>
>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


>
>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=general

matt weber wrote:
>
> NO WAY IT CAN BE DONE FOR ONLY $50,000

I bet the hold was filled with cargo. That revenue would offset some, if
not all, of the cost.

in article 4042A152.4921D278@212.com, James Robinson at wascana@212.com
wrote on 2/29/04 10:34 PM:

> matt weber wrote:
>>
>> NO WAY IT CAN BE DONE FOR ONLY $50,000
>
> I bet the hold was filled with cargo. That revenue would offset some, if
> not all, of the cost.

not on that little notice.

>>
>> 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

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:36:16 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
<walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.ns.sympatico.c a> wrote:

>in article 4042A152.4921D278@212.com, James Robinson at wascana@212.com
>wrote on 2/29/04 10:34 PM:
>
>> matt weber wrote:
>>>
>>> NO WAY IT CAN BE DONE FOR ONLY $50,000
>>
>> I bet the hold was filled with cargo. That revenue would offset some, if
>> not all, of the cost.
>
>not on that little notice.

Depends. If it were the plane they werre due to fly out on, the cargo would
conceivably have already been half-loaded anyway. So "keep loading, boys,
there's no payload limit on this one".

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:36:16 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
<walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.ns.sympatico.c a> wrote:

>in article 4042A152.4921D278@212.com, James Robinson at wascana@212.com
>wrote on 2/29/04 10:34 PM:
>
>> matt weber wrote:
>>>
>>> NO WAY IT CAN BE DONE FOR ONLY $50,000
>>
>> I bet the hold was filled with cargo. That revenue would offset some, if
>> not all, of the cost.
>
>not on that little notice.

The crew were on their way to LAX.
Long before the crew board, the aircraft bellys are being loaded.

There are cut-off times for cargo to be accepted at a 'gateway' which
LAX is. This would have enabled cargo to have it manifested and
ready to be loaded even before the aircraft had arrived.

Don't forget, the majority of it is containerised.
Roll it on, roll it off.

Cath

Mutlley scribbled:

> a b c <qwerty@poiuy.ty> wrote:
>
>> Air NZ crew heads home alone after LA suicide
>>
>> 25.02.2004
>> By LOUISA CLEAVE

> 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.

Some of the crew were prepared to work the flight, but it was Air NZ
management that sent them all home on an empty plane...
Sending the aircraft back to NZ empty would have cost Air NZ a lot more that
just the crew's wages they paid out...

--
mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke/

Raffi Balmanoukian <walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.ns.sympatico.c a>
wrote in
news:BC67F168.21458%walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREP LY.ns.sympatico.ca:
> Do they cancel a flight if the pilot's dog dies?

If the pilot is sufficiently distracted by the passing
of his favourite pet that he doesn't feel he can operate
the flight safely, and there is no other suitable pilot
available to take his place then yes, they cancel the
flight, and rightly so.

Why do you ask?

Bob

"steve" <ok@ok.org.nz> wrote in message
news:lCw0c.29480$ws.3283502@news02.tsnz.net...
> 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.

Good idea to bring them home

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:46:27 +0800, budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:36:16 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
><walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.ns.sympatico.ca > wrote:
>
>>in article 4042A152.4921D278@212.com, James Robinson at wascana@212.com
>>wrote on 2/29/04 10:34 PM:
>>
>>> matt weber wrote:
>>>>
>>>> NO WAY IT CAN BE DONE FOR ONLY $50,000
>>>
>>> I bet the hold was filled with cargo. That revenue would offset some, if
>>> not all, of the cost.
>>
>>not on that little notice.
>
>Depends. If it were the plane they werre due to fly out on, the cargo would
>conceivably have already been half-loaded anyway. So "keep loading, boys,
>there's no payload limit on this one".

Definitely!
I've seen flights that were diverted to LAX the night before due to
fog closing out SAN, come down the next morning loaded to the gills
with cargo that would have come down in dribs and drabs during the
day.

Most people don't realise how much cargo aircraft carry. Plus it can
be anything from live animals to bodies and transplant items [often
the latter are actually carried inside the cabin].

Cath