Air New Zealand has started an internal investigation after an alleged disagreement between two of its pilots during a layover in San Francisco. The airline confirmed that the incident did not occur on an aircraft and that the two crew members were off-duty at the time. In a statement shared with several New Zealand and American media outlets, Nathan McGraw, the company's director of safety and risk, said: « We are aware of an incident involving two off-duty crew members in the United States, which is currently under investigation. No incident occurred on board the aircraft. » According to the New Zealand Herald, which was cited by Radio New Zealand and the San Francisco Chronicle, the two pilots reportedly had a disagreement during a flight from Auckland to San Francisco and later had a confrontation at their layover hotel. This account comes from an anonymous former pilot and has not been fully confirmed by Air New Zealand. The specific hotel involved has not been named, and details about the nature of the altercation—whether it was physical or not—remain unclear. No official action has been taken against the individuals involved. The incident comes amid recent disruptions on the trans-Pacific route between San Francisco and Auckland. Air New Zealand had to cancel or significantly delay departures from San Francisco International Airport (SFO) on September 6 and 7, citing a pilot's unavailability due to medical reasons. Passengers on flight NZ7 on September 7 were informed of a delay exceeding fourteen hours, as a replacement pilot had to complete a required rest period before taking command. The flight was eventually operated the following day, and affected passengers were rebooked, with options for accommodation, reimbursement of expenses, or a full refund if they chose to cancel their trip. At this stage, there is no public information linking the current investigation to the earlier disruptions on flight NZ7. Air New Zealand has not provided further details to local media. The New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was informed of the case on September 14. Its role is not to handle internal personnel matters but to determine if the information received warrants regulatory action. A spokesperson for the CAA said: « We examine all information brought to our attention and determine whether regulatory action is necessary. »