texan

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:03:18 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
<[email protected] a> wrote:

    >in article [email protected], John Ewing at
    >none@needed wrote on 3/1/04 4:27 AM:
    >>
    >> "Raffi Balmanoukian" <[email protected] a>
    >> wrote in message
    >> news:BC681CA2.2147C%[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 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...ection=news&th
    >>>>> 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

Raffi Balmanoukian

in article [email protected],
texan@texas,removethisbit.usa.com at texan@texas,removethisbit.usa.com wrote
on 3/1/04 11:20 AM:

    > On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:03:18 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
    > <[email protected] a> wrote:
    >
    >> in article [email protected], John Ewing at
    >> none@needed wrote on 3/1/04 4:27 AM:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Raffi Balmanoukian" <[email protected] a>
    >>> wrote in message
    >>> news:BC681CA2.2147C%[email protected]...
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> 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-)

Hilary

    > >>>> 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...ection=news&th
    > >>>> 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, and the crew then tried to help. Most people in a
similar role would be sent home after seeing something like that - there's
no way to tell whether delayed shock could set in, which could have a
legal, personnel *and* safety aspect. I certainly wouldn't begrudge the
crew that break.

Hilary

Raffi Balmanoukian

in article [email protected],
Hilary at [email protected] 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.

Hilary

    > >>> 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.

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

Nobody

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).

Tosser

"Raffi Balmanoukian" <[email protected] a> wrote in
message news:BC68DDEF.214AE%[email protected]...



    > 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.

Flyer

Mutlley <[email protected]> wrote:

    >a b c <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
    >>25.02.2004
    >>By LOUISA CLEAVE
    >>Thirteen Air New Zealand cabin crew members were flown home from the
    >>United States without their passengers after witnessing a suicide on
    >>their way to work.
    >>Passengers booked on flight NZ3 from Los Angeles to Auckland on Sunday
    >>were put on other Air New Zealand flights after the incident, said Ed
    >>Sims, general manager international airline.
    >>The crew was in a minibus on the way to LAX when a person jumped off
    >>an overbridge and landed on their vehicle.
    >>The person then fell on the highway into the path of traffic.
    >>Mr Sims said the crew went to assist but the person was dead and they
    >>were "faced with a horrific scene".
    >Gee. What a precious lot. I guess they will need counseling on some
    >sunny beach for a month before they return to work.
    >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.

Raffi Balmanoukian

in article [email protected], Tosser at
[email protected] wrote on 3/1/04 5:23 PM:

    >
    > "Raffi Balmanoukian" <[email protected] a> wrote
    > in
    > message
    > news:BC68DDEF.214AE%[email protected]...
    >
    >
    >
    >> 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).

Raffi Balmanoukian

in article [email protected],
Hilary at [email protected] 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.

Jim Davis Sr.

"Raffi Balmanoukian" <[email protected] a>
wrote in message
news:BC693554.214C7%[email protected]...
    > in article [email protected], Tosser at
    > [email protected] wrote on 3/1/04 5:23 PM:
    > >
    > > "Raffi Balmanoukian" <[email protected] a>
wrote
    > > in
    > > message
    > > news:BC68DDEF.214AE%[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >> 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.

Raffi Balmanoukian

in article SjP0c.3036$%[email protected] m, Jim Davis
Sr. at [email protected] 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.....

Mtravelkay

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.

Budgie

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:30:23 -0500, flyer <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Mutlley <[email protected]> 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

Budgie

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 07:41:29 GMT, "cole" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> The safety of passengers could have also been at stake.....given how
    >> distracted the cabin crew could/would have been.
    >Yeah it would be fun if the pilot and co-pilot relived the experience of a
    >corpse splashing on the windscreen during a flight.

even though it was only cabin crew in the minibus. But the flight deck crew
would have been aware of it, and it would certainly have been hard to put out of
their minds completely for the entire flight.

    >Good idea to bring them home

agree