Air NZ pilot refuses to take off
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air NZ pilot refuses to take off
TVNZ
Air NZ pilot refuses to take off
By OSKAR ALLEY
01 September 2004
More than 100 Air New Zealand passengers were delayed on the tarmac for almost an hour when a pilot refused to take off - because two children were not wearing shoes.
Some passengers complained to cabin staff about the delay on a flight from Christchurch to Wellington on Monday afternoon. The airline has defended the decision not to fly, maintaining that its customers expect a "reasonable standard of dress" and that children without shoes risk possible injury.
The children were believed to be aged about 2 and 4.
Passenger Terry Bach was furious at the delay on flight 454, which was supposed to land at Wellington at 5pm but arrived just before 6pm.
Mr Bach was giving a lecture at Tawa College that evening and arrived more than 30 minutes late.
The 104 passengers could not believe their ears when the pilot used the intercom to tell them the reason for the delay was that the children were not wearing shoes, he said.
"There were a number of people who were incensed and went up and talked to cabin staff. I was sitting right behind the poor family.
"Others were sitting there quietly fuming . . ."
The plane sat on the tarmac as staff unsuccessfully looked in luggage compartments for the family's bags, Mr Bach said.
The children's parents were mortified at causing the delay.
"They looked quite harassed.
"It wasn't their fault. They had nothing on paper to say, `Your child shall have shoes when they board this aircraft'."
The captain eventually agreed to take off when the children put on the socks they had with them, he said.
"I think it's pathetic. They're saying kids should be wearing shoes, when there's other people virtually in bare feet, wearing jandals."
Air New Zealand spokesman Mike Tod confirmed last night that the plane was scheduled to depart at 4.15pm but took off at 4.53pm. He was unable to contact the pilot yesterday to find out what caused the delay, but confirmed an informal dress code and passenger safety were relevant issues.
"In our view, customers expect a reasonable standard of dress, which extends to footwear, when they are travelling on board our aircraft."
Young children had to wear shoes to protect them from "potential injuries", including from the drinks trolley and other passengers' bags.
==========================================
Air NZ pilot refuses to take off
By OSKAR ALLEY
01 September 2004
More than 100 Air New Zealand passengers were delayed on the tarmac for almost an hour when a pilot refused to take off - because two children were not wearing shoes.
Some passengers complained to cabin staff about the delay on a flight from Christchurch to Wellington on Monday afternoon. The airline has defended the decision not to fly, maintaining that its customers expect a "reasonable standard of dress" and that children without shoes risk possible injury.
The children were believed to be aged about 2 and 4.
Passenger Terry Bach was furious at the delay on flight 454, which was supposed to land at Wellington at 5pm but arrived just before 6pm.
Mr Bach was giving a lecture at Tawa College that evening and arrived more than 30 minutes late.
The 104 passengers could not believe their ears when the pilot used the intercom to tell them the reason for the delay was that the children were not wearing shoes, he said.
"There were a number of people who were incensed and went up and talked to cabin staff. I was sitting right behind the poor family.
"Others were sitting there quietly fuming . . ."
The plane sat on the tarmac as staff unsuccessfully looked in luggage compartments for the family's bags, Mr Bach said.
The children's parents were mortified at causing the delay.
"They looked quite harassed.
"It wasn't their fault. They had nothing on paper to say, `Your child shall have shoes when they board this aircraft'."
The captain eventually agreed to take off when the children put on the socks they had with them, he said.
"I think it's pathetic. They're saying kids should be wearing shoes, when there's other people virtually in bare feet, wearing jandals."
Air New Zealand spokesman Mike Tod confirmed last night that the plane was scheduled to depart at 4.15pm but took off at 4.53pm. He was unable to contact the pilot yesterday to find out what caused the delay, but confirmed an informal dress code and passenger safety were relevant issues.
"In our view, customers expect a reasonable standard of dress, which extends to footwear, when they are travelling on board our aircraft."
Young children had to wear shoes to protect them from "potential injuries", including from the drinks trolley and other passengers' bags.
==========================================
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr Bach arrived at 6pm instead of 5 pm and was 30 minutes late for his lecture.
What sort of tosser would catch an international flight and allow 30 minutes from scheduled arrival time to being wherever he had to be to give a lecture. This guy must be the original Nutty Professor.
As for shoes, they protect the passenger in the event of an evacuation.
Everyone's a critic. Who cares?
What sort of tosser would catch an international flight and allow 30 minutes from scheduled arrival time to being wherever he had to be to give a lecture. This guy must be the original Nutty Professor.
As for shoes, they protect the passenger in the event of an evacuation.
Everyone's a critic. Who cares?
Bottums Up
MoFo
Christchurch to Wellington would be a domestic flight wouldn't it? Or is it a leg of an international service?
Agree with EPIRB & Plas Teek, the captain/airline would be crucified if the little toseys were hurt scrambling over twisted aluminium.
Christchurch to Wellington would be a domestic flight wouldn't it? Or is it a leg of an international service?
Agree with EPIRB & Plas Teek, the captain/airline would be crucified if the little toseys were hurt scrambling over twisted aluminium.
Hmmm…that Captain does seem to be a little bit tough picking on toddlers.
If he is concerned about standards of dress and wants to join the fashion-police, he would seem to be ideally suited for management.
If he is concerned about safety, then I wonder how he handles passengers wearing mini-skirts, nylons, stiletto heels or G-string underwear!
If he is concerned about standards of dress and wants to join the fashion-police, he would seem to be ideally suited for management.
If he is concerned about safety, then I wonder how he handles passengers wearing mini-skirts, nylons, stiletto heels or G-string underwear!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Das Chalet
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been cold over there in the land of the long white cloud lately, hasn't it?
Gotta feel for the toddlers. Don't think I'd be letting my kids get around like that at the moment. Good on yer, Captain. If only to get the kids feet warm again.
Gotta feel for the toddlers. Don't think I'd be letting my kids get around like that at the moment. Good on yer, Captain. If only to get the kids feet warm again.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually reckon the action was way over the top. Aren't women with high heel shoes told to take them off if they have to go down a slide? So whats the difference then?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: posts: 666
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see the problem... all that hair on their little Hobbit feet would protect them. They're used to running around barefoot in the mountains with the Orcs (who are easily confused with their horror PM 
).
Jandals..... Is that like a sandal in the rest of the world??? Jandals......
The point is, yeah some professionals around here think the shoes are SUCH a safety necessity... So the guy's feet are saved while he gets 60% burns to the rest of his body due to wearing shorts and a t-shirt. No, not in winter but in summer.
You're right clod-cutter, "My god people are stupid".....
This is a non-event except for the outrage it sparked right here...
.
).Jandals..... Is that like a sandal in the rest of the world??? Jandals......
The point is, yeah some professionals around here think the shoes are SUCH a safety necessity... So the guy's feet are saved while he gets 60% burns to the rest of his body due to wearing shorts and a t-shirt.
No, not in winter but in summer.You're right clod-cutter, "My god people are stupid".....
This is a non-event except for the outrage it sparked right here...
.
Last edited by air-hag; 1st Sep 2004 at 12:53.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haggy,
Jandals are thongs (no, the FOOTWARE variety, not the up ya arse undies).
OK, I don't get it. The kids had no shoes, and the bags couldn't be found in the hold, yet the kids had socks?
Jandals are thongs (no, the FOOTWARE variety, not the up ya arse undies).
OK, I don't get it. The kids had no shoes, and the bags couldn't be found in the hold, yet the kids had socks?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire Him!
What a load of bullsh|t! When a 2 year old and a 4 year old not wearing shoes becomes reason enough to delay a revenue flight, then you must be suffering from good old Kiwi Severe Lack of Perspective Syndrome!
All the talk about injuring their feet is an even bigger dog's bollocks. On a flight from Christchurch to Wellington they've hardly got time to sh|t in their pants let alone get up and run around. And if the bloody thing crashes they're supposed to take off their shoes anyway.
Lastly, why the hell did the captain finally compromise his position by taking off with those two kids without shoes on? After he'd p|ssed everyone off, it would appear that he finally lowered his standards? Any way you look at it: That man should be fired!
All the talk about injuring their feet is an even bigger dog's bollocks. On a flight from Christchurch to Wellington they've hardly got time to sh|t in their pants let alone get up and run around. And if the bloody thing crashes they're supposed to take off their shoes anyway.
Lastly, why the hell did the captain finally compromise his position by taking off with those two kids without shoes on? After he'd p|ssed everyone off, it would appear that he finally lowered his standards? Any way you look at it: That man should be fired!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone else recall that long, long, ago, the safety blurb to passengers for preparing for a crash included the instruction to "remove shoes". I often wondered how that was supposed to help survival. 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: posts: 666
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12.69 you one hell of an angry man.... chill brother. what's ya problem? Do you hate Hobbits or something?
well i guess i can understand that.
Don't know how much perspective it is possible to have when you're only about 3ft tall.
what's ya problem? Do you hate Hobbits or something? well i guess i can understand that.
Don't know how much perspective it is possible to have when you're only about 3ft tall.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Das Chalet
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wearing shoes is mandatory at QF too, 126.9. And there are no instructions to take them off in an emergency, other than high heels. Normal shoes will not damage the canvas on a slide or raft, whereas high heels may.
Your argument holds no water, as it were. The skipper did the right thing. I stull full sirry fur thu kuds.
Your argument holds no water, as it were. The skipper did the right thing. I stull full sirry fur thu kuds.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what you get when you hire university type pilots - no common sense. Wearing shoes is a dress code issue not a safety issue. With lower airfares you should expect the lower classes to turn up looking like a dogs breakfast.
Safety - Think of all those passengers speeding across town late for their meetings.
Safety - Think of all those passengers speeding across town late for their meetings.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hag,
WOULD YOU STOP THAT PLEASE!!!
You just made me spit bloody coffee on my keyboard and monitor(HONESTLY!) laughing.
Now, if I was like a lot of people these days, I'd sue you for not issueing a warning of impending laughter...
WOULD YOU STOP THAT PLEASE!!!
You just made me spit bloody coffee on my keyboard and monitor(HONESTLY!) laughing.
Now, if I was like a lot of people these days, I'd sue you for not issueing a warning of impending laughter...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would suggest the PIC has supported a reasonable request from the Purser/ISD/Cabin Manager to deal with this....in Air NZ this is normal practice in such circumstances. Interesting how the advent of LCC's has now made this sort of decision/request seem unreasonable.
Maybe the Pilots & Crew should also fly Bare-foot, applying some of the Logic in these post's, one would assume it's safer!!
PS... Isnt a Thong something the Girls wear to the beach? (much like a G-string!) I didnt realise in Oz you wear them on your feet? or do they mean, around the ankles!!!!!
Maybe the Pilots & Crew should also fly Bare-foot, applying some of the Logic in these post's, one would assume it's safer!!
PS... Isnt a Thong something the Girls wear to the beach? (much like a G-string!) I didnt realise in Oz you wear them on your feet? or do they mean, around the ankles!!!!!