To the Air New Zealand Group Executive
MR ROB FYFE
Chief Executive Officer
MR NORM THOMPSON
Deputy Chief Executive Officer
MR ROB MCDONALD
Chief Financial Officer & Group General Manager Corporate
MR ED SIMS
Group General Manager International Airline
MR BRUCE PARTON
Group General Manager Shorthaul Airlines
MS VANESSA STODDART
Group General Manager People
CAPTAIN DAVID MORGAN
General Manager, Airline Operations and Safety
MR MIKE TOD
General Manager Marketing and Communications
MR STEPHEN JONES
General Manager – Strategy
Sirs/Madam:
I recently had the first time pleasure of visiting New Zealand from the United States, and also had the pleasure of flying Air New Zealand to get there.
From the ticketing process to my interactions with your flight crew, to the in-flight food and entertainment, to disembarking, my experience with your organization was nothing short of impressive. It is clear that Air New Zealand is run professionally from the top down, and that showed in every aspect of my journey with you.
I think that it makes it all the more important then, to write and tell you why it is highly unlikely that I will ever fly with Air New Zealand again.
Not too long after I had purchased tickets for the trip, I was made aware that Air New Zealand has a policy of disallowing unaccompanied children to be seated next to male customers, as though males, as an identified group, carry with them an increased risk of child molestation and/or other aberrant behavior.
Quite frankly, I find this type of policy to be offensive and shockingly sexist, and it prompted me to ask myself why I would ever again patronize a business that sees me personally, purely based on my sex, as a potential threat to young children.
And I am, in part, writing to ask you that very question.
While I understand the development of policies and procedures to protect the well being of unescorted children, as your competition Qantas does by segregating them from all unfamiliar adults, the policy you have in place targeting males is clearly discriminatory.
As I am sure you are aware, British Airways was involved in recent litigation over a similar policy and was compelled, quite reasonably so, to change that policy so that it did not discriminate on the basis of sex.
That being said, however, it is not your legal vulnerabilities or even my personal offense to being regarded as a potential child molester that causes me the most concern. It is, quite frankly, what message your policy sends to the children it was supposedly designed to protect. You are teaching those children that men, as a class, are potentially dangerous, and that women, as a class, are to be trusted without scrutiny.
Neither message is truthful, informed, or in the interest of those children.
And given that the vast majority of men do not molest or otherwise harm children, and that there is a small percentage of women who do, your policy is based on a completely false set of beliefs.
You are breeding unnecessary fear on one hand, and thoughtless vulnerability on the other. It is the quite expectable and understandable outcome of any policy based on such unabashed bigotry.
I could not help but notice that the Air New Zealand Executive Group, the group that is the addressee of this missive, is comprised of eight men and one woman. So according to your own policy, it would appear that your Group General Manager Vanessa Stoddart is the only one of you that would be deemed safe for contact with children.
Your policy also raises questions about male flight crew members, including your pilots. If the four flights I traveled on were any indication, the great majority of those pilots are male.
So please allow me to ask, who is protecting the children from your male employees? Or do you have some sort of testing instrument to weed out practicing pedophiles?
I found your country to be a fantastic place to take vacation, and will undoubtedly be returning over the years to come. But I will be doing so by taking my business to airlines whose standard operating procedure does not involve the assumption that I am suspect around children, and who will not be teaching the children on their planes that I am to be viewed as a potential threat, simply because I am male.
I cannot abide by that type of child abuse, even if under the guise of protecting them.
I encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to learn from the examples of Qantas and British Airways, and to abandon this unfortunate and ill conceived policy.
Kind regards,
Paul Elam
Houston, Texas
Tags: Air New Zealand, Child Abuse, Miscellaneous, Paul Elam, Sexism
440 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
db917:
Roderick1268:
Kimski:
FarmCat:
Unfortunately, Paul, this airline was incorporated in 1940. Incorporation is anti-free market, as it makes a “body” out of a group of individuals who decide collectively that they would like to get rich without the added responsibility of actually owning that which makes them rich. None of the individuals you addressed your letter to is ultimately responsible for anything the corporation does, as it now exists legally separate from each of their chauvinist attitudes. But perhaps even individuals within a corporation still have ears, and perhaps they can be made to learn. Sadly, they don’t seem to want to learn about the free market. We can only hope that your one small step for man is widely read, resulting in a giant leap for man- and boykind.
Pay attention to Paul’s post, corporate chauvinists. I am a man; therefore, I am not a child molester.
I may be overreaching some boundaries here and if I am just censor this post as necessary, but here goes…
The first thing that comes to mind is a saying I heard that goes something like this.
“Evil men have evil thoughts” Or something like that. You know the “takes one to know one” kind of idea?
So with that out there… where did I miss it? Where and when did the urge to hate males so violently come to be so popular as to accuse or assume all men are cut from the pedophile cloth, hence child molesters?
Do I believe all homosexuals to be pedophiles? The answer is, I’m not sure. I don’t bother spending much time exploring it. Here’s what I do know based on my experiences coming up as a kid into manhood.
As kids in the town I grew up in we all seemed to know who the homosexuals were. And sure enough it turns out the biggest majority were the priest and the scout leaders not to mention the guy that owned the ice cream store ..go figure. And if given an opportunity they would proposition you. We all laughed about it. yeah I know, I know..but PC was not a major influence then.
Kids would say no and yell some obscenity and go home and tell the families and a family member, usually the dad, but not always might go have a talk with this individual. I personally never wanted to know the outcome of those conversations but from what relayed to me they were usually pretty ugly. And no I’m not promoting gay bashing. I’m simply passing on some small town history.
Now the old women and some not so young also made their prospective propositions. And by the single factor of count alone the women were far more likely to manipulate a “strapping young ladd” into a vulnerable position to where he could be taken advantage of. Elementary school was not so much a problem as I recall, but once into Jr. High and most definitely in high school it became part of the daily planning routine as to who to avoid and how to avoid them. Most young men I know were on the same page at the time. Going around door to door looking for odd jobs would certainly yield the attention of at least a couple of horny housewives. But I never saw a bisexual or gay husband proposition me or anyone I knew while looking for extra cash. Not to mention the hotter it was and the less you wore the better the “tip” from these women. Not to mention the invitations to come talk during the day or to take out-of-town trips to help them move a rocking chair or some item. When I went into the Navy I only saw one homosexual that I know of and he was not there long. But put on your dress blues and hitchhike out of the gate and it was good chance some ‘ol girl would be inviting you in for “liberty” within a couple of hours. And If it was the time of the year for dress whites ..well…it was a sure bet that some woman would blow your sails up you. And maybe just maybe some guy who was a drag queen may come along with that crazy look they get in their eye, but body language alone usually stopped that encounter before it began.
Then as a young man in the work force that was quickly being overcome by women bosses and supervisors, with penalties if one did not comply. That was where I learned about peanut butter blow jobs.
So I don’t know..where was it when all these men starting hitting on boys…where did I miss it? Or did I? Is it another one of those things where there is more profit in hating than in telling the truth?
I found this bit particularly compelling:
“I could not help but notice that the Air New Zealand Executive Group, the group that is the addressee of this missive, is comprised of eight men and one woman. So according to your own policy, it would appear that your Group General Manager Vanessa Stoddart is the only one of you that would be deemed safe for contact with children. ”
Bravo, Paul.
Corporations can be hurt {same as everyone else} in their pocketbooks by being sued; especially if the ensuing lawsuit can be qualified for class action status. This will have the effect of not only dragging the owners of the offending corporation into the public spotlight but will effect their earnings from said entity as well.
Nicely done.
What disturbs me and strikes me as absurd is how Paul will undoubtedly be labeled as “misogynist” because he had the courage to point out a sexist policy of which I personally consider a hate crime. If the policy were altered to state that any African American or Latino were strictly prohibited from being seated near unaccompanied children, the world would be aghast and in shock. At what point in history did we redefine “sexism” to mean the determent of females exclusively, and any man who is being discriminated against is a misogynist for pointing it out? I honestly do not believe that the majority of the population who use the word “misogynist” even know what it is defined as, much less the implications and theories behind it. For example, I mentioned to a fellow student about a teacher concerning his sexism towards men in his differential equations course, and I was promptly branded as a misogynist for pointing out that the girls in the same class understood less of the material and yet received higher grades. When I questioned how the desire for equal treatment with the distribution of grades to reflect how much of a material a person has grasped is equivalent to hating women, my accuser immediately tried to change the subject. I later learned he took a woman’s study course which instructed him that any man who speaks ill of any subset or individual women is labeled as such. Just as racism has come to exclusively mean the detriment of black people, sexism is exclusively against women. I would not be surprised in the least if Paul were to receive a response detailing that the policy currently in place was not sexist in that it did not apply to women, as obtuse as this may sound. The redefinition of the word “sexist” in Western societies to suit false feminist ideology is an abomination and a wholly disgusting feature of our everyday lives.
Excellent and well said.
TDOM
@B. R. Merrick
You are correct that people opt to incorporate to capitalize on the protection of limited liability unlike a sole proprietorship or a partnership that does not afford that kind of protection. Notice the word “limited.” It is NOT absolute. There are many things you can do to create a “corporate veil” for added protection. However, the corporation is subject to many facets of corporate law and criminal law. Moreover, the directors are PERSONALLY liable for the operation of the corporation. They in essence are the executors/directors with responsibilities thereto.
Many people are lulled into sitting on a board of a corporation NOT knowing the liability aspect if that corporation were to be sued. If you are a director you better be judgement proof, have liability insurance or it could cost you everything, for corporation’s liabilities are not often penny-anti matters. If there is criminality issues, then you better have lots of money for good lawyers, who may not be successful to help you out of being incarcerated!
Ask Conrad Black about liability. A director/owner has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder(s) and to the activities of the corporation.
GlennSacks and Fathers & Families did a great job putting pressure on British Airways who had a similar discriminatory policy targeting men. http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=9712 They eventually heeded the advice and pressure of well minded individuals who protested this unacceptable bigotry.
I have contacted my friend Robert Franklin at Fathers & Families who I am sure will take steps to address this issue as we did British Airways with great success.
I am confident that the scathing letter sent to the executives will have a big impact and they will pay attention. I suggest we all write similar letters expressing our outrage for a policy that is so grossly ill conceived.
Great job Paul!
Just edit this to change Quantas to Qantas. It’s a nicely written letter spoiled by this error.
Calling Paul a misogynist is like urinating on the rock of Gibraltar, Sure, you’re showing contempt for the rock, but that rock isn’t really affected by it and will still be standing tall long after you’ve disappeared.
Paul.
competition Quantas does
competition Qantas does
Oh yes, I remember it well… The middle-aged housewife with the gravity-defying breasts and leaky nipples whose grass I used to cut when I was fourteen and who asked me to help her out with things her husband could no longer do after his “accident.” The mother and bartender with a two-four of Labatt’s Blue on the seat next to her in her parked car waiting for me outside the restaurant where I was an eighteen-year-old waiter and explanations that she wasn’t being “bad.” The women I had to beat off with a stick when I was nineteen with a shoulder-length mane of thick, chestnut-colored hair. None of these women were trying to groom me for sexual servitude. Oh no. Never. Not women.
Not to mention barking up the wrong tree…
Egads, a typo on Qantas. Grrr. Fixed!
@Attila L. Vinczer
Good points, I’d just add that that the liability is limited for investors, not directors. You can buy shares in a limited company, such as Air New Zealand, Enron or BP and all you can lose is your invested capital. However, directors and company officials can be held responsible for their actions,
That Crap from Air NZ and others show how they perceive men as a soft target. We are expected to make yet another sacrifice for the good of society. I for one don’t want to sacrifice my dignity and freedom to appease misandrists.
Bloody good letter Paul
An excellent letter Paul. Thank you.
I often spell Qantas incorrectly. I must ask the Aussies why there isn’t a ‘u’ after the ‘Q’ one day.
If more men avoided the products and services of companies that discriminate against males we’d begin to have more of an impact against misandry. That was my motivation when I constructed the soMENi Bigoted Airlines – Airline Discrimination Table:
http://www.vcclan.org/forums/view.php?pg=airline_discrimination_table
Please guys, if some of you take the time to quickly survey airlines in your own part of the World and provide me with the results I’ll add those details to the table. There’s a link on the left hand side of the soMENi Bigoted Airlines page with further instructions.
I’m hoping that Paul’s letter provides a positive result from Air New Zealand. If not, Qantas manage to provide an awesome service that is free of misandry.
@Wayne
Queensland And Northern Territory Ariel Service
I’ve noticed the media is referring to the miners trapped in the NZ coal mine as Men. Maybe the men’s movement is getting some traction.
lets hope those brave men get out alive. I know there are a lot of men waiting to go in and rescue them.
Thanks so much Paul for taking the time to address NZ airways about such a bias policy! I have been writing letters of protest against misandry for a while now (usually because of sexist advertising) but to no avail, I usually just get brushed off. However the more we do this the faster our movement will take off.
@ John
Your 100% correct I was sexually harrassed by several woman between the age of 14 and 20 but never by any man. I remember my first job after I left school when 1 woman in particular just wouldn’t take no for an answer, and would try and feel me up while at work! I was only 17.
Oops! I can’t spell Aerial
Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services
Most child-murders are committed by mothers. No mother should be allowed to sit beside her child on a plane, lest she murder that child. In fact, any available man should be seated between the mother and child to protect that child.
just playing devil’s advocate
but could it be that most child abusers/murderers are mothers statistic is because we’re giving mothers custody of our children?
and there are more of them due to larger numbers?
Where does that stat come from?
I like playing devils advocate, and I think there may be something to your questions, but I also have to point out that it is hardly devil’s advocacy for people, by knee jerk, to seek some way to rationalize women’s violence, whereas with men we never seek the same kind of understanding.
And I would like to add one more question into the mix. Could the increased numbers of child killing women be in part because we enable them?
Well Said Paul. So after British Airways gets sued for this, other airlines continue the sexism. I hope we have a few wealthy men supporting our cause that are up for some flights followed by lawsuits, then we could really set some precedents!
Well written Paul. You could add that if they intend to stick to their discriminatory policy under the guise of ‘keeping children safe’, they might like to include in the policy that children not be seated next to people with coloured skin.
It’s all the same shite, just dressed up a different way.
Good letter Paul.
Be assured that it won’t be any news to them. They’re receiving a steady stream of similar letters – I know others here in NZ who are also continuously keeping them ‘reminded’.
Glenn Sacks outed them quite a few months ago as well – it was to acquaint them with this that caused my last communication with them. Their policy to correspondents is to acknowledge receipt, but nothing further comes of it.
If there are any shareholders in Air New Zealand reading this, now would be a great opportunity to write your board with links to this site, letting them know how dimly you view board policies that expose them so readily to public ridicule and loss of custom. As a shareholder, this negligence should alarm you.
Constantly hammering away at this is how we win.
Hats off to Paul.
Great work !
lets hope they do consider it !
Excellent letter, Paul.
This sort of hateful anti-male discrimination will end up doing women as much harm as men, no matter how much fembots celebrate it. Air travel in general has become a front line in the general war of BigBusinessBigGovernmentPoliticalCorrectness against the general populace.
Take a look at the video on the following linked page. The news media probably sought out the most egregious offenses, but I’ll bet there’s a hell of a lot of goings on that are about as bad. I’ve been hassled by a TSA goon, just because the jerk felt like hassling someone. I swear, the TSA is the federal government’s brownshirts.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/dont-touch-my-junk
I have tended to defend private institutions in their ‘apparently-discriminatory’ policies as a defense against PC affirmative action. Think a golf course, privately-owned that prefers to mix among its own kind. Not a big problem for me, because the alternative would be a forced integration into every freakin’ aspect of our lives.
Then this story comes along, where I am faced with the choice of permitting discrimination against my gender, or force the company to apply certain standards, thus jeopardizing private sector freedom.
I guess that, on face value, what Mr Elam is doing is the correct path: he isn’t getting the heavy stick of big brother government to impose his will, but rather applying to their sense of fairness, and their bottom line.
This approach takes time, but retains the notion of a private sector. In the end, I want this – and if some businesses blatantly snub me, then I am glad to have the right to do the same. Why not? The alternative is more gov’t encroachment.
@ Vinczer
You are theoretically correct to point out that high-ranking corporate officers can be held personally liable for criminal acts of the company. In practice, however, prosecutors rarely pursue them with the same tenacity and commitment of resources that would be given to, say, a high-profile, career-advancing case involving a common criminal or scapegoated mid-level manager.
Serious support for actual justice is unlikely to be found in the judiciary or law enforcement. The reality is that big government and big business have been incestuous bedmates since the advent of central banking, and both see themselves as exempt from the laws that apply to us.
The head hauncho of a privately owned, unincorporated business can sort his customers any way he wants, as far as I am concerned, as long as he does so on company property, is subject to a free and competitive market setting, and is barred from goverment largess or political privilege. Qantas fails all such criteria.
Good work, Paul. I admire your flair for just the right turn of phrase.
Courageous, courteous and powerful. A truly remarkable piece of work. I’ll not use Air NZ until they revoke that policy.
I hope this doesn’t derail the thread. It deals with a related issue, rather than the thread’s direct issue of Air NZ’s disgusting policy.
Here’s Ron Paul’s take on the TSA’s policies of harassment and degradation of the general populace:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul705.html
I especially like his statement, “But as we’ve seen with TSA, federal ‘security’ has more to do with humiliation and control than making us safe. It has more to do with instilling a mindset of subservience, which is why laughable policies such as removing one’s shoes continue to be enforced. What else could explain the shabby, degrading spectacle of a long line of normally upbeat Americans shuffling obediently through airport security in their stocking feet?”
It strikes me that, while the urge to rule and often to rule through totalitarian methods knows no bounds by sex, the styles of males and females are generally different. The methods of the brownshirts were more direct and bellicose than those of the TSA. The TSA is instead gradually wearing the public down. But the goals are the same — submission to authority. The Nazis imposed their rule through the use of external force; in the US, submission of the populace is being accomplished, as Ron Paul puts it, by “instilling a mindset of subservience.” It seems to be an example of the feminization of US culture and government that the 1930s German style of imposing totalitarianism was more male; the current US style is more female.