FORMAL COMPLAINT – CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY (CAA)

One of us is being picked on when every she appears at a airport.

FORMAL COMPLAINT – CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY (CAA)

Reference: ILAW-CAA-AIRPORT-2025-001

 

From:

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

Attorney Acting Under Instruction of Trustees

 

Subject:

Formal Aviation Safety & Conduct Complaint – Jetstar Repeated Identification Harassment & Unlawful Denial of Boarding

 

1. Introduction and Standing

 

This complaint is issued by InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust, operating under Private Trust Non-Disclosure Agreement (PTNDA). Our appointed attorney has been repeatedly subjected to:

• Targeted identification demands,

• Refusal of boarding,

• Refusal by staff to identify themselves,

• Hostile and discriminatory behaviour,

• Non-compliance with Civil Aviation Rules,

• Financial and operational harm,

• Service failure by Jetstar’s customer contact line.

 

This pattern has escalated over the past year, culminating in today’s unlawful denial of boarding when the attorney urgently needed to return to Queenstown to complete Trust responsibilities.

 

2. Incident Summary (Latest Event)

 

On attempting to board a Jetstar domestic flight, the attorney:

• Reported her identification stolen earlier today,

• Provided all required booking information,

• Observed others in her group not asked for ID,

• Was singled out repeatedly,

• Requested staff identify themselves (as required by aviation law),

• Was refused identification details and refused policy explanation,

• Was addressed with hostility,

• Was ultimately denied boarding,

• Was unable to rebook due to lack of assistance.

 

A 40-minute call to Jetstar ended when the line dropped without resolution.

 

3. Statutory Breaches

 

A. Civil Aviation Rules – Part 19 (Security)

Rule 19.101(b) requires any person performing a security function to identify themselves clearly. Jetstar and security personnel refused.

 

B. Civil Aviation Act 1990 – ss 12, 13, 28

Operators and security personnel must act with lawful authority and provide proper process. Jetstar failed to comply.

 

C. Aviation Crimes Act 1972

Misuse of security powers, intimidation, and refusal to identify are prohibited.

 

D. Consumer Guarantees Act 1993

Jetstar failed to provide services with reasonable care and skill and caused financial loss.

 

E. Privacy Act 2020 – IPP6 & IPP7

The repeated targeting suggests internal notes or flags. Jetstar refused to disclose the basis relied upon.

 

F. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – s 19

The attorney is repeatedly singled out while others are not. This establishes discriminatory treatment.

 

4. Case Law

 

Fitzgerald v Muldoon [1976] 2 NZLR 615 – No agent may act without lawful authority.

Drew v Attorney-General [2002] – Decisions affecting rights require transparent legal basis.

Pora v R [2015] – Entities restricting rights must prove lawful justification.

Zaoui v AG (No 2) [2005] – Security actions must be proportionate and lawful.

 

5. Pattern of Harassment

 

The attorney has been singled out for over a year for ID checks no one else is subjected to. This is now a systemic issue.

 

6. Financial and Operational Harm

 

Denial of boarding prevented urgent return to Queenstown, disrupted Trust operations, caused financial loss, and interfered with duties.

 

7. Requests for Investigation

 

The Trust requests CAA to investigate:

1. Discriminatory Jetstar ID practices,

2. Failure of Jetstar staff and airport security to identify themselves,

3. Misuse of supposed aviation authority,

4. Unlawful denial of boarding,

5. Jetstar’s customer service failures,

6. All internal notes, flags, or security records regarding “TRACY LYNCH / INLANDSAIRWATER COUNSEL – PRIVATE TRUST”.

 

8. Required Remedies

 

The Trust requires:

• Full CAA investigation,

• Written apology from Jetstar,

• Identification details of all personnel involved,

• Full disclosure of records,

• Refund and compensation,

• Assurance the attorney will not be targeted again,

• Staff training review regarding ID and security-identification rules.

 

9. Conclusion

 

Jetstar’s conduct breaches Civil Aviation Rules, aviation security law, privacy law, consumer law, and the Bill of Rights. The behaviour is discriminatory, unlawful, and harmful.

 

We request a formal written response from CAA and Jetstar’s Safety & Regulatory Affairs division.

 

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust

Attorney Acting Under Instruction of Trustees

PO Box 265

Queenstown