What about all of the production people who lost their jobs when he pulled his show?
I'm not saying that Sinatra was right, as far as I'm concerned he should have gotten more retaliation for the way he treated people. But it doesn't change the fact that that strike cost them their jobs.
I imagine as a union, they'd probably just work another show as stagehands. Can't imagine business like that is short. Just ignore Sinatra and go be stagehands for another artist perhaps?
My great aunt Marie was a Pinkerton and had to serve him a summons at one point in her career. Apparently in her words, "he was very rude." She was a cool lady!
As demon said, Technically it doesn't sound like they took him hostage so much as refused to provide service to him. No idea what would have happened if he'd had to lower himself to chartering a private boat or buying a standard plane ticket.
.
Going to a foreign country and demanding people provide you service against their will isn't exactly good etiquette either. Sometimes if you want to receive service you're better off not spitting in the eye of your waiter.
"Stealing a man's private property"???
You want a springboard? It's gonna help with all the conclusions you're jumping to.
That union just refused to fuel his plane. Nothing stopping him from going private. They are allowed refuse him service, they're not stealing from him but they're not helping him either.
Let's say I'm a mechanic. You entrust your vehicle to me for some routine upkeep. I hear from my waitress friend that you're a shitty tipper, so keep of your transmission partially uninstalled. Sure, you have the key, but I'm not letting some rando in my shop. So you trespass, pay up, or bite the bullet and get a rental.
I mean... they didn't steal it. It's his. He has access to it. If your car runs out of gas and the gas station refuses to drive out and fuel up your car they didn't steal it from you.
.
In his case they EXTREMELY inconvenienced him, and I'm not sure what recourse he had in terms of getting the plane refuelled. Then again the solution was a simple swallowing of his own pride for 5 seconds so maybe he wasn't that concerned
It's his prerogative to be an asshole, but no one is required to provide him service if he does so. So long as they don't try and impede him getting service from alternate means, or sabotage the functionality or appearance of his plane should he manage to procure that service
if they refuse him access to his plane they are stealing the plane from a legal point of view. seeing with the fact that his plane cant be on his own property as he owns no property in Australia at the time then they have legally stolen a plane.
take it from famousones example.
this is the legal equivalent (as in its literally the same legal issue) of a mechanic accepting your business and starting work on your car with the agreement that the now empty tank will be filled before the work is done followed by the mechanic refusing to finish the job and then further refusing to allow you to take your vehicle out of his property (as it is physically impossible to move the vehicle out of the mechanics property without the fuel that he had already stated he was going to put it in)
it doesnt matter what technicality you want to try to bring up of "oh he can get to his plane all he wants." the law gives 0 shits about your technicalities. If he is functionally unable to retrieve his plane
,even if he can phsycially touch his plane, if he is functionally unable to retrieve it from your property because of your refusal to finish a service you are breaking the law. Period, full stop, no technicalities no if ands or buts you are breaking the law.
You can say period as much as you like.
.
I reiterate: where does it say they are stopping him from refuelling the plane himself or preventing him from hiring an outside company from doing so? It simply says they themselves won't do it. It's not even stated they'd ever agreed to do it in the first place - he may well have just been operating under the assumption that they SHOULD.
.
And they did not empty his plane of fuel - nor did the transport union ask him to come there in the first place.
.
If you drop your car off with a broken transmission and on your way out you kick the owner of the shop's dog in the face, the owner of the shop is not only not obligated to continue working on your car, but they are also not obligated to hire and pay for a towing company to come and transport the car on your behalf.
It only becomes an issue if they prevent you from retrieving your car. They are only obligated to return it to you in at least as good a condition as you handed it over to them in.
.
Until there is proof offered that they actually stopped him from having access to, servicing, or alternatively removing his plane from the premises the situation remains at a state of: they refused to work he demanded they do, which is not a crime
he would have to take it to a different airport to get it fueled. To get it to a different airport it has to be fueled. You cant just haul a plane down the highway. It would be LITERALLY impossible to fuel the plane without the union folks working at specifically the airport his plane is it. You cant just bring in other random people to work in a place that they dont work. You cant tow a plane. I think you might need to re-understand how planes work.
i will reiterate: if they do not fuel the plane, the plane cannot leave the airport. Other people cannot legally come in and fuel the plane. The plane cannot legally be taken out of the airport via any route other than it being fueled and it flying away. If a mechanic refused to fuel your car, does not allow other people to come into his property to fuel your car, has your car in a place where towing is not legally an option, he is keeping your car on his property and allowing you no way of retrieving it and is breaking the law. this is the exact same situation. They will not fuel the plane. Other people are not allowed to come in and fuel the plane. The plane is in a place where towing is not legally an option, they are keeping his plane on airport property without allowing him a way to retrieve it ergo breaking the law
By your logic: if your car breaks down on someone's property and they HAVE gas but don't fill your car up, they have now stolen your car from you.
.
You literally have not provided any citation of this particular circumstance wher the airport staff refused to allow him have a) someone else come in and fuel his plane or b) allowed him to have his plane removed by alternate methods. And, yes, there are ways to move planes without fuel. Depending on the size you can literally just haul some of them away. It costs a LOT of money, but it can be done.
.
He cannot REQUIRE them to fuel up his plane without a contract. All he can do is demand access to be able TO have the plan fuelled up. There's not a single person on this planet he has the right to force to do labour for him.
Mmmkay, but they haven't stolen his plane, nor refused him access.
Let's say you are indeed a mechanic, and you don't like what I've said, so you turn to me and say "I'm not going to service your car, nor provide you with an MOT certificate". Not only can I still access my car, but the only thing have to do now, is find another mechanic.
You're not holding my car in the shop, you've not gutted the car of parts, because you haven't touched it, because all you have done is refused to serve me.
The same as what's going on here. He can still access his plane, have it fueled by a private company and be flown out of AUS, the point is, it's more of a pain in the ass...
"Frank Sinatra was refused service"
"So he's being held hostage!"
"N-no. They just aren't providing him with a service"
"So they're stealing his property!!"
That's how stupid you sound...
Somehow we are also assuming the plane is completely without fuel. They may refuse to add enough fuel for him to get to the next destination on his way to the US but that doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t have enough to get to another airport nearby.
They always take off with "enough" fuel. Bare minimum. This however does include, the journey, diversion fuel, fuel reserves, taxi-ing and emergency fuel. This is an aircrafts bare minimum. They can chose to fly with more as additional fuel, but aren't required.
There isn't going to be a citation of them not allowing someone else to come in and fuel his plane because that's the default.
-
Also get your story straight. Either planes have enough fuel left to take off and fly around again when they land or they carry the bare minimum to land and be refueled before take off again. You can't have both.
-
A personal jet is far too large to be hauled on a civilian road.
The airport owns the place it is stored. The people that work at the airport refuse to service to plane. By default an airport will not allow random "strike breaker" contractors to come onto their airport and work unless they themselves hired them. You are not going to get a private jet down a civilian road. The wingspan of a plane that can do intercontinental travel is going to clip into the other lanes by a LOT.
-
Sorry, we appear to be confusing "so little that it endangers passengers lives- bare minimum" and the "legal bare minimum".
I was referring to the latter. The minimum amount of fuel a commercial aircraft can legally fly with (which accounts for more than "take off, fly and land"). That doesn't mean there's enough left over for a second take-off and land operation.
Anything less and something as simple as an emergency diversion can put passengers in danger. :)
Technically all he needs is enough fuel to land somewhere someone willing to refuel his plane is located. Could be the middle of the outback or halfway to Kentucky. It doesn't change him not having enough fuel not being the staff's problem
.
Additionally, you are once again telling us as a fact statement what the airport will not do. We have, again, no evidence that they would not allow independent fuelling if Sinatra provided it. Until you do the point is moot.
.
You are also telling us as a fact statement that the dimensions of the plane are astronomical and yet we really have no clue how big his plane even is. This was in the 70s. Decent chance it may not be as big as today's planes. Either way it certainly is a problem.
That said, even if it IS impossible to have it towed, shipped, or air-lifted, that still leaves us with: if you drive a vehicle onto someone's property and run out of fuel you can't BLAME them for not providing you with more fuel and not filling the tank up for you themselves.
.
At this point we seem to largely be spinning our wheels. I don't have any new way to say the same things over again, and it's kind of pointless doing so
.
I feel like my main take away from this is never own an airport, a union, or a Sinatra. All their roads lead to headaches
I'm not saying that Sinatra was right, as far as I'm concerned he should have gotten more retaliation for the way he treated people. But it doesn't change the fact that that strike cost them their jobs.
.
Going to a foreign country and demanding people provide you service against their will isn't exactly good etiquette either. Sometimes if you want to receive service you're better off not spitting in the eye of your waiter.
You want a springboard? It's gonna help with all the conclusions you're jumping to.
That union just refused to fuel his plane. Nothing stopping him from going private. They are allowed refuse him service, they're not stealing from him but they're not helping him either.
.
In his case they EXTREMELY inconvenienced him, and I'm not sure what recourse he had in terms of getting the plane refuelled. Then again the solution was a simple swallowing of his own pride for 5 seconds so maybe he wasn't that concerned
take it from famousones example.
this is the legal equivalent (as in its literally the same legal issue) of a mechanic accepting your business and starting work on your car with the agreement that the now empty tank will be filled before the work is done followed by the mechanic refusing to finish the job and then further refusing to allow you to take your vehicle out of his property (as it is physically impossible to move the vehicle out of the mechanics property without the fuel that he had already stated he was going to put it in)
it doesnt matter what technicality you want to try to bring up of "oh he can get to his plane all he wants." the law gives 0 shits about your technicalities. If he is functionally unable to retrieve his plane
.
I reiterate: where does it say they are stopping him from refuelling the plane himself or preventing him from hiring an outside company from doing so? It simply says they themselves won't do it. It's not even stated they'd ever agreed to do it in the first place - he may well have just been operating under the assumption that they SHOULD.
.
And they did not empty his plane of fuel - nor did the transport union ask him to come there in the first place.
.
If you drop your car off with a broken transmission and on your way out you kick the owner of the shop's dog in the face, the owner of the shop is not only not obligated to continue working on your car, but they are also not obligated to hire and pay for a towing company to come and transport the car on your behalf.
.
Until there is proof offered that they actually stopped him from having access to, servicing, or alternatively removing his plane from the premises the situation remains at a state of: they refused to work he demanded they do, which is not a crime
.
You literally have not provided any citation of this particular circumstance wher the airport staff refused to allow him have a) someone else come in and fuel his plane or b) allowed him to have his plane removed by alternate methods. And, yes, there are ways to move planes without fuel. Depending on the size you can literally just haul some of them away. It costs a LOT of money, but it can be done.
.
He cannot REQUIRE them to fuel up his plane without a contract. All he can do is demand access to be able TO have the plan fuelled up. There's not a single person on this planet he has the right to force to do labour for him.
Let's say you are indeed a mechanic, and you don't like what I've said, so you turn to me and say "I'm not going to service your car, nor provide you with an MOT certificate". Not only can I still access my car, but the only thing have to do now, is find another mechanic.
You're not holding my car in the shop, you've not gutted the car of parts, because you haven't touched it, because all you have done is refused to serve me.
The same as what's going on here. He can still access his plane, have it fueled by a private company and be flown out of AUS, the point is, it's more of a pain in the ass...
"So he's being held hostage!"
"N-no. They just aren't providing him with a service"
"So they're stealing his property!!"
That's how stupid you sound...
-
Also get your story straight. Either planes have enough fuel left to take off and fly around again when they land or they carry the bare minimum to land and be refueled before take off again. You can't have both.
-
A personal jet is far too large to be hauled on a civilian road.
The airport owns the place it is stored. The people that work at the airport refuse to service to plane. By default an airport will not allow random "strike breaker" contractors to come onto their airport and work unless they themselves hired them. You are not going to get a private jet down a civilian road. The wingspan of a plane that can do intercontinental travel is going to clip into the other lanes by a LOT.
-
I was referring to the latter. The minimum amount of fuel a commercial aircraft can legally fly with (which accounts for more than "take off, fly and land"). That doesn't mean there's enough left over for a second take-off and land operation.
Anything less and something as simple as an emergency diversion can put passengers in danger. :)
.
Additionally, you are once again telling us as a fact statement what the airport will not do. We have, again, no evidence that they would not allow independent fuelling if Sinatra provided it. Until you do the point is moot.
.
You are also telling us as a fact statement that the dimensions of the plane are astronomical and yet we really have no clue how big his plane even is. This was in the 70s. Decent chance it may not be as big as today's planes. Either way it certainly is a problem.
.
At this point we seem to largely be spinning our wheels. I don't have any new way to say the same things over again, and it's kind of pointless doing so
.
I feel like my main take away from this is never own an airport, a union, or a Sinatra. All their roads lead to headaches