeting of legal and police chiefs to investigate aviation security and gang-related crime.

Twenty-two police officers were on duty at the airport on Sunday but witnesses suggested a lack of co-ordination between them and security guards.

Witnesses said a group of Comanchero gang members and a group of Hells Angels were verbally abusing each other from the moment they all stepped off Qantas flight 430 from Melbourne and that private security officers hired by the airline to look after baggage screening were aware something was going on.

This was backed by a police report tendered in court yesterday when four men appeared on affray charges.

One witness told the Herald: "There was an alertness among the security officers at the gate that this bunch of very big, aggressive blokes had just walked past. They were talking quite animatedly into their radios."

The Herald has learnt that the security officers - from SMP - are not able to contact their federal police counterparts directly but must radio their head office, which in turn notifies the police.

A triple-0 call was made from the airport at 1.43pm and records show NSW police attended at 1.47pm.

The federal Home Affairs Minister, Bob Debus, said there was no need for an inquiry into airport security because "we have to allow the [police] investigation to run its course without constant speculation about what occurred.

"No one can guarantee events like this will never occur. This was an event which happened very quickly and with no forewarning." He was backed by Mr Scipione, who said: "You can't have a police officer every three feet or one metre in a terminal."

The president of the Police Federation of Australia, Mark Burgess, said airports had been understaffed by 35 per cent since state and federal governments agreed to staff them jointly in September 2005.

"A state could find it very easy to say, 'We're not going to put extra police at our airport because it's not really our responsibility'," Mr Burgess said."


Pleased to see you're a fan of fine upstanding members of society like this.

Madness

A reference to your inane statement I presume?

Not all gang members are criminals. I repeat - not all gang members are criminals.

Actually, you are incorrect. It depends on where one is a gang member. There are a number of places where simple membership of a prescribed gang is illegal, so by definition, in those places, a gang member is a criminal just by being a gang member.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2008/12/01/article/new_gang_law_takes_effect_across_state

I know that a number of states in Australia have passed or are looking to pass similar laws (although these are being challenged i understand). I am hopeful that new Zealand will do the same, at the very least I expect that wearing of gang insignia will become illegal nationally

yep - bubble it is.

You are saying that people cannot dress in "colours" and form a gang. One person's gang is another persons family / hobby / group of mates.

By your account, we would ban the Blue Knights as well. http://www.blueknightsvaiii.org/

There are many other as well.

What I am saying is the only way to get criminals out is to arrest them after they have done the crime - not before because they look like they may!

I'm sorry but I don't see that there was an issue here that warrants any action by authorities or the airlines. A few years ago I was flying BKK-MEL. I had an aisle seat and a few rows in front, but diagonal, from me was a man in a wife beater with a tattoo of a skeleton soldier with a nazi-era helmet and a large swastika. Should he be made to get off the plane or cover up his arms in order to fly? I find it offensive but he didn't do anything on that flight other than have poor taste.

I recall the incident in SYD and perhaps the authorities of the airport where the plane was to land should be alerted in case there is a welcome party waiting. Otherwise it doesn't seem that there was anything that can/should have been done.

To put Rosa Parks, an icon of the civil rights movement, into the same category as Mongrel Mob gang members is completely ridiculous.

It highlights the ridiculous view you have. I'm no fan of gangs, but they are not illegal. It isn't illegal to be in uniform or have stuff on you that identifies you as part of a group (otherwise all FF tags would have to go, plus FT ones, plus sporting uniforms, plus ...).

Much as you don't like to be on public transportation with some people based on their looks, others didn't like to be on public transport with Rosa Parks based on her looks.

It highlights the ridiculous view you have. I'm no fan of gangs, but they are not illegal. It isn't illegal to be in uniform or have stuff on you that identifies you as part of a group (otherwise all FF tags would have to go, plus FT ones, plus sporting uniforms, plus ...).

Much as you don't like to be on public transportation with some people based on their looks, others didn't like to be on public transport with Rosa Parks based on her looks.

Chi Ching - one for the Kiwi :)

In a totally different legal system, Hong Kong has a law that prohibits anybody identifying or claiming as a gang member.

if I was on a plane with these people I would ask to be taken off. i think its appalling.........

Then fine, next time do not ask to get off, just get off and walk / swim / drive / your way home... who is forcing you to take the flight?

Thanks for all the comments.

I can see that the laissez faire argument has won the day, and on reflection that does make sense. The alternative could be a slippery slope as many of you allude to.

The reality is that until (if) it becomes illegal to sport gang patches or be a gang member, then there is no reason to refuse boarding to people on this basis alone. As it stands, therefore, I agree with various posters there is no reason to deny them boarding, unless they do something else that justifies this.

I do however strongly disagree that these people are just average citizens going about their daily business, for the people mentioned in the original post to travel and sport their gang patches, would have been a deliberate statement on their part, and on a personal level I find what these gangs stand for to be despicable. I don't buy into the gangs as groups of mates arguments either, but it needs some legal framework to define which ones are dangerous and which ones are harmless, as opposed to just my opinion.

A more constructive response to the situation would be to raise the matter at the political level here in NZ where it can be properly debated and factored into the ongoing review of anti-gang policy.

Hopefully New Zealand will move towards legislative curbs on gang activity which would make this whole argument moot.

Rgds

A more constructive response to the situation would be to raise the matter at the political level here in NZ where it can be properly debated and factored into the ongoing review of anti-gang policy.

Rgds

That is what criminal courts decide. Not a majority of scared people fumed by the media. Just another freedom taken away from the masses.

This thread appears to run its course, much of which has been more appropriate for the OMNI Politics/Religion forum than for "Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs."

I've gone ahead and deleted personal attacks, and am hereby retiring the discussion.

Regards,
Gary
aka gleff
Senior moderator