Yeah, that wouldn't cause a major family rift or anything...
Printable View
I suspect they'll want yet another pool for Air NZ. It'll probably be part of the next coalition deal, if NZ First makes the grade. Mind you, where is Shane's slush fund going to come from now that the economy has tanked? Maybe he'll have to check behind the couch for loose change (subsequently steralised of course)
Peter's will want uneconomic sectors to be serviced, potentially with good frequency. This means that the taxpayer will be continually milked, and if a GFC or another even strikes again, we'll see a similar milking. So are we going to be better off under public ownership or a command & control based system where the government dictates to Air NZ? I don't think the answer is clear cut. But the real winner of this will be Winston, who will be hailed as a hero.
Lets have a look at the facts.
1. There are a large number of planes sitting around, nobody can dispute this.
2. Demand is incredibly low, (also not in dispute)
3. Distance guidelines are 2 metre's not 43 cm's (which is the distance you are from someone in the isle seat if you're in the window seat of an A320 with nobody in the middle seat).
What would they have to do to at least pretend they are trying to comply ?
a) Only the window seat on each side of the plane is used.
b) Every second row only.
So with 30, (from memory) rows of seats on an A320 only 15 rows would be used and only 2 people in each seated in window seats. = 30 passengers maximum.
That would get you at least 78 cm x 2 = 156 cm's from anyone else on board which seems far more reasonable than 43 cm's.
Doing this you will get 2 people sitting in the space normally 12 people would sit in and that's just 16.67% loading.
Why is this a problem ? Obviously this isn't a commercial money maker but for a very short period of time when there's a huge number of aircraft sitting around idle and they're mainly running a skeleton domestic schedule the only reason this isn't done, lets just be honest about it, is financial.
So its okay for AIR to play Russian roulette with people's health because its financially expedient to do so and they're losing so much money already ? Does anyone else think this is NOT OKAY ? Lots of other business's are losing lots of money too, so why are they not allowed to break the rules then ?, (because they're not majority Govt owned ?).
This is a seriously stuffed-up situation, (was going to use an f word there but stuffed will do)
The above is why I won't fly anywhere in the foreseeable future. Maybe if we get 20 days in a row with no new cases I might reconsider. I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon so as far as I am concerned car travel has never looked more attractive.
I'm with you and think its not OK. But plenty of other people seem to think this flouting of the law is ok because "we are all in this together you know". Crazy that AIR are blatantly allowed to break the law an no one bats an eyelid, yet when others break the law all hell breaks loose.
Maybe the government owned assets are subject to alternative laws?
Personally, I don't think that AIR is flouting the rules. The COVID NZ website says "Physical distancing of two metres outside home (including on public transport), or one metre in controlled environments like schools and workplaces."
Although a plane is probably a form of public transport, but it is also a controlled environment where they know exactly who you are sitting near. If someone on the plane were to be infected, the MOH could find you. On a bus or train that is much less likely. I guess the problem with all these rules are at the boundaries.
Part of the point of these restrictions is to slow the spread, but another important part is the contact tracing. If you can trace people you have had contact with then why not get those people closer together.
Obviously, the general appetite for these restrictions is going to fade with time. It's hard to keep all this up when there are basically no new cases in the country.
OK, so reporting them might be the last resort but at the very least I would have made it absolutely clear that I was not happy about their decision. I would have also spoken to the cop and given him/her a reality check. He/she was putting his colleagues at risk, not to mention members of the public.
Fortunately my family have more brains. My granddaughter turned 10 the other day. She had an amazing birthday within the family bubble in spite of nobody being able to buy her gifts for the day. It was also a very valuable life lesson for her and her siblings.
Good point raised by mikybycriky re the clearly spelt out Govt 2 meter rule applying to uncontrolled environments & 1 meter (or even less ) distancing rule applying to controlled spaces like work places, medical centres or schools.
Although AIR obviously categorised as transport, it's a highly controlled environment.
Without wanting to get too pedantic & knowing this is not going to necessarily appease those furious with AIR's apparent breach of the distancing guidelines, but the distance between the heads of 2 people seated in a window seat and an aisle seat is actually 1 metre allowing for arm rests, and not the .43 cm being posted here.
That may make some feel a little more reassured.
The middle Airbus seats for domestic are 48.6 cm wide & the window & aisle seats 46.4 cm wide.
What if someone walks up or down the aisle to the toilet , or you have an infected crew member ( with no symptons) walking up and down multiple times, multiple flights .... that's where it gets real .
.......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiPPl8o3znQ