PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Fragrant Harbour (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour-19/)
-   -   Karachi (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/541830-karachi.html)

Jzt 16th Jun 2014 12:12

Karachi
 
Thank Allah,
one less hell hole to visit.
let the sunnis/****e sort it out

crwkunt roll 16th Jun 2014 13:59

And the reason??? COMMERCIAL REASONS!!!! Not ONE mention of security or safety in the article. Not one. I wonder if the attack had not happened, would we still be flying there??? Safety is our priority.....

777300ER 16th Jun 2014 15:32

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...0ce8lxgjpg.jpg

AQIS Boigu 16th Jun 2014 17:42

The ZFW's have always been pretty high...maybe it is safety...

dartman748 16th Jun 2014 19:26

What really irritates me is them stating so adamantly that is was a commercial decision. What rubbish. We know it, they know it, so why lie.... Hmmm, on second thought...

I'mbatman 16th Jun 2014 23:20

Every thing about the culture of this airline promotes lying. From the propaganda they spew regularly, to the CP's telling people that to get time off to call out sick. Its disappointing that an organization such as this promotes such a practice.

Scoreboard 17th Jun 2014 00:46

It was sort of commercial. They were operating double cabin on the bkk-khi due ftls. Then comes the attacks and bombs.....well that scuttles us slipping crew ......so lets just pull the pin.

Yonosoy Marinero 17th Jun 2014 07:34

Oh, come one now. They can't just come up and say they care about their employees...

You wouldn't want the shareholders to think that the revenue potential has been lost just because those pesky employees could be kidnapped or killed?

:suspect:

PanZa-Lead 17th Jun 2014 10:42

Taliban Warning
 
I think you will find the warning given by the Taliban in Pakistan, for all foreign companies in Pakistan to leave immediately or face being targeted, might have something to do with it.

Frogman1484 17th Jun 2014 11:28

I for one will not miss going to KHI....**** trip!:yuk:

FlexibleResponse 17th Jun 2014 12:22

The potential to lose an airliner, crew and passengers is not a good way to run a business.

Some would see it as a commercial decision while others would see it as a security decision...the same outcome in this case...folks have different human values which determine their primary outlook to place decisions primarily on either business or empathy.

Your job is to protect crew and passengers regardless of other outcomes.

Management's job is to make money regardless of other outcomes.

Don't expect the two jobs to be always coincident in decision making...

BusyB 17th Jun 2014 12:27

Wouldn't be anything to do with crew shortage of course:confused:

broadband circuit 17th Jun 2014 12:37

Compared to the 777 & jumbo, the airbus isn't really that short of crew.

twotigers 17th Jun 2014 13:18

Perhaps the insurance company offered to continue the policy with a increase rates. It certainly wasn't any care they had for us, or the passengers. We only do things for money here.

Not People. Not Safety.

Money.

SMOC 17th Jun 2014 13:26


The potential to lose an airliner, crew and passengers is not a good way to run a business.
Particularly when the insurance coverage is bugger all!

Methersgate 17th Jun 2014 14:11

Gentlemen, you work for a company that is managed by a company that told everyone that its ships were no longer calling at Shanghai during the Cultural Revolution because "there wasn't any cargo", i.e. "commercial reasons"

The real reason was that the second officer (the navigating officer on a merchant ship) on a Blue Funnel ship had ignored the Pilot's instructions and, in accordance with SOP, plotted her positions. His notes were discovered when the ship was searched by the Red Guards, and it was six years before his employers, with a lot of help from your employers, were able to retrieve what remained of him him from the gulag.

Please give your employers some credit for knowing what to say and do in such situations; they have been at it since 1863..

BusyB 17th Jun 2014 14:59

You mean selling Opium. Not allowed to do that and many other profitable things these days.:}

Methersgate 17th Jun 2014 15:17

No, I do not!

The people who ran foreign mud into China were the Princely Hong, once associated with BOAC.

You work for the Great and Ancient Hong: Cotton, yes, tea, yes, and both of them on a huge scale now, but never, ever, opium or any other illicit substances, neither grown, nor traded, nor carried.

BusyB 17th Jun 2014 15:27

OK, I'll retract that but I think it was wood oil and salt originally.:ok:

Methersgate 17th Jun 2014 15:35

Right on the wood oil, but I think it may have been soya bean cake, not salt. :ok:

Actually, if you have an idle moment, "John Swire, the Senior" is a good book and could serve as a handbook on how to set up and run any transport business, even today...

sample quotes:

"I write as I speak: to the point."

"The immediate crisis over, John Swire went back to his favourite pastime; drawing up his competitors' balance sheets."

He was originally a cotton merchant; he hitched a lift to Shanghai, in 1867, on one of Alfred Holt's revolutionary compound expansion steamers because he thought that the shortage of cotton due to the Union blockade of the Confederacy might be made up by importing from China. He found that he was wrong about that, but wrote to Holt saying his Shanghai agents were useless and he could do a better job: he was appointed and he did. He founded the China Navigation Company, with Holt as a shareholder, "for the carriage of passengers, troops, baggage mails and goods by land, sea and AIR" (!) in 1872.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:44.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.