-
31-01-2018, 08:56 AM
#12841
Originally Posted by stoploss
That bit about it’s morally wrong to book something you know is probably a mistake (costs shareholders they say)
Loved the comment below -
Morally wrong to book a super low airfare? REALLY? Because those companies NEVER do anything that's morally wrong. IDIOT.
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
-
31-01-2018, 09:29 AM
#12842
Originally Posted by winner69
That bit about it’s morally wrong to book something you know is probably a mistake (costs shareholders they say)
Loved the comment below -
Morally wrong to book a super low airfare? REALLY? Because those companies NEVER do anything that's morally wrong. IDIOT.
Yeah, crazy comment, actually when AA opened it LAX - AKL flights ..they had some launch flight specials from the US end in that price range... today AIR at 749$ ret return
-
31-01-2018, 09:33 AM
#12843
Originally Posted by Raz
Yeah, crazy comment, actually when AA opened it LAX - AKL flights ..they had some launch flight specials from the US end in that price range... today AIR at 749$ ret return
Agree. There are some "crazy" specials around all the time and people grab them when they see them. Agree with winner. IDIOT
-
31-01-2018, 11:19 AM
#12844
Originally Posted by winner69
That bit about it’s morally wrong to book something you know is probably a mistake (costs shareholders they say)
I see what you did there.
-
31-01-2018, 12:57 PM
#12845
Corporate morals all good ?
I understand the corrosion affected fan blades of the suspect Rolls Royce engines are now on very tight inspection intervals pending their eventual replacement when parts become available. CAA seem to be comfortable with this for reasons best known to them however I also understand that one of the engine failures (which also caused some damage to the aircraft itself) had just come off inspection.
There's no extra risk whatsoever to passenger safety flying these aircraft powered by these engines seeing as they're are under such tight inspection intervals or is there as shown by the recent failure ? This was a one off event and extremely unlikely to happen again, or is it that exceptionally unlikely ?
Surely a very small amount of extra risk to passenger safety is not being accepted for the sake of keeping the airline profitable, or is it ?
Last edited by Beagle; 31-01-2018 at 01:04 PM.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
-
31-01-2018, 01:41 PM
#12846
Originally Posted by Beagle
I understand the corrosion affected fan blades of the suspect Rolls Royce engines are now on very tight inspection intervals pending their eventual replacement when parts become available. CAA seem to be comfortable with this for reasons best known to them however I also understand that one of the engine failures (which also caused some damage to the aircraft itself) had just come off inspection.
There's no extra risk whatsoever to passenger safety flying these aircraft powered by these engines seeing as they're are under such tight inspection intervals or is there as shown by the recent failure ? This was a one off event and extremely unlikely to happen again, or is it that exceptionally unlikely ?
Surely a very small amount of extra risk to passenger safety is not being accepted for the sake of keeping the airline profitable, or is it ?
You seem to have gone from 'this airline can do no wrong and management are just the best' to seeing conspiracy everywhere.
Same management??
-
31-01-2018, 02:11 PM
#12847
Originally Posted by dobby41
You seem to have gone from 'this airline can do no wrong and management are just the best' to seeing conspiracy everywhere.
Same management??
Nothing wrong with people using both eyes and pointing out the good but as well the bad and the ugly - isn't it?
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
-
31-01-2018, 03:34 PM
#12848
Junior Member
Apologies if this has already been posted but a recent report was published by the International Council on Clean Transportation on the 16th Jan 2018, ranking airlines that serve the US across the Pacific in terms of fuel efficiency. The rankings are valid for 2016 and Air NZ ranked 3rd out of 20, with Qantas coming last burning an average of 63% more fuel per passenger-kilometer than Air NZ. This is the same org that discovered the VW diesel cheating scandal, link to report is here: https://www.theicct.org/publications...y-ranking-2016
-
31-01-2018, 03:44 PM
#12849
The halo effect in business is an interesting concept
Chris’s halo has gone from being pretty lack lustre to having a brilliant glow and back again a few times over the years ....and now is in the losing it’s lustre stage.
You can tell how bright Chris’s halo is shining by tracking the AIR share price.
Chris presently not the Chris of old. I think he’s bored and been in the job too long and is looking around for a new job. Profits have peaked and too many things turning to custard. Been lucky with the timing of his appointment so may as well get out near the top. Probably sorry he didn’t take the Fonterra job when headhunted a while ago but got a few million extra for staying at AIR. Chris will be looking overseas I reckon.
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
-
31-01-2018, 03:54 PM
#12850
SHARP DECREASE IN JET FUEL.................will it continue ?
http://airlines.org/argus-us-jet-fuel-index/
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks