Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide

in article ,
at wrote
on 3/1/04 11:20 AM:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:03:18 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

in article , John Ewing at
none@needed wrote on 3/1/04 4:27 AM:


"Raffi Balmanoukian" a
wrote in message
news:BC681CA2.2147C%walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREP LY.ns.sympatico.ca...


Mr Sims said the passengers due to fly on NZ3 would have experienced
delays of up to four hours.



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...section=news&t
h
esubsection=general


Assuming AKL was their final destination. For those making connections it
could be heavens-knows-what

Keep it in perspective - this was a one-off. Bad weather and aircraft
equipment defects cause thousands of flight delays and cancellations every
year.


People understand weather delays, etc. (I just went through that a little
over a week ago - YHZ was completely shut down for two days. Not one of the
hundreds of people in the terminal was ticked at the cancellation but a few
were ticked at Air Canada because they were the only airline with nobody at
the counter).

I WOULD be angry at the airline for canceling a flight because their crew
"saw a nasty thing" a bit earlier.

LOL. Demanding little buggar aren't you.

Aren't you an attorney?
If so, and it had happened to you, I'd expect you would sue them?

What is more important to you? Passenger safety or you getting your
way?

Cath

"Attorney" is an American term. I am a barrister and solicitor 8-)

Everyone seems to be proceeding on the basis that this is a safety issue. I
respectfully disagree. Nasty things happen. The original article said that
although some crew were upset (who wouldn't be?) they felt able to continue
on the scheduled flight. If the airline, or a crew member for that matter,
disagreed, it should be incumbent upon the airline to provide a substitute
so the several hundred pax aren't prejudiced.

This is a far different thing from a mechanical or weather delay, (which we
have all experienced, and for the most part shrugged off as part of the
inherent vagaries of travel). It's also far different from, say, even air
rage or other precautions that force landings or cancellations (like the
various Heathrow-Dulles flights lately) This is a "ooh, life is hard."
Deal with it.

I flew the first America-bound flight out of Melbourne after 9/11. It was
United. The crew were obviously "traumatized." In fact, the P.I.C. had
been hired many years ago by the pilot of the plane that crashed in
Pennsylvania. It didn't prevent anyone from doing their job.

As for suing....NZ should consider going after the estate of the deceased
for all of its damages, including the dent in the van 8-)

in article ,
Hilary at wrote on 3/1/04 2:54 PM:

Mr Sims said the passengers due to fly on NZ3 would have experienced
delays of up to four hours.



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...section=news&t
h
esubsection=general


Assuming AKL was their final destination. For those making connections it
could be heavens-knows-what

Keep it in perspective - this was a one-off. Bad weather and aircraft
equipment defects cause thousands of flight delays and cancellations every
year.


People understand weather delays, etc. (I just went through that a little
over a week ago - YHZ was completely shut down for two days. Not one of the
hundreds of people in the terminal was ticked at the cancellation but a few
were ticked at Air Canada because they were the only airline with nobody at
the counter).

I WOULD be angry at the airline for canceling a flight because their crew
"saw a nasty thing" a bit earlier.

We're not talking about a small bit of roadkill here. Someone died by
hitting the bus,

No, he died by jumping off a bridge on top of a bus.

Miguel Cruz wrote:
Here's what I don't understand - wouldn't it have been cheaper to pay for a
parking spot for 14 hours and fly a new crew out? The traumatized crew could
head home on Qantas.

You are forgetting that the 747 at LAX was needed at AKL 145-16 hours later
for another flight. Parking the jet at LAX would not only force the stranding
of the pax on that particular flight, but also stranding the pax who were
expected to board that plane at AKL half a day later. If the next flight will
generate $100,000 in profits, and flying the plane empty costs $40,000 , then
you still end up making $60,000 in profits by flying it empty.

If you strand the plane, you lose that $100,000 in profits the next flight
would have generated (and have 400 more angry pax).

"Raffi Balmanoukian" a wrote in
message news:BC68DDEF.214AE%walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREP LY.ns.sympatico.ca...



Everyone seems to be proceeding on the basis that this is a safety issue. I
respectfully disagree.



That's your right.

But you're wrong.

That's obvious to people in aviation who understand the effects of stress on
performance.

You no doubt think you're an expert in your legal field.

Apply the same reasoning to airline operations managers.

Remember, you're a passenger --- and passengers aren't recognised authorities
on air safety.

People employed to do the job are.

in article , Tosser at
wrote on 3/1/04 5:23 PM:


"Raffi Balmanoukian" a wrote
in
message
news:BC68DDEF.214AE%walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREP LY.ns.sympatico.ca...



Everyone seems to be proceeding on the basis that this is a safety issue. I
respectfully disagree.



That's your right.

But you're wrong.

That's obvious to people in aviation who understand the effects of stress on
performance.

You no doubt think you're an expert in your legal field.

Apply the same reasoning to airline operations managers.

Remember, you're a passenger --- and passengers aren't recognised authorities
on air safety.

People employed to do the job are.






Fine - the point remains, people "get upset" about all kinds of things, all
the time. If the airline is going to cancel flights over it - on safety,
humanitarian, or karmic grounds - they should ensure enough redundancy to
cover these out-of-the-blue contingencies (unlike weather or mechanical).

in article ,
Hilary at wrote on 3/1/04 3:46 PM:

No, he died by jumping off a bridge on top of a bus.

Yes. He hit the bus and died. That's what I said. You can bet that if
someone committed suicide by jumping on/in front of my car, I wouldn't be
going to work that day.

Hilary

If some bloke wants to "off" himself, and doesn't have the decency to do it
in private and without affecting a bunch of strangers, I have no sympathy or
empathy for him. I'd do the civic duty (reporting, statement to the police,
etc.) and that's it. And I probably would want the estate to pay for any
vehicular damage. As for the rest of the public at large, I wouldn't
prejudice my clientele by putting off their matter: I'd either handle it or
give it over to someone else to do, without delay and without extra cost or
hassle. Not the client's fault I happened to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time.

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

"Raffi Balmanoukian" a
wrote in message
news:BC693554.214C7%walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREP LY.ns.sympatico.ca...
in article , Tosser at
wrote on 3/1/04 5:23 PM:


"Raffi Balmanoukian" a
wrote
in
message
news:BC68DDEF.214AE%walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREP LY.ns.sympatico.ca...



Everyone seems to be proceeding on the basis that this is a safety
issue. I
respectfully disagree.



That's your right.

But you're wrong.

That's obvious to people in aviation who understand the effects of
stress on
performance.

You no doubt think you're an expert in your legal field.

Apply the same reasoning to airline operations managers.

Remember, you're a passenger --- and passengers aren't recognised
authorities
on air safety.

People employed to do the job are.






Fine - the point remains, people "get upset" about all kinds of things,
all
the time. If the airline is going to cancel flights over it - on safety,
humanitarian, or karmic grounds - they should ensure enough redundancy to
cover these out-of-the-blue contingencies (unlike weather or mechanical).

No Transportation Company can have a plan for everything. That was a 1 in a
million shot. People who were inconvenienced by this just have to shake it
off, and go on with their lives. I've been delayed hundreds of times, for
hundreds of reasons. It happens. That's life.

in article m, Jim Davis
Sr. at wrote on 3/1/04 7:04 PM:

Fine - the point remains, people "get upset" about all kinds of things,
all
the time. If the airline is going to cancel flights over it - on safety,
humanitarian, or karmic grounds - they should ensure enough redundancy to
cover these out-of-the-blue contingencies (unlike weather or mechanical).

No Transportation Company can have a plan for everything. That was a 1 in a
million shot. People who were inconvenienced by this just have to shake it
off, and go on with their lives. I've been delayed hundreds of times, for
hundreds of reasons. It happens. That's life.

Exactly my point, my friend. People expect, and make allowances for, and
forgive, the delays inherent in air travel due to the vagaries of the method
- mechanical delays, weather delays, etc. This is especially true when the
airline is up front about it (e.g. how often have we shrugged off "flight
canceled" and how often have we been ticked when there are a series of six
consecutive "one hour" delays?).

If, conversely, the airline is going to cancel a flight because of a
particular policy ("we won't make you fly because you had a close
encounter"), it is incumbent upon the airline to make it right by its pax.

We all have stress from various sources at various times. Do we get to
knock off work (including in the airline industry) because we had a fight
with a spouse or the dog died or.....

Raffi Balmanoukian wrote:


We all have stress from various sources at various times. Do we get to
knock off work (including in the airline industry) because we had a fight
with a spouse or the dog died or.....

How often have you had a suicide land on the vehicle you are in?
How many times have you heard of this happening to an entire (or
majority) of a flight crew? I think this was a good decision by the
airline. That is the kind of thing that should attract more business,
not less.

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:30:23 -0500, flyer wrote:

Mutlley wrote:

(snip)

Talk about a pampered group of workers.

Not to mention the high thread count sheets they'll be requesting, king sized
beds, the best rooms in the resort, away from elevators and street lights
outside, luxury curtains in the room, gourmet meals, satellite television in
multiple languages.

Oh wait. That's Qantas cabin crew. Never mind.

ROFL