A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Australia & New Zealand
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old March 3rd, 2004, 07:20 PM
Raffi Balmanoukian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide


Following along: It's certainly not NZ's pax who should suffer.


Not to Raffi: Do NOT become involved in a safety critical industry.
You could kill people with an attitude like yours.

Dave


I thought it was just my looks that could kill 8-)

I still believe NZ overdramatized the situation. If some guy throws himself
off a bridge in front of me, it would be his problem not mine.....sure
wouldn't let it affect my clients/customers.

  #122  
Old March 3rd, 2004, 07:45 PM
gwendolen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide

Raffi Balmanoukian schreef:
Following along: It's certainly not NZ's pax who should suffer.


Not to Raffi: Do NOT become involved in a safety critical industry.
You could kill people with an attitude like yours.

Dave


I thought it was just my looks that could kill 8-)

I still believe NZ overdramatized the situation. If some guy throws
himself off a bridge in front of me, it would be his problem not
mine.....sure wouldn't let it affect my clients/customers.


Yes but Raffi, you keep forgetting that the rest of us are human ;-)
--
gwendolen


  #123  
Old March 3rd, 2004, 08:43 PM
Malcolm Weir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:50:55 -0700, matt weber
wrote:
Either way, NO WAY IT CAN BE DONE FOR ONLY $50,000


Huh? The aircraft was going to fly the route anyway, so landing fees,
maintenance, etc. would have been paid anyway.

Operating empty of passengers (but not, I'd bet, cargo) means that it
would save some fuel, plus catering costs. But those costs would be
borne by the alternate flights (NZ1, QF26, etc.) so that's a wash.

The only additional costs that would be incurred would be the
compensation to the passengers and any incremental costs of having
other carriers like Qantas (or whoever) take their passengers.


Do you really think QF (or anyone else) will transport 300 passengers
for $160 each?


Well, I REALLY think that NZ would transport *their* passengers for
whatever they had already paid, so where on earth did you get that
"300 passengers" figure?

The cost to NZ of displacing a passenger from NZ3 to NZ1 is what I'm
talking about here.

The ASM cost is about 10 cents, so for each passenger,
NZ is likely to be paying out upwards of 600USD in economy, and a
whole lot more than that in the premium cabins. The F cabin revenue
on the service could easily exceed $50K.


Yep. And I'd bet that the F cabin revenue wasn't touched in the
slightest, with those passengers being accommodated on NZ1 or
alternate NZ-operated flights.

BEYOND that, the claim was that the exercise _cost_ Air NZ $50K. YOU,
for some reason, are choosing to interpret that claim as inclusive of
lost revenue.

I'm not: I'm reading precisely what was written, which was that the
cost to Air NZ was $50K, which does *not* automatically imply that
there wasn't additionally lost revenue. Lost revenue is not a cost,
it's just lost revenue.

So the arithmetic looks like this:

Cost_from_alt_carrier + delay_compensation -
Revenue_from_displaced_pax $50K + Revenue_from_additional_cargo

If NZ was clever (and despite the various exotic manoeuvres they've
been involved in over the past few years, I see no reason to believe
otherwise) they would displace (some of) the higher-fare pax and keep
the bargain basement types, since QF (or whoever) is likely to accept
the coupons from the higher fares at their face value.

You seem fixated on total operating cost, which is totally irrelevant
given the services were operating anyway!

Malc.
  #124  
Old March 3rd, 2004, 08:46 PM
Malcolm Weir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:06:21 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

Huh? The aircraft was going to fly the route anyway, so landing fees,
maintenance, etc. would have been paid anyway.

Operating empty of passengers (but not, I'd bet, cargo) means that it
would save some fuel, plus catering costs. But those costs would be
borne by the alternate flights (NZ1, QF26, etc.) so that's a wash.

The only additional costs that would be incurred would be the
compensation to the passengers and any incremental costs of having
other carriers like Qantas (or whoever) take their passengers.

Do you really think QF (or anyone else) will transport 300 passengers
for $160 each? The ASM cost is about 10 cents, so for each passenger,
NZ is likely to be paying out upwards of 600USD in economy, and a
whole lot more than that in the premium cabins. The F cabin revenue
on the service could easily exceed $50K.


To make a very long story short, I got a first class QF seat LHR-SYD in 2000
which is a bit longer than LAX-SYD but might compare for the purposes of
this example. I later found out that on a last-minute basis, it was an
AUD$12,000 ticket which, thankfully, was on Air Canada's tab, not mine.


Why would that have any vague relevance to anything?

If any airline accomodates someone on another carrier, they don't call
a travel agent!

Free clue: how much would it have cost NZ to book a passenger on NZ3
onto NZ1 leaving that same day? Approximately?

Second free clue: suppose you have a last minute first class NZ seat
LAX-AKL for which you paid AUD$12000, or even US$100000000000000000.
Do you think QF would accept that ticket? Hint: Yes.

Malc.
  #125  
Old March 3rd, 2004, 09:18 PM
Raffi Balmanoukian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/3/04 3:46 PM:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:06:21 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

Huh? The aircraft was going to fly the route anyway, so landing fees,
maintenance, etc. would have been paid anyway.

Operating empty of passengers (but not, I'd bet, cargo) means that it
would save some fuel, plus catering costs. But those costs would be
borne by the alternate flights (NZ1, QF26, etc.) so that's a wash.

The only additional costs that would be incurred would be the
compensation to the passengers and any incremental costs of having
other carriers like Qantas (or whoever) take their passengers.
Do you really think QF (or anyone else) will transport 300 passengers
for $160 each? The ASM cost is about 10 cents, so for each passenger,
NZ is likely to be paying out upwards of 600USD in economy, and a
whole lot more than that in the premium cabins. The F cabin revenue
on the service could easily exceed $50K.


To make a very long story short, I got a first class QF seat LHR-SYD in 2000
which is a bit longer than LAX-SYD but might compare for the purposes of
this example. I later found out that on a last-minute basis, it was an
AUD$12,000 ticket which, thankfully, was on Air Canada's tab, not mine.


Why would that have any vague relevance to anything?


Should it? No. Did it? Yes, when they misdirected my bags and tripped
over themselves to kiss various anatomical parts while trying to find them.

  #126  
Old March 3rd, 2004, 09:52 PM
Geoff McCaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide

In rec.travel.australia+nz Lennier wrote:

Which most definitely does apply - because suicide is a criminal offence.


How many successful convictions are there? What's the punishment?
  #129  
Old March 3rd, 2004, 11:41 PM
mtravelkay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide


Raffi Balmanoukian wrote:


Because I don't let "wrong place, wrong time" stuff that has nothing to do
either with me or my business associations bother me or affect the
client/customer? I would think that would be exactly what an airline should
look for....


If they fall on the hood of your car, it doesn't affect you?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide a b c Air travel 179 March 7th, 2004 06:58 AM
FAA Downplayed Chance Of Suicide Hijacking -Panel DALing Air travel 6 January 30th, 2004 03:52 PM
I NEED PARTNERS TO BUY A NEW 6 BEDROOM BIG HOME IN ZAMBALES PHILIPPINES - PLEASE ONLY REPLY IF YOU ARE REALLY SERIOUS William Davis Asia 1 January 7th, 2004 03:53 AM
I NEED PARTNERS TO BUY A NEW 6 BEDROOM BIG HOME IN ZAMBALES PHILIPPINES - PLEASE ONLY REPLY IF YOU ARE REALLY SERIOUS William Davis Asia 1 January 6th, 2004 12:44 PM
A Day @ Home - Finally... The Bill Mattocks Air travel 2 October 12th, 2003 11:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.