• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
12:08AM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesAir NZ loses case over flight attendant's Facebook

Back to Squawk list

Air NZ loses case over flight attendant's Facebook

Submitted
 
An Air New Zealand flight attendant forced to let her bosses examine her Facebook pages so they could check what she was up to on sick leave has won a battle over her former employers. (www.smh.com.au) More...

VOZ102 Ambassador
News junkieMaxed OutTrusted friendHonor RollAmateur PhotographerPromoterAnnouncerAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


zknzw1nz747b
andrew carter 1
Sorry for the mistakes the aircraft was distroyed on landing DC8-52. The 777B & A320 are flying on half there fuel loads and lower altitudes to get there. Why?? These aircraft are long range jets and very fuel efficient sooner or later they will have another plane go down
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
Something strange here over one day. As for the history lesson irrelevant in the circumstances of the current organisation, human resources practices and company culture. Investigating aircraft accidents for five years a whole can of worms is opened up needing an enormous amount of facts, analysis and impartiality. There is always two sides of the story and I have not studied the privacy act in detail therefor cannot comment on use. I assume (That's a big assume) Facebook is public information therefor usable?
zknzw1nz747b
andrew carter 1
I am not surprised how the air line takes to a spy glass yet they have a bad reputation since the beginning of 1965 when the changed there name from TEAL (TASMAN EMPIRE AIRWAYS) to AIR NEW ZEALAND. I worked for the at the jet base in Mangere east Auckland which back then was called Mangere East international airport. Then it was changed to Auckland International airport after Air New Zealand purchased the DC8-52 AIRCRAFT. I have seen what the kiwi airline is capable of doing wrong but won't own up to its faults. Back in 1966 when they first purchased three of eight DC8-52 aircraft on had crashed on a training flight ZK-NZB both the pilots died the aircraft was distressed on the runway lucky no passengers aboard. Yet the airline blamed the pilots for poor judgement. In fact it was found not to be pilot error but the front nose gear was not down properly and the faulty instrument panels were all showing green gears down. Then in 1979 Air New Zealand crashed there highly sophisticated the most advanced jet back in this era a DC10-30 ZK-NZP into a mountain smashing it to pieces on MT EREBUS in the Antarctica killing al there crew and passengers and a $60 million dollar flying machine. They blame every thing on anyone they could to cover it up. MC McDonnell Douglas gave them the finger as the aircraft maker wasn't at fault as the aircraft was very young only five years old and well maintained. They try to blame the flight operations staff they even went to there homes with the police to have them searched for documents missing on what was feed into the aircraft's flight plan that day. It was later discovered they shredded the evidence so they wouldn't have a law suite against them They finally admitted owning up to the accident thirty two years later. Now today flight attendants have found who have complained about the 777B & A320 jets are flying lower altitudes and have the fuel volume to get to there destinations. It strikes me how they win awards for service but treat there employees like crap.
zknzw1nz747b
andrew carter 1
This is relevant to this particular topic being an employee for the thirty five years I do know for a fact yes there are two sides to the story but who do you believe. Well the evidence and history is out there. I do know if this airline wants to probe into employee's privacy they do it without the media playing a Big part of it. Many who I knew over the years have being investigated or accused of finding out things of the past about Air New Zealand. I can say they were good to me I found nothing wrong with the Management or a few of the CEO'S that have long gone I meet personally. I do believe that employee's have there rights of privacy and this should not concern the employer unless the employee has committed something SO BIG and there guilty of it or know it. Back in 1979 before the DC10-30 incident I remember a memo going out to all flight attendants stating if you are being put on these 11 hour sight seeing flights you cannot for any reason turn them down. You must do this flight sector or face disciplinary action in your contract. That is breaking the rules of the contract and yet those crew members were forced to take that flight that day like it's signing your own DEATH WARRANT but when staff probe into the company they seem to know when your getting into there systems? Over all never trust Facebook or it's affiliated sites thats how companies get at you. I feel sorry for this flight attendant if the person is one or in the company some where get leagal advice take them on in court watch what happens they run under the bed for cover if they know there wrong
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
As I said something strange over one day. I do agree about the previous history lesson over the Erebus issue. It was not bright to send a commercial airliner to the Antarctic with 257 people. A good thing the Mike Pero memorial flight did not go ahead. It is easy in hindsight though to judge prior contract issues however without being privy to the current contract, flight scheduling, planning and having crew available is not an easy job. We will only see what the outcome brings
BrettE
Brett Easton 1
I can't believe this airline, to think they have the right to demand that their employees supply them with your bank details and read your personal information on facebook is totally wrong.
I hope she sues their ass off
kmischewski
Never let the facts get in the way of a good old whinge. I've only read the SMH article. It reported that the ERA supported the company's accessing Facebook. The ERA decision was that in this instance the dismissal was not what a fair and reasonable employer would have done despite the fact that they were somewhat scathing of the employees behaviour.

The crash of NZB. My recollection is that the training captain accidentally pulled the thrust reverser when simulating an angine failure on short final. Nothing about the nose gear failing to extend and lock in my recollection.

The crash of NZP in the antarctic. A truly unfortunate accident. My observation was that these flights were well managed and highly sought after trips. There have been many aviation disasters over the years when we get too complacent with the technology. Anyone recall KAL007 or just this year Asiana flight 214 at San Francisco. Erebus should never have happened, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to call sending a commercial airliner to the antarctic not too bright. Qantas were also operating such flights back then and have since restarted them. Flights out of Christchurch to the antarctic were routine trips back then. Albeit mostly C130's operated by the US Navy.

Anyway, I am very proud of my years in the 70's with Air New Zealand. For me they were a great employer and the equal of any airline in their operations, engineering, training and safety.
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
Getting away from the employee thing air force aircraft are equipped accordingly. The normal POB is 20 dressed accordingly for artic conditions. If the aircraft develops problems or there is a survivable crash - Enough rescue craft/helicopters are there to assist and they can be comfortably accommodated until a replacement aircraft arrives. A commercial airliner can not land, 257 people if they can survive in their light clothing can not be rescued and can not be accommodated in any of the Antarctic facilities, NZ or otherwise. The commercial airliner can not deploy flaps/slats etc. as they can be frozen in place and rendered useless.

The flight path is nowhere near shipping lanes or other regular flight paths and a water landing is near unsurvivable, especially a DC10 of the period. Quite frankly not brilliant aside from being a good marketing tool. NZ-NZP ironically was to be the last Antarctic trip as the high fuel costs at the time were making the trips to costly. I won't get into the depth of the accident as it would require a huge essay, as is the other two accidents under the TEAL/ANZ banner. As for technology issues I was introduced into this video recently well worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk

Mentioned previously, the artic trips from memory talking with my late father in law the "expectation", what is now called company culture was flight planning/crew scheduling was adhered to strictly aside from a death in the immediate family or inability to carry out duties, and yes hence the Antarctic crew scheduling was beyond a reasonable aviation safety factor.
ctiley
Andrew, the proper possessive word is 'their' not there - that word is describing a place.