"Raffi Balmanoukian" <walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.ns.sympatico.c 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...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.

As a passenger I certainly would expect a cancellation in the circumstances.
I am sure ANZ would have made a considerable effort to assist those affected
by the cancellation of the flight.

John

In message
<BC67F168.21458%walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.n s.sympatico.ca>, Raffi
Balmanoukian <walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.ns.sympatico.c a> writes
>If the airline is going to have the laudable policy of
>accommodating that, they should have enough redundancy at a major gateway
>like LAX so that a 747-load isn't prejudiced as a result.

It looked to me as if they did - weren't all the passengers accommodated
same day on other flights? So the actual cash cost would only have been
any compensation paid for the delay - the exact same number of people
and planes made the trip - just that all the paying passengers were on
planes other than the one with just the affected crew.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> It looked to me as if they did - weren't all the passengers accommodated
> same day on other flights? So the actual cash cost would only have been
> any compensation paid for the delay - the exact same number of people
> and planes made the trip - just that all the paying passengers were on
> planes other than the one with just the affected crew.

Depends on load factor for other flight and if the other daily flight left
after the "cancelled" one.

For the crew, wouldn't it have been better to have *some* passengers which
would have helped take their mind off the trauma ? For instance, take 50% of
the scheduled pax, and add a psychiatrist to talk to crew between the service
and during crew rest periods.

Passengers would have to know about the crew's experience and asked to
volunteer for that flight.

In message <40430DDB.D3F6A49D@nobody.org>, nobody <nobody@nobody.org>
writes
>Depends on [...] if the other daily flight left
>after the "cancelled" one.

It must have done, otherwise it couldn't have mopped up all the
passengers who were travelling that day.
--
Roland Perry

Max Burke <mlvburke@%$%#@.nz> wrote:
> 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...

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.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Miguel Cruz wrote:

> Max Burke <mlvburke@%$%#@.nz> wrote:
>
>>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...
>
>
> 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.

Maybe they didn't want to delay the plane's next scheduled trip from
Auckland.

And if it only is to carry cargo and no pax, it can leave late once they
arrange the additional cargo or transferred the cargo from the flights that
are now carrying the pax.


<texan@texas>; <removethisbit.usa.com> wrote in message
news:jjr540l0gvptdekh3h39hob8gv4vn4tu3n@4ax.com...
> 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

in article 4042f3dd$0$25183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au, John Ewing at
none@needed wrote on 3/1/04 4:27 AM:

>
> "Raffi Balmanoukian" <walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.ns.sympatico.c 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...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.

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 11:50:43 GMT, mnc@admin.u.nu (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

>Max Burke <mlvburke@%$%#@.nz> wrote:
>> 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...
>
>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.
>
>miguel

Fees are expensive period.
To have one aircraft go out of schedule creates havoc in the whole
system i.e. trickledown effect. Even a delay of a few hours starts a
chain reaction.

It's ok to say fly another crew in BUT then they have to have crew
rest before they can fly = another couple of days down the drain.

Don't forget airlines get fined for late takeoffs to boot.

Cath

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:03:18 GMT, Raffi Balmanoukian
<walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.ns.sympatico.c a> wrote:

>in article 4042f3dd$0$25183$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au, John Ewing at
>none@needed wrote on 3/1/04 4:27 AM:
>
>>
>> "Raffi Balmanoukian" <walkabout@TAKEOUTTHETRASHTOREPLY.ns.sympatico.c 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...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