Covid-19; Impact on the aviation industry

Van.Bosch

Lockheed wrote: »

How is it discrimination on Qantas' part?

Well it could be if a vaccine isn’t available to you yet, like say I want the vaccine but I’m deemed low risk so can’t get it until Q4 but I want to travel in Q2. I would expect a negative test would suffice?

jamo2oo9

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Well it could be if a vaccine isn’t available to you yet, like say I want the vaccine but I’m deemed low risk so can’t get it until Q4 but I want to travel in Q2. I would expect a negative test would suffice?

Having the vaccine or not does not fall under discrimination.

Captain_Crash

Lockheed wrote: »

How is it discrimination on Qantas' part?

Person A makes a personal choice not to get the vaccine, or it might not be available to them... and has been excluded based on this? I don't think this has been tested in the courts before but I'm sure it will be. It will be interesting to see any judgements on it.

In the US, the Kuwait case is the only precedent I can think of but there are enough differences to question if its relevant.

Van.Bosch

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Having the vaccine or not does not fall under discrimination.

Yeah, discrimination isn’t the right word but it would prohibit people who want to fly but can’t access a vaccine.

No different to now I guess

goingnowhere

I'd imagine the Australian and New Zealand governments will mandate proof of vaccination as an entry admission requirement. I would not be surprised if the US doesn't do something similar.

It is not uncommon to require proof of vaccination, try to enter India if you have been in Brazil within the previous 2 weeks, proof of yellow fever vaccination is required.

basill

It will be a condition of carriage. Qantas or any airline for that matter are not obligated to take your business.

HTCOne

The airline can refuse you boarding if they deem you too drunk or not in a suitable state of dress. If you have chosen not to take the vaccine then I would imagine they are within their rights. Might depend on which jurisdiction any court case were taken in.

The Kuwait case is very different I would think. You don’t necessarily get to choose your nationality.

TRANQUILLO

HTCOne wrote: »

You don’t necessarily get to choose your nationality.

someone tell the Irish rugby team :P:pac:

TRANQUILLO

goingnowhere wrote: »

I'd imagine the Australian and New Zealand governments will mandate proof of vaccination as an entry admission requirement. I would not be surprised if the US doesn't do something similar.

It is not uncommon to require proof of vaccination, try to enter India if you have been in Brazil within the previous 2 weeks, proof of yellow fever vaccination is required.

thats different. thats a countries policy . This is a business refusing your custom based on a private personal choice.

What of the people already living there? If they want to fly to a country with restrictions that are lesser than Australias they still need to be vaccinated to take the flight, even if their destination doesnt require it.

MrMusician18

TRANQUILLO wrote: »

thats different. thats a countries policy . This is a business refusing your custom based on a private personal choice.

What of the people already living there? If they want to fly to a country with restrictions that are lesser than Australias they still need to be vaccinated to take the flight, even if their destination doesnt require it.

Yeah, it's not discrimination. I suggest you read up on the grounds for illegal discrimination, you'll notice vaccine status isn't on that list.

Even if it was, public health ground can override this. The IBTS refused to accept blood from men who have sex with men for years.

Anti-vaxers are likely to remain grounded for the next two-three years minimum. Cry me a river.

1123heavy

My concern is for flight crew. I know myself and numerous others who do not want this vaccine. Will our employers say either we take it or we lose our jobs?

It'd be straight to the high court with that.

TRANQUILLO

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Yeah, it's not discrimination. I suggest you read up on the grounds for illegal discrimination, you'll notice vaccine status isn't on that list.

Even if it was, public health ground can override this. The IBTS refused to accept blood from men who have sex with men for years.

Anti-vaxers are likely to remain grounded for the next two-three years minimum. Cry me a river.

Its not about being anti vax though is it? Thats just an ad hominem insult.

Its about being vax reticent.

I don't want to die as much as the next man , and i don't want granny to die either. Not to drag the thread off topic but there is a sizeable amount of the populace who think what has gone on since march has been a gross over reaction. They don't agree with the severity of the restrictions never mind "mandatory" vaccinations.

To dismiss them as anti vax loons is a bit disingenuous.

L1011

This discussion has drifted back to stuff for the specific forum again...

TRANQUILLO

1123heavy wrote: »

My concern is for flight crew. I know myself and numerous others who do not want this vaccine. Will our employers say either we take it or we lose our jobs?

It'd be straight to the high court with that.

I don't think people get the tone of what im trying to convey. Im on the fence with the vaccination. Maybe i'll get it in the end.

My problem is the (potential) stealthy outsourcing of medical policy to the private sector.

" if you don't like it don't fly with them" is just booing from the cheap seats and missing the point. Im not going to get the ferry to Crete from Dun Laoighire am i?

If gyms, ticketmaster, croke park and airlines etc go down this route there will be a group of societal insiders and outsiders.

One will be allowed partake in normal day to day life and the other will not.

kona

TRANQUILLO wrote: »

I don't think people get the tone of what im trying to convey. Im on the fence with the vaccination. Maybe i'll get it in the end.

My problem is the (potential) stealthy outsourcing of medical policy to the private sector.

" if you don't like it don't fly with them" is just booing from the cheap seats and missing the point. Im not going to get the ferry to Crete from Dun Laoighire am i?

If gyms, ticketmaster, croke park and airlines etc go down this route there will be a group of societal insiders and outsiders.

One will be allowed partake in normal day to day life and the other will not.

If enough people are vaccinanted surely wed be at a point where the disease is managed?
I dont think a 100% uptake is needed its probably around 60 or 70?

TRANQUILLO

kona wrote: »

If enough people are vaccinanted surely wed be at a point where the disease is managed?
I dont think a 100% uptake is needed its probably around 60 or 70?

Agreed.

So it will be overzealous in my opinion if (as Alan Joyce alluded to) other airline CEO's implement this also.

The law of aggregation comes into play.

Its one thing to say "if you don't like it fly with someone else"

If they all implement it what happens then.

PommieBast

goingnowhere wrote: »

I'd imagine the Australian and New Zealand governments will mandate proof of vaccination as an entry admission requirement. I would not be surprised if the US doesn't do something similar.

I think Qantas's announcement is part of lobbying to get the gov't to reopen its borders. The Kangaroo route is dead until they do.

Cookiemunster

TRANQUILLO wrote: »

Agreed.

So it will be overzealous in my opinion if (as Alan Joyce alluded to) other airline CEO's implement this also.

The law of aggregation comes into play.

Its one thing to say "if you don't like it fly with someone else"

If they all implement it what happens then.

They're a private company. They can have whatever legal restrictions they want on passengers that they allow on their aircraft.

Nobody is going to be forced to take the vaccine. But if you choose not to, then you've chosen not to fly with Qantas (or whoever implements it). It's quite simple really.

goingnowhere

There is also a liability scenario on the carriers if anyone is infected onboard

Australia and New Zealand are outliers as first world countries who have got to a zero COVID policy and will do anything to keep this.

It is likely to be a short term 2-3 year situation at worst

TRANQUILLO

Cookiemunster wrote: »

They're a private company. They can have whatever legal restrictions they want on passengers that they allow on their aircraft.

Nobody is going to be forced to take the vaccine. But if you choose not to, then you've chosen not to fly with Qantas (or whoever implements it). It's quite simple really.

They did'nt play the private company card when they put the lámh out for a bailout this year. We will take everyones cash , but wont let everyone on board.

LiamaDelta

kona wrote: »

If enough people are vaccinanted surely wed be at a point where the disease is managed?
I dont think a 100% uptake is needed its probably around 60 or 70?

Depends on the vaccine and the virus, but usually it's 90% or more. You have to account for people that may not be able to take it. If only 60 or 70% take it there would still likely be enough virus around that certain groups would not be able to partake in society as even a low prevalence would be too much for them to risk.

Captain_Crash

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Yeah, it's not discrimination. I suggest you read up on the grounds for illegal discrimination, you'll notice vaccine status isn't on that list.

But religion is, and there are countless religions which forbid vaccinations.

Again, personally I don't think its discrimination, but I do think were going to see some legal challenges to it.

EDIT: Apologies L1011, see your post now.

TRANQUILLO

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Imagine being a diamond or concierge member of an airlines loyalty scheme with years of continued custom to be told " mr murphy, you are not permitted to fly with us any more unless you put this in your body".

The Gay cake controversy is in the European courts now as the plaintiff feels his beliefs are being infringed upon.

What if someone doesnt believe in vaccinations or the severity of the virus as an existential threat ?

Also people are looking through the lens of this as a passenger flying into Australia.

What about the old LA to New York leg QANTAS used to fly or other open skies or fifth freedom flights if we talk about other airlines? Australian governmental preferences wouldn't apply there as its a US to US flight.

Or the old Air NZ London to LA route.

Can of worms no?

HTCOne

1123heavy wrote: »

My concern is for flight crew. I know myself and numerous others who do not want this vaccine. Will our employers say either we take it or we lose our jobs?

It'd be straight to the high court with that.

Depends if it is national legislation or not, IE will Australia make it mandatory to have received the vaccine to be allowed enter the country. The issue with Kuwait was that the country didn't recognise the existence of Israel, and as such staff could not accept Israeli passports. This was fine on flights to or from Kuwait itself because that was the law of Kuwait. Where they got caught was on the 5th freedom flights between LHR-JFK, where both countries recognised the State of Israel and therefore KAC were ruled to be discriminating. This is allegedly one of the reasons KAC moved the LHR stopover to Shannon. If say the UAE and UK do not bring in any rules about mandatory vaccination then pax will have a leg to stand on for Qantas 5th freedom flights between the 2, but not on flights to or from Oz if the country brings in vaccination requirements.

If the country of origin of the airline brings in legislation around vaccination, the airline employees will be obliged to follow it or potentially be in breach of contract.

trellheim

I can't see anyone batting an eye at a vaccination requirement if an airline imposes it , further I can see it being a requirement to hold travel insurance as well

It's an easy google to find mandatory polio vaccination requirements, for example. I'm not getting into the pros and cons of such a vaccine , merely pointing out there's plenty of backing in laws around the world for making it mandatory.

Blut2

Theres also the issue of what if you've already had covid. If someone can prove that through having had a positive covid test, or positive antibody test, why should they be forced to pay for (and take) a vaccine to fly?

Given almost 60million people have had confirmed covid now, and plenty more have done positive antibody tests on top of that, I'd be curious to see how that argument would go against Qantas.

edit: theres also the fact that a huge % of the population in most countries is saying it won't take the vaccine:

In the US - only 38% would get a coronavirus vaccine if one became available. - https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/10/20/coronavirus-vaccine-no-good-if-people-won%E2%80%99t-take-it-15103

In France - A recent Ipos study found that just 54 percent of French people say they would get a Covid-19 vaccine -- https://www.france24.com/en/france/20201120-i-won-t-take-the-risk-france-leads-the-world-in-covid-19-vaccine-scepticism

In the UK - 36% of people in the UK said they were either uncertain (27%) or very unlikely (9%) to be vaccinated against the virus -- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/10/will-enough-people-in-the-uk-take-the-covid-19-jab

etc. I'd question how many airlines will rule out 30-50% of potential customers.

Cookiemunster

Blut2 wrote: »

Theres also the issue of what if you've already had covid. If someone can prove that through having had a positive covid test, or positive antibody test, why should they be forced to pay for (and take) a vaccine to fly?

Given almost 60million people have had confirmed covid now, and plenty more have done positive antibody tests on top of that, I'd be curious to see how that argument would go against Qantas.

Immunity is not known to be permanent, so having had it doesn't mean you're immune to getting it again.

TRANQUILLO

Blut2 wrote: »

Theres also the issue of what if you've already had covid. If someone can prove that through having had a positive covid test, or positive antibody test, why should they be forced to pay for (and take) a vaccine to fly?

Given almost 60million people have had confirmed covid now, and plenty more have done positive antibody tests on top of that, I'd be curious to see how that argument would go against Qantas.

Not only that.....Which vaccine?

There are a few . Will they all be considered equal ? Are they all as cheap as each other?

If ticketmaster bring this in will the cost of vaccine be dearer than the gig you want to go to in whelans?

TRANQUILLO

Blut2 wrote: »

Theres also the issue of what if you've already had covid. If someone can prove that through having had a positive covid test, or positive antibody test, why should they be forced to pay for (and take) a vaccine to fly?

Given almost 60million people have had confirmed covid now, and plenty more have done positive antibody tests on top of that, I'd be curious to see how that argument would go against Qantas.

edit: theres also the fact that a huge % of the population in most countries is saying it won't take the vaccine:

In the US - only 38% would get a coronavirus vaccine if one became available. - https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/10/20/coronavirus-vaccine-no-good-if-people-won%E2%80%99t-take-it-15103

In France - A recent Ipos study found that just 54 percent of French people say they would get a Covid-19 vaccine -- https://www.france24.com/en/france/20201120-i-won-t-take-the-risk-france-leads-the-world-in-covid-19-vaccine-scepticism

In the UK - 36% of people in the UK said they were either uncertain (27%) or very unlikely (9%) to be vaccinated against the virus -- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/10/will-enough-people-in-the-uk-take-the-covid-19-jab

etc. I'd question how many airlines will rule out 30-50% of potential customers.

There is definitely more nuance to the debate than decent citizens vs tin foil hat "Anti vaxxers". I think the discourse has been over simplified by a lot of people.

Blut2

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Immunity is not known to be permanent, so having had it doesn't mean you're immune to getting it again.

As of November 16th there had only been 25 confirmed cases of reinfection globally. Not 25 thousand, or hundred. 25. Out of almost 60 million cases. Which given recorded cases started exploding 8+ months ago now we can fairly safely say immunity lasts at the very minimum 8 months - and increasing every day.

The immunity will definitely expire at some stage. But my point was more it has been proven to exist, and tens of millions of people now have it. So I'd question how an airline will justify discriminating against them by demanding they get a vaccine they clearly don't need?