Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide

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

in article , matt weber at
wrote on 3/2/04 11:50 PM:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:44:15 -0800, Malcolm Weir
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:06:11 -0700, matt weber
wrote:



The decision was made to fly the Boeing 747-400 back to Auckland with
only the 13 crew and in-flight service director on board. An airline
spokesman said the cost of flying the aircraft home without passengers
would have been "up to $50,000".

Somebody's arithmetic is more than a bit suspect... Two ways of
looking at this, but for starters, it is a 6500 mile mission, so about
12 hours, and about 240,000 pouns of Jet A, or about 37,000 gallons,
at current rates that is about 33,000USD just for the fuel. That says
nothing about landing fees, maintenance, or anything else.

The other way is to look at NZ's ASM cost. It is about 11 US cents,
and that puts the price at about 280,000USD.

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? 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.

Most carriers have contract rates under which they will provide
services to each other. These are often at a sizeable discount from
the full F/C/Y fare, but generally fairly accurately reflect the
actual costs of providing the service.

Translation: Air Canada probably didn't pay anywhere near 12,000AUD
for your ticket, but It is also a cinch they paid a lot more than
120AUD... My own guess it was probably several thousand AUD that
changed hands.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:43:19 -0800, Malcolm Weir
wrote:

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.
They may not have been able to. There are two issues. Capacity on the
alternate flight, and there there is the tariff problem...


Discounted tickets may not be subject to the full rules, but on a
full fare ticket, the contract for carriage requires accomodation on
the first available service with some very limited exception, and this
situation was NOT one of the exceptions. The decision not to operate
the flight was not due to weather, or mechanical failure, it was an
administrative decision to cancel, so obligation to find alternate
transportation via the fastest available route is applicable.

The obligation to get the passenger to the final destination
regardless of cost, or who operates it is part of the incorporated
terms. I.E. if the QF flight to AKL would get the passenger to AKL
first, legally NZ was obligated to put passengers on it. Many airlines
try to ignore the tariff requirement, and most of the time they
suceed, but not always. A few years ago I forced QF to cough up about
700AUD over a tariff issue. They kept saying they owed me nothing, the
tariff made clear that wasn't the case, and that position was
reinforced when they received a letter from the US Dept of
Transportation suggesting that it was time to live up to their legal
obligatoins.

I didn't have to sick the dogs on BA, one day they refused to do what
the tariff required them to do. They paid out 4 figures in
compensation 3 months later over the failure. What I had asked them
do, and what they had refused to do, turned to be exactly what the
contract for carriage required them to do....

Never ever suggest that your customers cannot possibly understand the
language in the tariffs. They just might read them, and if they do,
the surprises they uncover can be very expensive.....


IN addition, any incidental costs incurred as a direct result of the
failure to operate the scheduled flight under the tariff, are the
responsibility of the carrier. For example if I have to call someone
to re-schedule a meeting, the cost of the International call belongs
to the carrier.


As for the cargo argument, I don't buy it. NZ has very limited cargo
lift capacity into New Zealand, so most of the cargo doesn't get
handed over to NZ. Cargo to The South Pacific tends to travel on UPS,
Fedex Atlas/Polar/Southern and QANTAS's pair of wet leased Gemini
D10's....

As a result of security regulations, it is very hard to transport
cargo on a passenger aircraft if it weighs over 1 pound, unless it has
been in possession of the carrier for at least 24 hours.

Then there is the customs problem. One of the reason for the long
cutoff on cargo is the need to produce the manifest, and have it
blessed by Customs. Even if it isn't expected, the manifest has to be
filed with Customs and approved before it can leave the country, and
an accurate cargo manifest is also required upon arrival in the
destination country.

I serioulsy doubt the revenue from the additional cargo came to more
than a few thousand dollars.

Raffi Balmanoukian muttered....

in article , mtravelkay
at wrote on 3/3/04 6:41 PM:


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?


It hasn't happened....but I'd be damned if I'd let it prejudice,
delay, or cost my customers.

I suspect that for all your (perhaps justified) faith in your ability to
compensate for "up close and personal" contact with an event of the nature
of the one which began this discussion, that reality might be quite
different, and that you could turn out to be just a normal everyday taffy-
ass when bespattered with bits and pieces of another (and the gooey parts
are noticeable).

Much depends on the timing of the crisis and whether you've hada chance to
adjust your expectations there of....(but very few are not somewhat
emotionally discombobulated by close contact with blood & guts, falling
bodies, or worst of all, greatly disarranged human facial features).

TMO

In rec.travel.australia+nz Raffi Balmanoukian a wrote:

If someone splats on my bonnet, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with me....or the client. Aside from fulfilling the civic duties that flow
from that - and getting the car to a body shop....

It may be that you're incredibly staunch and would be able to brush off the
effects of such an incident. However an employer is in a more difficult
situation - they have to recognise that this could have a major impact on
some people, and if they required their staff to tough it out and keep
working, and a staff member subsequently failed to perform a safety related
task[1], the employer could be liable.

[1] Even if the safety failure was not directly attributable to the previous
trauma, the fact that one followed another could result in someone suing and
the employer having to defend their actions - with the cost of litigation
and the attendant bad publicity, one can understand their motivation to
avoid the situation.

What NZ did to its employees is not dissimilar to what banks to to branch
employees after a hold up. The employee(s) who were directly affected by the
crime are given time off and counseling.

The types of people employed as bank tellers do not always react well to
having had a gun pointed at them, and also may not react well to to the
thought that they allowed a robber to get away with $1000.

However, on the other side of the medal, flight attendants are supposed to be
able to turn into Atilla-the-Hun when necessary. In case of an accident, do
you really want an FA that is unable to function because she is in a state of
shock due to the accident and/or seing a dead body (or dilapidated bodies etc etc).

In fairness, in case of an accident, you expect the FA to retain composure for
perhaps an hour or less. But in this case, they would have been expected to
turn off emotions related to their experience for a much longer time.

On the other hand, what if a passenger kills himself during the flight ? If he
is quite dead and you're over the pacific, would they land at the nearest
airport, or would they continue ? Either way, the FAs would be expected to
handle the gore, stowe the body and get on with their duties.

Personally, I think Air NZ did the right thing, not because it had to, but
because it wanted to be nice to its employees. Having good employee relations
is very important, not only because when you ask for cost reductions, it is
easier, but also, and perhaps more importantly, when employers treat their
employees well, it is reflected in how well employees treat passengers.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:36:51 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

sigh....one LAST time. I'm saying WHAT THE HECK DOES A GUY JUMPING OFF A
BRIDGE have to do with the people in the van in the vicinity at the time?

Raffi, your ignorance and unwillingness to listen would seem to
suggest that you may be a lousy advocate!

Fact: The guy hit the van.
Fact: The (trained) personnel in the van responded to the injured
person. As in got out of the van.

If you cannot understand the distinction between "being in the
vicinity" and "being involved", you may difficulty with pretty much
everything in life!

And if you (or the airline) don't agree with that - or want to err on the
side of caution and keep the crew on the ground despite at least some of
them asserting they could fly the flight...

WHY THE HECK SHOULD THAT IMPACT, DELAY, PREJUDICE, OR COST THE PASSENGERS?

By law airlines cannot operate with insufficient crew. IIRC the
absolute minimum is one per 50 pax and at least one per cabin. So
we're talking about having to have 8 asserting that they were fit to
fly (and having appropriate medical personnel concur) before the
aircraft could carry passengers. In addition, the company almost
certainly has higher service standards, that set higher passenger/crew
ratio.

Malc.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:36:19 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/3/04 8:06 PM:

Is it beginning to sink in that your experience IS NOT RELEVANT?

Malc.

Is it beginning to sink in that we have an obvious agreement to disagree?

No, it's becoming obvious that you have no idea what you are talking
about!

The retail price of a ticket from LHR to Australia is entirely
irrelevant to the issue, for a myriad of reasons, not least of which
is the fact that NZ doesn't pay retail for seats on NZ flights, and in
addition there's the issue that the UK-Australia market is entirely
different from the California-New Zealand market, and only someone
with a profound ignorance of airline ticket pricing would claim that a
parallel exists.

Malc.

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/4/04 7:08 PM:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:36:51 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

sigh....one LAST time. I'm saying WHAT THE HECK DOES A GUY JUMPING OFF A
BRIDGE have to do with the people in the van in the vicinity at the time?

Raffi, your ignorance and unwillingness to listen would seem to
suggest that you may be a lousy advocate!

Mr. Balmanoukian, to you. First name is for people who have my respect.



Fact: The guy hit the van.
Fact: The (trained) personnel in the van responded to the injured
person. As in got out of the van.

If you cannot understand the distinction between "being in the
vicinity" and "being involved", you may difficulty with pretty much
everything in life!

They weren't involved. They were passengers in the wrong place at the wrong
time. I wouldn't be fazed in the least. If I was driving and struck a
pedestrian, I would be devastated. If a guy splooked himself, that's his
problem, not mine.

And my point, throughout is - whether you agree with that or not, there's
one thing we possibly, maybe, MIGHT agree on: it is not the aircraft
passengers' fault. They weren't tramatized. They weren't there. They
didn't see it. Didn't know the guy. Why should they be put out?

If the airline chose to cancel the flight, out of caution or humanity or bad
karma or flip of a coin, fine. Let 'em get a crew together to get the plane
in the air, on time and on schedule.


By law airlines cannot operate with insufficient crew. IIRC the
absolute minimum is one per 50 pax and at least one per cabin.

So let them get 'em to the aircraft. LAX is hardly a backwater.

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/4/04 7:11 PM:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:36:19 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/3/04 8:06 PM:

Is it beginning to sink in that your experience IS NOT RELEVANT?

Malc.

Is it beginning to sink in that we have an obvious agreement to disagree?

No, it's becoming obvious that you have no idea what you are talking
about!

The retail price of a ticket from LHR to Australia is entirely
irrelevant to the issue, for a myriad of reasons, not least of which
is the fact that NZ doesn't pay retail for seats on NZ flights, and in
addition there's the issue that the UK-Australia market is entirely
different from the California-New Zealand market, and only someone
with a profound ignorance of airline ticket pricing would claim that a
parallel exists.

Malc.


For someone who proclaimed that the whole bit on pricing/experience is
irrelevant, you certainly do go into your perceived expertise in detail.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:46:36 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/4/04 7:08 PM:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:36:51 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

sigh....one LAST time. I'm saying WHAT THE HECK DOES A GUY JUMPING OFF A
BRIDGE have to do with the people in the van in the vicinity at the time?

Raffi, your ignorance and unwillingness to listen would seem to
suggest that you may be a lousy advocate!

Mr. Balmanoukian, to you. First name is for people who have my respect.

Raffi, you haven't earned the right to demand anything from me.

Now, if you had asked, then I might have agreed, but you don't have
the substance (or apparently the intellect) to require a damn thing of
me.

Fact: The guy hit the van.
Fact: The (trained) personnel in the van responded to the injured
person. As in got out of the van.

If you cannot understand the distinction between "being in the
vicinity" and "being involved", you may difficulty with pretty much
everything in life!


They weren't involved.

So, despite the news reports that they got out of the van to try to
help the victim, they *didn't* get out of the van and and *didn't* try
to help the victim?

Raffi, if you cannot absorb the facts presented, you must be a treat
to watch in court!

They were passengers in the wrong place at the wrong
time.

.... who got out and tried to help, in accordance with their training
as "first responders".

I wouldn't be fazed in the least.

That comes as no surprise. I dare say it is entirely possible you
wouldn't even notice, or would try to claim that the guy didn't hit
you, or something!

If I was driving and struck a
pedestrian, I would be devastated. If a guy splooked himself, that's his
problem, not mine.

Sure. We've established you have the empathy of a pebble. But unless
you're now going to try to pretend you were there, you actually have
no idea what that crew *actually* experienced in terms of, say,
splatter and other charming consequences...

And my point, throughout is - whether you agree with that or not, there's
one thing we possibly, maybe, MIGHT agree on: it is not the aircraft
passengers' fault. They weren't tramatized. They weren't there. They
didn't see it. Didn't know the guy. Why should they be put out?

Because the airline decided that they didn't have a crew in which the
airline was 100% confident.

That has nothing to do with why the crew was sub-optimal, merely the
fact that, in the judgement of the airline, they were. Whether or not
you or anyone else would have reacted differently is about as relevant
as the fact that there was once water on Mars (which is to say, not at
all relevant).

If the airline chose to cancel the flight, out of caution or humanity or bad
karma or flip of a coin, fine. Let 'em get a crew together to get the plane
in the air, on time and on schedule.

Do you *really* think they didn't consider that possibility? Is it
possible that you are *that* naive?

Where, exactly, are you proposing Air NZ find a spare, NZ qualified,
747 crew in Los Angeles? The local day labor site?

By law airlines cannot operate with insufficient crew. IIRC the
absolute minimum is one per 50 pax and at least one per cabin.

So let them get 'em to the aircraft. LAX is hardly a backwater.

No, but it's 12+ flying hours from Auckland, and (as Matt noted) there
are crew rest implications. So possibly they could have reallocated
the crew rostered for NZ2 (departing for LHR a couple of hours after
NZ3 is scheduled to leave), thereby stuffing up NZ2 instead of NZ3.
It's unlikely that they could have brought the NZ1 crew in early
because of rest regulations, so that wouldn't work.

And so on.

Your entire position, Raffi, collapses in a sea of ignorance...

Malc.