Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:47:45 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

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.

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

You must be a terrible advocate!

Yes, the type of pricing you cited is irrelevant because the
circumstances were dramatically different.

Even if the type of pricing was not irrelevant (which it is) the
specific data you provided *is* irrelevant because it involved a
dramatically different routes on which dozens of carriers actively
compete compared to the two carriers that compete on LAX-AKL.

In court you must be a laugh a minute if you cannot follow such a
simple argument...

Malc

Malcolm Weir wrote:

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

It wouldn't hurt. The people in the local day labor sites in LA are hard
workers and eager to please which is more than can be said for the Air NZ crews.
The males are all gay and the females too aloof and worried about their makeup
to care about the passengers.

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/4/04 8:54 PM:
\
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.

Not a demand. A statement of fact. And first name familiarity is something
to be earned, as your parents should have told you in early infancy. And
yes, there is enough iconclasm in me for that to be intended as the insult
that it is.

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.

Don't worry......what's the bromide about battles of wits with the unarmed?
Oh yes, it goes along with the saw about being called worse things by better
people.



So, despite the news reports that they got out of the van to try to
help the victim,

Victim? He committed suicide. He's not a victim. He got exactly what he
asked for. The passengers in the van, and the would-be pax in the plane,
did not. They were the victims.


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

Great. Every airline can have a 100% safety record by never putting a plane
in the air. I dare say the UA flight I took on 9/15/01 (or is that another
irrelevant experience?) had far more potential for trauma in having had its
coemployees killed, its planes hijacked, and its landmarks attacked than a
random event like this? I felt entirely confident in the crew. And
well....whether you like it or not, I'm still of breath to argue with you,
whatever a waste of my time that may happen to be.



That has nothing to do with why the crew was sub-optimal, merely the
fact that, in the judgement of the airline, they were.

Fine 'n' dandy. Don't take it out on the pax.




And so on.

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

*troll*

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/4/04 8:59 PM:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:47:45 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

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.

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

You must be a terrible advocate!


So you keep trolling. I'll leave that up to clients to decide.

A good number of clients.

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/4/04 8:59 PM:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:47:45 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

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.

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

You must be a terrible advocate!

Yes, the type of pricing

......as opposed to the experience itself, your original position.



In court you must be a laugh a minute if you cannot follow such a
simple argument...

I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

Now, as amusing as it is (in a cat-with-dead-mouse format) to carry on this
exercise in futility, I will disengage from replying from this Macbethean
(where Malcolm also took advantage of the efforts of others...) "tale by an
idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Goodbye.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:02:35 -0500, chuki chuki
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:

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

It wouldn't hurt. The people in the local day labor sites in LA are hard
workers and eager to please which is more than can be said for the Air NZ crews.

Snag is that they're probably not actually qualified with all those
pesky regulations and training stuff...

The males are all gay and the females too aloof and worried about their makeup
to care about the passengers.

Are the women gay too? Are the guys also aloof? Do the gay guys
worry about their makeup, or the makeup on the women?

It does seem to me that passengers who make unwarranted statements
about other people might be hard to care about...

Malc.

"Raffi Balmanoukian" a wrote in
message news:BC6D3ABF.2174D%walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREP LY.ns.sympatico.ca...
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.

Time for the killfile.

You've had your moment of fame.

And I get the feeling it'll remain the high point of your life.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:06:31 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/4/04 8:54 PM:
\
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.

Not a demand. A statement of fact. And first name familiarity is something
to be earned, as your parents should have told you in early infancy. And
yes, there is enough iconclasm in me for that to be intended as the insult
that it is.

Have you noticed that on this big round thing on which we live there
are lots of different cultures?

Now, you may originate in an archaic and backward culture that sets
great store on cumbersome formality, presumably to help conceal an
absence of substance.

But I don't. The culture in which I live will use the first name if
given. You gave. So I used it.

Your opinions as to what should happen are totally irrelevant.

As are most of your recent opinions, come to think of it!

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.

Don't worry......what's the bromide about battles of wits with the unarmed?
Oh yes, it goes along with the saw about being called worse things by better
people.

You aren't actually doing to well in the "wits" department, Raffi.
You keep trying to demand that the price of a bus ticket or whatever
has some bearing on the matter...

So, despite the news reports that they got out of the van to try to
help the victim,

Victim? He committed suicide. He's not a victim. He got exactly what he
asked for. The passengers in the van, and the would-be pax in the plane,
did not. They were the victims.

Until an inquest is held, the circumstances of the individual's death
are not known. In the USA, which is where this incident occurred, it
is therefore standard practice to refer to suicides as victims since
the incident cannot be known to have been a suicide until an
investigation has been completed.

And even then, since in California (where this incident occurred)
suicide is conclusive proof of mental illness, therefore anyone who
commits suicide is a victim of their mental illness.

I'm very surprised that you, an alleged lawyer, don't understand all
this!

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

Great. Every airline can have a 100% safety record by never putting a plane
in the air. I dare say the UA flight I took on 9/15/01 (or is that another
irrelevant experience?) had far more potential for trauma in having had its
coemployees killed, its planes hijacked, and its landmarks attacked than a
random event like this?

Ummm... there's a field of study called "mathematics" in which the
difference between numbers can be derived by looking at them.
Comparing the number "15" with the number "11" we find that the
difference is "4".

We also can see that the number "4" is bigger than the number "0", and
so we can conclude that if the number referred to are in fact the
number of days between the event and the flight, it is indeed possible
to supply counseling and the like in one circumstance but not in the
other.

Your billing must be a hoot!

I felt entirely confident in the crew.

Congratulations. By the way, on September 15th 2001 was United
Airlines operating a complete schedule? Say, the same schedule that
they were operating on Sep 8th 2001?

Here's a hint: No.

Now, if the airline was operating a reduced schedule (hint: they were)
would they need:

A) More cabin crew?
B) Fewer cabin crew?

Is clue beginning to sink in?

And
well....whether you like it or not, I'm still of breath to argue with you,
whatever a waste of my time that may happen to be.

As noted previously, if *this* is what you consider an argument,
whatever you charge your clients is too much!

That has nothing to do with why the crew was sub-optimal, merely the
fact that, in the judgement of the airline, they were.

Fine 'n' dandy. Don't take it out on the pax.

At this point, you've reduced your position to the notion that, when
an airliner suffers a mechanical fault, the airline is "taking it out
on the pax".

If an engine fails to start properly, canceling the flight is not
"taking it out on the pax".

And so on.

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

*troll*

Your rather pathetic attempts at discussion would be enhanced if you
actually addressed the issues.

And your behavior does seem to indicate a certain degree of
unfamiliarity with terms of art, like "troll"...

Malc.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:08:13 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

in article , Malcolm Weir at
wrote on 3/4/04 8:59 PM:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:47:45 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
a wrote:

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.

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

You must be a terrible advocate!


So you keep trolling. I'll leave that up to clients to decide.

A good number of clients.

Ah. "A good number".

Gosh. I'm impressed.

Any of them vaguely satisfied by you "skill", and I use the term in
its loosest possible sense?

Malc.

Raffi Balmanoukian a writes:

Not at all. It's very simple. Now take my hand, and I'll lead you
through it.

If something physically injures, that's one thing.

If you have an accident, that's another.

If someone tosses him / herself off a bridge, I refuse to be his
victim by getting upset over it.

Now that I've said it around twenty times, time to move on.

I have news for you. A person how goes through an experience such as
the one the ANZ crew had does not get much choise in how their brain
reacts. For a number of people there is long lasting to permanant
physical injury to the brain. These can be imaged on MRI or CAT scan,
you don't even have to know their name to make the diagnosis.

Any other area of ignorance and crass stupidity you would care to
explore?

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.