Qantas Introducing No Jab - No Fly Policy

Is there a legal precedent to this? How is a major airline allowed to take it upon themselves to mandate medical decisions on behalf of the public?

By comparison, would it be acceptable for insurance companies, telcos, or energy providers to deny their products/services to a large part of the country based on similar criteria?

Eg - anyone who's ever had an abortion is not eligible for this power plan. Too bad for you, guessing you'll have to learn to start a fire or freeze to death.

This is truly absurd.

Qantas will ban travellers who don't have the COVID vaccine — can other businesses follow suit?

Related Stores



  • +289

    This is about stopping the spread of COVID-19. IMO I think it’s a good idea to stop COVID-19 making it’s way to AU from other countries or vice versa.

    • +97

      It's a public health measure. People are shocked like this is new, when we already have 'no shot, no play' precedents, like getting vaccinated against Q fever for certain industries (e.g. abattoir workers) or dogs requiring shots and post-export quarantine when moving between AU and rabies endemic countries.

      • +52

        Exactly, it’s not the only thing that’s required to travel overseas, plus no one is forcing you to go overseas, if you don’t want the jab then just stay in AUS and don’t go overseas. Simple.

        • +10

          I think people are mostly concerned about the government encroaching on their civil liberties and privacy, and they see this as an indicator that that may follow.

          • +24

            @Scrooge McDuck: Public health surely comes before civil liberties. You can have your civil liberties but don't harm others. Also you mentioned privacy, definitely not a privacy issue is it?

            • +13


              definitely not a privacy issue is it?

              A person's medical record is personal information and the handling of it is subject to the Privacy Act.

              • @whooah1979: Can I say, I had the jab. What "guarantee" does Q want to see?

                • +14

                  @cameldownunder: Maybe your word is sufficient for them to let you fly. Of course, should you fly o/s, get the 'rona and fly home, contaminate the plane and several others, you would be fine to compensate Qantas and the others for your lie?

                  How well is that working out for the Spanish Guy who lied in SA and caused a statewide shutdown. Not sure how his visa renewal is going to go… Think his workplace has welcomed him back?

                  Also, you can fly with another airline. Maybe Virgin will rebrand as the Rona Express (the new REX). No questions asked, no mask, no worries. Given the choice, which airline do you think will get the most customers?

                  Who do you want to sit next to on an 8 hour flight home?
                  1: The inoculated;
                  2: The fly-by-the seat-of-my-pants-I-don't-need-no-science-telling-me-what-to do-guy, with a cough.

                  I think I know what I will be doing.

                  • @skyva: Of course I get the inoculation as soon it's available. I wanted to know what do I need to show?

                  • @skyva: @cameldownunder

                    I've heard talks of 'vacination passports' which would include your Covid-19 jab


                    As for your 1. 2. scenario, the option you want is 3. Have the vaccination before you fly and still wear a mask for as long as you can bear to. If cameldownunder theoretically didn't get the jab, he wouldn't have anyone to compensate because everyone else has been vaccinated.

                    ^ Well in theory, and as the data out so far from the vaccine trials is that they prevent Covid-19 disease, not Covid-19 infection. The vaccines all work by encaptulating the spike protein, preventing damage to cells by the virus. There isn't anything released so far saying it stops you becoming Covid-19 positive, and theoretically you're still contagious like any other asymptomatic person.

                    TLDR: Planes are metal tubes of disease at the best of times. When you have something contagious that spreads via aerosol then you're stuffed.

                • +1

                  @cameldownunder: When you get a Flu Vac you are provided with a record to show you've had it. I have had to hold on to mine to get into certain facilities (Aged Care etc).

                  Its more likely they'll do it electronically.

                • +3

                  @cameldownunder: It's actaully got nothing to do with Qantas (despite their comments), ALL country border control points will require you to show your vaccination certificate, just as you have had to for other vaccinations in certain countries pre COVID.
                  If you're paranoid/an anti vaxer, there are many places you haven't been able to visit for years.
                  I laugh at these people making a big deal about getting a COVID jab, definitely the minority speaking, I only see them online as I've never met one in person.
                  Everyone I've spoken with is more than happy to line up for a jab and return to regular life..
                  Don't worry, Australia won't force you to vaccinate, other countries simply won't let you enter. It's a choice you can make.

                  • -1

                    @DisabledUser110907: "I've never met one in person."

                    Damn, you're lucky… I HAVE met one and had to bite my tongue to keep from actually laughing out loud at the nonsense she was spouting.

                    Also, these are some phrases that she used:
                    - "I know you're concerned about your loved ones who are vulnerable, but here's a fact… they ARE going to die… and pretty soon"
                    - "Everybody's going to get COVID anyway… why can't they just let us live our lives?"
                    - "What you're hearing about vaccines - it's all bad science - they actually cause us to have MORE diseases" (I couldn't let this one go, I had to ask her what she thought was GOOD science - and it was laughable)
                    - "Instead of having us take the vaccine, we should just, you know, make the vulnerable people healthy!" (I kid you not… this was actually said)

                    • -1

                      @jatyap: Hahahahahahahaha ROFL…… I loved what she said to you, in particular "What you're hearing about vaccines - it's all bad science" Let me guess, she is an Epidemiologist? I laugh at how these people are suddenly more intelligent than Epidemiologists. These people are complete nutters (and probably Trump supporters too lol)

              • @whooah1979: Which is why everyone wants a copy, and seemingly/depending how hard they try, can get one.

              • @whooah1979: In the fact of a covid pandemic, no one gives a sh!t.
                Just like how in the face of 911, no one gives a sh!t about privacy either.

            • +4


              Public health surely comes before civil liberties.

              No, that's a matter of individual values. Some people value civil liberties much more highly and see health as an issue of personal responsibility. Some prefer a smaller government and already object to the erosion of civil liberties and privacy. Some see the expansion of government as a slippery slope to a totalitarian regime. Some came to Australia to escape such, and would loath to see that happen here.

              Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin

              • +34

                @Scrooge McDuck: how is vaccine refusal an 'essential liberty', and how is it 'temporary safety'. People are dying. Seems pretty permanent to me.

                This is the 'Tragedy of the Commons', except that vaccine refusers aren't actually getting any benefit by opting out of the vaccine. I cannot understand how people can lack the basic compassion and empathy to get vaccinated.

                • +13

                  @dinna89: The autonomy of an individual over their own body is a fundamental human right.

                  • @Scrooge McDuck: Is that something you're asserting or a legal doctrine?

                    • -2

                      @dinna89: It is an axiom to which I think most fair-minded people would agree. The fact that you don't is quite illuminating!

                      Further, it has been widely established in common law that a medical procedure performed without consent, except where specifically permitted by law, constitutes, at minimum, a trespass to the person in the form of a battery. Those specific exemptions generally pertain to cases where a medical patient is unable to provide informed consent due to circumstances of practicality (eg unconsciousness), immaturity, mental illness, etc.

                      • +10

                        @Scrooge McDuck: I absolutely disagree with your premise that most 'fair minded people' would agree that you can shirk public health controls without any impacts, and that vaccine avoidance is a fundamental human right, which is essentially what you're saying.

                        While I don't necessarily think people should be forced to get vaccinated, I do think that these people need to live with the consequences, which includes being shunned by society /Qantas in order to protect public health, and the economy.

                  • +23

                    @Scrooge McDuck: And the right to be safe is a fundamental human right as is Qantas' right to refuse service to those who compromise the safety of others.
                    Funny how anti vaxxers forget that other people have rights too. For example, if somebody is smoking outside, it's no concern of mine. It's their lungs. But if they are smoking in my kids playground or school, I am not really sure why they feel entitled to give the rest of us lung cancer.

                    • -1


                      …Qantas' right to refuse service…

                      I have no objection to that. You and others below have erred in applying the context of the OP to your reading of my comment. My comment to which you replied is itself a reply to that of another user who asked me:


                      how is vaccine refusal an 'essential liberty',

                      When a comment is in reply to another, it is important to at least read the parent comment for context.

                    • -4

                      @gramoras: But if you had a vaccine that worked for second hand lung cancer smoke, you wouldn't need to worry right??

                      I'll await my down votes.

                    • +2

                      @gramoras: It's funny that. We know smoking causes lung cancer and yet it's STILL allowed to happen all around us. The ironic world we live in. We're still allowed to sell it, why? Moolah!

                  • +12

                    @Scrooge McDuck: Yah. And they're not forced to do it. If they require the services of a private company i.e. flying - then they will need to get a jab. Otherwise they can find someone else to fly/row/carry them overseas.

                    I don't see people kicking and screaming over their loss of rights to be able to travel naked - can't do that either. Encroaching on autonomy? I think not. Let's not take this rubbish too far.

                  • +9

                    @Scrooge McDuck: Exactly, and flying with Qantas is not a fundamental human right, so there is no conflict there.

                  • +1

                    @Scrooge McDuck: Does that include your Blood Alcohol Content?

              • +10

                @Scrooge McDuck: You not getting "the jab" infringes on other people's civil liberties if you give them a disease. Stop thinking only about yourself.

              • +2

                @Scrooge McDuck: "Some people value civil liberties much more highly and see health as an issue of personal responsibility."
                Really? This is a virus not a broken leg. If you choose to live in a community then you have a responsibility to others in that community.
                I have seen no evidence whatsoever of governments, in this country using their powers with respect to COVID-19 to do anything other than protect the health of their citizens, and largely it has worked.
                If there had of been no change of rules when the threat of spread subsided I might agree, but as and when the possibility of spread has eased rules have been relaxed.
                This virus is " nasty " and as well all know the older you are or if you have pre-existing conditions the mortality rate is high.
                Franklin lived in the 1700's no pandemics existed while he was alive. His view might have been somewhat mellowed in the current circumstances.
                We are largely COVID free now. Let's keep it that way!

              • @Scrooge McDuck: Culture does play a large part. For example, when the September 11 attacks happened, the US rapidly compromised on its liberal principles, introducing much higher levels of government invigilation and compromising the rights of the criminally accused.

                They have not done nearly as much to combat the virus. Given that they are now experiencing a million new cases each week, and over 1500 deaths a day (compared to about 3500 deaths for the 9-11 attacks), you have to wonder whether they made the right decision. It is very possible that hospitals in some parts of the US will be overwhelmed. At one point, Italy had to adopt a policy of sending anyone over eighty home to die. America may have to go down the same road, in the not too distant future.

                The more authoritarian states did compromise on individual liberty. China instituted a draconian lockdown, and its possible that at least some people starved to death inside their apartments. On the other hand, they did control the virus.

                To paraphrase Carl Schmitt - in every society, there comes a tipping point when situation normal ends and the "state of exception" begins. Perhaps a disease with a 1% mortality rate would not be sufficient, but if it were a plague-like pandemic that threatened to kill a third of the population, even a die-hard libertarian would be hard pressed to contend that they should still be able to go out and get their hair done.

                This interview is a good exploration of that cultural dilemma:-

              • +1

                @Scrooge McDuck: Poor old Benjamin never lived to see modern vaccinations nor mask use. Besides it has been accepted by many thought leaders from all over the world that freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility. Or in other terms you are free until you affect other people by your action or inaction. The problem with this pandemic (and many other matters) is everyone wants their absolute freedoms, but no one wants to accept their responsibilities - in which you claim health is only a personal responsibility. If we take your point to it's limit, you need to fully pay for all your medical care and not rely on the state, as implied in your selected quote.

                So, I searched for "freedom and responsibility quotes" to find a quote from Abraham Lincoln to match your Benjamin Franklin quote, and raise you a wonderfully biting freedom vs. responsibility quote from Eleanor Roosevelt.

                You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. - Abraham Lincoln

                Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect. - Eleanor Roosevelt

                Interestingly, regarding your point about some who came to Australia, the Australian Constitution provides for no such freedoms and rights as are outlined in the US constitution and its amendments. I would support such a change to our constitution but only if balanced with responsibilities. After all, the context of freedom in the US constitution arose directly from fighting the British for independence. Context, context, context!

                Back on topic, while Joyce is exploring this possibility, it may well be that Australia may introduce legislation requiring Qantas (and all other carriers) to do this. NZ will likely be the same. So Joyce may be usurped in practice. Other countries will likely have their requirements, yet to be advised. Joyce wants some certainty for Qantas to be able to do business. I am sure Greg Foran of Air NZ wants the same.

              • @Scrooge McDuck: It is a line when defending an individuals civil liberties but Franklin would roll in his grave hearing it.

                Because when Benjamin Franklin said;

                "Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                He was not defending an individuals right to liberty but instead defending the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security.

                The circumstance in which he said this are of utmost importance, it was not individuals offering their essential liberties for safety, it was one family trying bribe the general assembly to not tax them for the sake of everyone else's essential liberties.

                When he said essential liberty, he was referring to arming the masses against the French attack. When he said temporary safety was referring to the family holding onto their wealth in the now instead of helping in the effort against France because if France won they would lose all their money and when he said purchase he is literally referring to a monetary transaction.

                To weigh civil liberties above all else is a monumental oversimplification of a much more complex societal system and when argued as a stringent hierarchy deemed more important than security and health it leads to the failing of a society. The only reason we can argue for these liberties is due to security and the only reason we have security is due to reducing our freedom. Civil liberties and security exist with a congruence between them denying a vaccine would in itself deny people civil liberties.

                There would be no need for a mandatory vaccine if enough people were just willing to take it, the issue is there is not enough people who will willingly have it in order to allow those that cannot have it their own civil liabilities.

            • @sd: No it doesn't. Civil liberties above all else

            • @sd: Misguided utilitarianism ethics when you feel like a dictator, and relativism ethics when it come to your wealth, privilege or your health. I hope Qantas go broke.

          • +15

            @Scrooge McDuck: The 'slippery slope' theory - first a reasonable change is made, next minute sociey collapses!

            A toxic mindset that has held back the USA for decades, and it seems to be spreading here.

            • -2


              held back the USA for decades

              You must have an odd definition of 'held back' when you're talking about the most advanced civilisation humanity has ever known.
              You're communicating on a device designed in the US, on a network designed in the US about vaccines produced in the US, on an airline that uses vehicles invented and manufactured in the US and claiming they are the ones who are backwards?
              What a wonderful world it must be in your head.

              • +3

                @1st-Amendment: This vaccine was made and produced in Germany, by a German company.

                I do think @Superannuation was referring to the mindset of US citizens, not their ability to invent stuff, which is an ability that many people, in many countries have.

                • -4


                  This vaccine was made and produced in Germany, by a German company.

                  This? Which one are you talking about? Pfizer and Moderna are American, Oxford/AstraZenica are British.

                  referring to the mindset of US citizens, not their ability to invent stuff,

                  Whatever that mindset is, it produces more innovation than anywhere else in the world. So calling the most innovative nation on Earth 'held back' is laughable.
                  I get that a lot of people hate America, but you can't just make up clearly provable lies to suit your position.

                  • +4

                    @1st-Amendment: the pfizer vaccine is german…its been all over the news. are you this sheltered? or just making up clearly provable lies to suit your position?

                    and does it really produce more innovation? is that per capita or just raw dollars? how about the brain drain where they jsut steal the best adn brightest from other places (hell half their military might were german scientists). little old aus at the CSIRO have invested wifi,vaccines, consumer products etc used all around the world on shoestring budgets.

                    but hey the USA is the greatest…they arent held back at all by their brilliant statistics on health care, education, clean water, standard of living, life expectancy etc…….they dont lead on any single metric other than money (and even that is just total not something useful like median income)

              • +2

                @1st-Amendment: An incredibly wonderful and advanced nation where 50m are going hungry


              • @1st-Amendment: Interesting user name given the first amendment of the Australian Constitution is:

                'The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth'.

                Good on you for loving the Parliament!

          • @Scrooge McDuck: How is this government encroaching on civil liberties? It sounds like you want a bit of big government regulation to prevent a private business operating freely.

            • +2

              @DisabledUser288697: It's not just "this government" you haven't specified which (federal or a particular state or local council). I wrote "the government" and meant Western governments in general.

              Off the top of my head:

              • Border closures have encroached on freedom of movement.

              • Curfews and social distancing measures have encroached on freedom of movement, assembly and the press.

              • Discrimination laws have encroached on freedom of expression.

              • Metadata laws have encroached on the right to privacy.

              • Terrorism laws have encroached on the right to equal treatment under the law.

              • Expanded intelligence and surveillance powers have encroached on the right to privacy and equal treatment under the law.

              • Prohibition of euthenasia, control of pharmaceuticals, land use laws and fishing laws have encroached on the right to liberty.

              It sounds like you want a bit of big government regulation to prevent a private business operating freely.

              No, not at all.

              • -2

                @Scrooge McDuck: The ‘this’ I was referring to was the OP. Not any specific government. So nothing to do with your reply.

                • -2

                  @DisabledUser288697: You wrote "this government" and replied to me, not the OP. You don't make sense and you're clearly trying to back pedal. Goodbye!

                  • @Scrooge McDuck: I’m not back peddling. Just clarifying a misunderstanding. I acknowledge ‘this’ is a bit ambiguous but I thought it was clear enough that I meant the subject of the whole thread not some specific government, particularly given the second sentence.

              • +1

                @Scrooge McDuck:

                Off the top of my head:

                I understand these are cursory thoughts, but human rights are bit more complicated than your list.

                For example

                Border closures have encroached on freedom of movement

                Not necessarily true when this affects public health. AHRC

                Other things that reduce an individual's 'freedom of movement', is in the context of nation security (ie. terrorism). I don't think the general public has any problems with that and we have a relatively high border security and stable domestic activity compared to other western countries.

                Qantas is not detaining anyone and removing their 'rights'. Qantas or any other agency is only providing a service (flying between a and b) which is not a human right. There are other options to get from A to B, whether it be public transport or car or other self-funded travel.

                Now it's not like Qantas staff are you holding you down and giving you the jab against your will - that would be a huge concern.

                You should probably look at the AHRC and think about what 'human rights' actually cover

                • @bs0:

                  Qantas or any other agency is only providing a service (flying between a and b) which is not a human right. There are other options to get from A to B, whether it be public transport or car or other self-funded travel.

                  This would be a case in free market, hence why a lot of people prefer them. But Qantas don't operate in a free market. Flight routes and airport slots are heavily regulated, hence they don't have the power to unilaterally discriminate whenever they see fit.

                  • @1st-Amendment: And are there market regulations currently against what Qantas is proposing?

                    Within human rights, which is what previously was being discussed, I don't think it's are simple as some people have misunderstood.

                • +3

                  @bs0: I have already addressed this above. And if I keep responding to every new participant who erects their own straw man in reply to me, the discussion will never end.

                  Interests are in conflict and competition, so governments effect a compromise by limiting rights. People are concerned that the balance is continually moving away from civil liberties and privacy, which is the message of my root comment which catalysed this whole discussion.

                  • @Scrooge McDuck: Not really. I'm just illuminating the fact that you have a very simple understand of what a human right actually is.

          • @Scrooge McDuck: Are we in the 90’s Qantas is private. It infringes on my civil liberties that their flights cost so much.

        • doesn't the same logic apply for domestic travel as well? So based on your reasoning just don't fly?

      • +2

        I also think it's no big deal really.
        I'd eventually get myself vaccinated anyway. There's no way I'd go overseas without protection. I do think all nations should come up with International digital vaccine certificate for travelers. Something similar to what Xie Jinping proposed recently but not exactly like a QR code. If it's not digital, then an international recognised travel document should be fine.

      • I agree with the measure but disagree with Qantas bringing it in.

    • -35

      Coronavirus, with a 0.1% mortality rate. The vast majority of people experience just minor cold like symptoms. This isn't ebola or the bubonic plague. All of these freedom hating, Labour Party voting cretins are terrified of a near benign pathogen. "Save me nanny state from the big bad Wuhan flu".

      Maybe we should ban automobiles to prevent road fatalities. Ban ladders to prevent ladder accidents. Ban electricity, it can kill you. Even ban beds, since some people have died from falling out of bed. The Australian sheeple are simpering cowards terrified of liberty and choice.

      We urgently need a 'Bill of Rights' to stop the government and corporations trampling on our freedoms.

      • +15

        This isn’t the government though is it? I agree that we need a bill of rights. Particularly because the government loves trampling our freedoms; but this is a business. Don’t they have rights to refuse customers at their discretion? I think they should.

        Only the flip side to your slippery slope argument if you kill someone with your car you might very well be banned from driving depending on the circumstances.

        luckily I can’t catch falling out of bed from you in the middle of the street.

        250,000+ dead in US ain’t what I’d call benign.

        • +2

          Don’t they have rights to refuse customers at their discretion? I think they should.

          No Blacks, Dogs, or Irishmen, just like the good old days?

          • +3

            @1st-Amendment: Obviously everyone draws their own line somewhere it’s not so easy.

            Being Black or Irish isn’t a choice.

            Being vaccinated or bringing your dog everywhere you go is. Just like wearing shoes and a shirt, plenty of venues don’t allow clients that don’t meet their standards, where do you draw your line?

            • @cruiseronroad: so we don't serve some religion or have to be university educated to get service because we like to keep this place "high-brow" is acceptable?

            • -4

              @cruiseronroad: I don't think you've understood the OP use of the word 'discretion'. It means whatever I feel like, which is quite clearly unethical as in the examples I gave.

              On the topic of where to draw a line, one line I would draw is at medical procedures, or can I refuse entry unless to all fat people to my nightclub unless they have lap band surgery? No women without boob jobs? No dudes with hair transplants?

              This is the problem with drawing lines, as soon as you allow one thing you open the Pandora's box of discrimination, which is why we rely on rigorous government process rather then a business owner's discretion for such things.

          • +1

            @1st-Amendment: you can't bring your dog in.
            they already have the right to refuse service if you dont wear a mask (or a shirt or shoes)

            they also can not let you go to daycare without a jab…so why cant they not let you on a plane for the same reason.

            being irish cant harm others….your disease can. pretty basic really

            • -2

              @Cheshire Cat: So same for all diseases then? Full medicals for every passenger, on every flight, all the time?

              being irish cant harm others

              You've never met a drunk Irishman have you… They don't call them the fighting Irish for nothing….

          • +3

            @1st-Amendment: It's incredible the straw man arguments people like you will concoct when you don't have a legitimate point of view to argue.

            • -2

              @dchoj: I don't think you have any idea of what a straw man is… But thanks for adding so much value to the conversation…

              • +1

                @1st-Amendment: "So same for all diseases then? Full medicals for every passenger, on every flight, all the time?"

                This is a strawman mr 1st Amendment.

      • +1

        0.1% mortality on 7 billion people? Thats a heck lot more than road deaths.

      • +4

        COVID19 currently has a mortality rate of 2.3% globally, 2.1% in the USA, 3.6% in the UK, and 3.2% in Australia. I'm not sure where you are getting the evidence to suggest it's benign.

        If you're speaking about coronavirus as a group, they include strains ranging in severity from the common cold (benign) to SARS and MERS (mortality 34%).

      • Your 0.1% mortality late is based on entire populations (including the uninfected). Try again.
        Mortality rate based on infected population is around 3-4%. And it has a trend of hitting the more vulnerable particularly hard.

        That is what makes it scary.

    • I applaud you friend, well said

    • 100% agree. Why would you want to risk the your health (and life), and that of other passengers?

  • +15

    Not sure this is anything but a thought bubble from Qantas, and I’m not sure what you mean about abortions.
    There are laws around discrimination for a range of medical conditions, disabilities etc.
    This proposal might be discriminatory.

    Of course, equally, the government might make regulations about public safety, like they have currently regarding travel. In which case airlines will have to comply.

    • +12

      OP's just ranting.

      Qanta's business has been severely hurt by covid. If this was not a condition of an insurance policy before their announcement, it will be after. We will start seeing corporate covid policies that restrict travel to operators that require vaccines for passage.

      Qanta is just acting in the best interest of their shareholders. This has nothing to do with public health. They need the 2 week quarantine's gone to increase business. This is a way to speed this process up.

      • +19

        But first Alan Joyce made us marry gays, and now he is making us take vaccines!
        I am starting to think he must have been involved with Howard taking the guns!

        • Fun fact:

          Alan Joyce's real middle name is Arthur./s

        • +1

          Worse still, after Allan lubricated the slope Cory Bernardi couldn’t stop himself from marrying a dog.

    • +12

      It isn't just a thought bubble, All of the major airlines are apparently in agreement to require it. It is in their own best business interests, spending 16 hours in a tin tube with potentially infectious people will be a major suppressor of the travel industry. Personally I would not fly with any airline that did not demand vaccines for international travel.

  • +72

    Yellow Fever is precedent. Many countries do not allow entry to people without the yellow book which shows that you have been vaccinated against yellow fever including Australia - although Australia has not been actively checking. They can still ask for evidence at any time and deport you at the airlines expense.

    Also, from my reading of Alan Joyce comments is that he said he felt that it would be likely that airlines around the world will require evidence of vaccination in order to enable opening up of borders.

    • +16

      Right. And I think people have got all “I’m amurican an I got rights” about a private company discriminating that would go differently if it is a legal regulation.

      • -81

        Well this may come as a shock to you but you do have rights, and Alan Joyce doesn't have the legal power to take them from you.
        And depending on where those rights are enshrined, even some layers of government do not have the power to take them from you.
        This is why we have laws and courts otherwise we'd have anarchy. A lot of Americans learn this stuff in high school civics class, it seems that the Australian education system is lacking in this regard.

        • +44

          Freedom of choice, not the freedom from the consequences of that choice

          People who do not want to vaccinate against COVID-19 will have to weigh up the pros and cons just like parents who don't vaccinate their children - it's still your choice whether the pros (international travel, school/childcare) still outweigh the cons

        • +33

          I don’t think you have the right to fly on any airline. They can and do have the power to remove you from an aircraft for being an a**hole and not complying with their terms of service.

          • -10


            not complying with their terms of service.

            True, but the terms of service have to be legal. That is my point. Alan Joyce doesn't get to decide what is legal or not.

        • +32

          This may be a shock to you, what with your superior education system and all, but Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.


          • -14

            @kale chips suck:


            Yes you probably do feel awkward for making such a ridiculous statement. Rights exist outside of a 'bill of rights'. Anyone one with a high school education system should know that…

          • @kale chips suck: But we have innate rights

          • @kale chips suck: tis true, no constitutional freedom of speech, merely some relatively narrow case laws

        • +13

          This is how it works. Your 'right' not to jab stops at my 'right' not to catch covid from you. Same as your right to flair your arms stops at my nose.

          • -11


            This is how it works.

            No it doesn't. You're making stuff up which shows how stupid your argument is.
            Feel free to post a link that supports your claim, I won't hold my breath…

          • @gimme: it's in some way akin to the smoker's right vs non-smokers with a difference. The part I still don't understand is if for those who decides to take the vaccine, why does it matter if others don't take the vaccine? Wouldn't you already be protected because you've taken the vaccine? So why force others to take it?

            • @yannyrjl: No because pandemic = disruptions and impact everyone regardless of whether you get the virus or not. If it wasn't contagious then yea maybe

Login or Join to leave a comment