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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
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. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
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 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
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. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
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. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
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. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
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. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
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. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
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. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 05:58 AM |
FAA Downplayed Chance Of Suicide Hijacking -Panel | DALing | Air travel | 6 | January 30th, 2004 02:52 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 02:53 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 11:44 AM |
A Day @ Home - Finally... | The Bill Mattocks | Air travel | 2 | October 12th, 2003 11:00 PM |