Crew meals - an employer obligation to staff and customers.

[Kaptin M]

Should crews who are rostered for duty over “usual” meal periods be provided with a crew meal, by their employer?
I believe so, for the following reasons:-
SAFETY. Any responsible employer who claims ignorance of the effects on the body’s sugar levels during periods of abstinence from nourishment, is either naive or untruthful.
Sugar levels drop, concentration lapses, tiredness follows, and consequently errors are made and may go unnoticed.
Crews on duty NEED sustenance, to maintain a level of alertness commensurate with the responsibilities entrusted to them.

SAFETY. Employers of other workers recognize the need for their ground-based employees to have set meal breaks during recognized meal times – breakfast, lunch and dinner – and to allow those employees time off work to go to the subsidized staff canteen, or nearby convenience shop, food shop, or restaurant.
Crew on duty quite simply do not have this necessary luxury (of leaving their workplace to eat) afforded them, due to flight schedules – unless employees are willing to roster crews off, over these periods.
Why is it considered acceptable to recognize the nutritional needs of ground-based employees, but to ignore those of crews on duty?

SAFETY. Food prepared at home, or purchased from a “grab & run” fast food shop, may not always be prepared strictly in accordance with ideal food hygiene standards, nor wrapped/packed and stored in the optimum medium for keeping it bacteria free prior to consumption, in situations where employees must take their own food to work, thus risking food poisoning whilst on duty.
Food prepared at home, but forgotten and left behind, insufficient time to prepare food for eating whilst on duty, or lack of funds, may mean the crew member goes without nourishment during his/her entire duty period – or shares the SAME food as another employee.

I believe, that in the interests of SAFETY of employees and customers, employers of flight crews on duty are responsible for ensuring that crews on duty are provided with safe meals.

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

That's fine and dandy Kaptin, but adding 0.0002 cents to the share price, surely is more important.:hmm:

[spinout]

Quite often in the regionals, with aircraft changes and impossible turn around times crew meals don’t make it to the aircraft (in some cases that is a good thing they are so bad) so when operations are informed the response is ‘go with out them we will give you a voucher!’ (There is probably more nutrition in paper.) So where does that leave the company if the crews are involved in an incident that may have a contributing factor of fatigue due lack of food…..

;)

[Desert Duck]

Kaptin M

I agree, in fact the provision of crew meals should form part of the overall fatigue risk management plan.

In the overall plan the cost of a few meals vs the cost of crew fatigue is "petty cash".

[SeldomFixit]

Duck - while you're hot on the trail of fatigue management, for totally altruistic reason's I'm sure, would you consider campaigning for "free lunches" for all staff, in all fields of endeavour, who work long or antisocial hours.
I'd love to hear you justify why your trough should be filled with free grub while just about every other wage and salary earner provides their own catering during a normal working day. You have galleys, you have refrigerated compartments, you have ovens and you may even get on well enough with some of the cabin staff to have them toast your ham and cheese sandwiches for you.
I believe Qantas have some left over boxes that are a perfect size for an inflight meal. If you're quick you can snare a lifetime supply for a song.

[Obie]

Isn't this thread, really, just a load of rubbish?
From someone who obviously has too much time on their hands!

[Kaptin M]

Dear highly envious SeldomFixit, you wax on I'd love to hear you justify why your trough should be filled with free grub while just about every other wage and salary earner provides their own catering during a normal working day. Well the reason PROBABLY might be something to do with the FACT that it's somewhat difficult to locate 7-11's at 10,000 feet above S.L.:O ..and that whilst we may "have galleys, you have refrigerated compartments, you have ovens" we cannot just wander - willy-nilly - as you earthbounds are able to do, at our whim and desire!!
For reasons obviously obscure to you, SeldomFixit - and those of your I.Q., pilots are restricted - by Law, and commonsense - in the distance that we can move from the flight deck...and the specific times at which we are able to do so.
Not that I expect you to fully comprehend the repercussions involved if we were to ignore those sensibilities!! :cool:
Try having someone read you the initial post (s-l-o-w-l-y), several times - then have a sleep on it, and do the SAME thing again....a few times!!

With 8 days OFF per month - EVERY month, Obie, I would hazard a guess that YOU - doing a "normal" 9-5 job, and being paid extra for working week-ends/early/late/Public Holidays - get far MORE time off than I!!
However, I am interested in trying to further the working conditions for my peers, and consequently put in the "extra half yard" for that cause.......GRATIS!!
Do you??

[air-hag]

owwww..... :ouch: that hurts, Kaptitano M. Where TF didja get that wacky font? It is making me go cross-eyed although that could also be a symptom of having to deal with nerds like RTA and Beanoss..... who knows........???????????

by the way, I get fed so much in my airline my gut is growing faster than my wallet. I eat several lunches and dinners every flight. I also enjoy using the 1st CLass crapper which is always very clean.... well not for long, I guess. It was named after it's inventor, by the way, Mr. Thomas Crapper.




Restricting your posting rights is becoming a tiresome habit! :{

It's probably time I considered making your banning permanent. :mad:

Woomera

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Aw Haggy, it's nice to see you think of me. And I get to join the Nerd Herd too. YIPPEE!

I think BM is making a very important safety suggestion in regards to the OBLIGATION an employer owes to the proper and safe operation of a crew. International airlines fulfill this obligation, yet some Australian airlines do not. WHY?]

I guess those standards need not apply at QANDom, or more posters here would be taking it a bit more seriously. I have come to expect less from this forum's posters, but just vitriol for the sake of being so gets so bloody tiring.

Is it any wonder this forum is laughed at? It's occupied by little children who get offened when you call them names (yet THEY call that same name to Jet* pilots - Pot and Kettle scenario!). The underlying common theme is greed. "I'll have my cake, and I'll eat yours too".

Is it any wonder that nothing seems right in current Australian aviation when everyone is willing to bitch and moan, but couldn't be bothered for the most part to actually offer anything constructive? It all comes back to the ME ME ME factor.

To be honest, I am not surprised one bit in the way Australian aviation has panned out. With the relative demise of the AFAP, and it's replacement with more or less company run Unions (what's the bloody point?), pilot's haven't got a leg to stand on (not that many of them could care about anything that didn't directly involve them).

Proffesionalism just doesn't seem to exist much on this board. For shame!

Sorry to rant off and change topic.

[air-hag]

Proffesionalism HAHAHAHAAAAA ! ! !

Actually I don't think that many pilots actually even read this forum so who would care what people write in it? I wouldn't judge world pilot standards by what you read here.

Especially my posts.................. :ok:

Everything seems perfactly right in the aussie air scene to MOI except that I am getting fatter by the day.

I think an extra hosty should be rostered for crews with fat pilots and she could stand behind the guy with a big huge rubber belt around his gut and do a manual version of one of those fat-jiggling machines on his PHAT GUT.

For hours. :ok:


And I don't judge the airline industry by your totally ludicrous and irrelevent posts!

Do your parents know what you get up to on their computer?

Woomera

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

For ONCe we agree!

My last medical renewal ellicited an interesting letter from CASA Medical - they basically said I was too bloody fat to have free and full operation of an aircraft controls, and that my weight COULD impare my abilities in a walkaround yada yada yada...

Needless to say, I passed (after having to do a bloody Glucose tolerance test - not even a HINT of diabetes), but they "suggested" I lose 12 kilograms...

Is THAT discrimination, saying I am too fat? :ok:

I sometimes make reference to jason Hassard. I guess I am catching him, except there are no DC-6's left for me to fly.:ugh:

[Kaptin M]

It's spelling time, and air-hag goes to the BOTTOM of the class ...whip whip....with his/her follyEverything seems perfactly right i .......sooooooo, back on topic..

CREW MEALS.......can they make a difference to SAFETY?

[air-hag]

Yeah......... was it the walk-around or did you have trouble pulling the prong back far enough for a normal landing?

That's gonna be my problem soon. Still, chicks don't like skinny guys do they???

Yes it is discrimination. Someone is discriminating against you on the basis of your big PHAT gut. The question is, is that illegal?

I discriminated against a fat girl the other day in favour of her slimmer, better-looking friend so you see it happens naturally in life every day! :ok:



Yes, well-picked up by Mon Kapitano Emm. I thought about going back and whiting it out but couldn't be arsed. And I never thought it'd be YOU to sink the boot in El Kapitano?!?!?? Well ok, you get the point for it... :{

[Kaptin M]

....going back and whiting it out... Sounds a bit fishy, a-h :D ............and "Yes, I AM a boot sinker"......and "Yes, I TOO have discriminated when choosing Love Godesses" :{ ......or did THEY choose moir??????? Shaven ..or UNshaven????

Ummm...yes....I hope to get my point across!!:O

[air-hag]

beep-BAAAAHHH...!!

TWO 'd's in the word "Goddesses" El Kappitano!

You bin drinkin??? :ok:

[5 Left & Right]

An obligation to staff & customers???

I dont know what your on about Captain M.

If you want lunch that bad then take your own.

ya Tosser!

[rockarpee]

gotta eat, 5 left right, or wot ever.Kaptin m is right......Even the companies U work for have to behave professionally,;)

[Kaptin M]

To 5 Left & Right, courtesy of Binos Esq.,
"If you read the thread instead of baying from the sidelines just to hear your own voice you'd know the issues involved"

(Thanks Binos :ok: )

[ys120fz]

So KM, has your company just taken away the crew meals?

I presume that is th emotivation for starting such a thread.

Incidentally I agree that crew meals must be prvided for the same reasons you put forward.

[DOME]

Is it just me - or are there more and more posters these days treating this and other forums (fora for the inevitable rapid and witty riposte) as if they are in a chat room? Stupid comments, fired off without any thought. Gets a little tedious.

[5 Left & Right]

Oh no Dome, i thought a lot about my post, just like Captain M thinks a lot about his tummy.

But please, a post (rather more like a whinge) because you dont get lunch??

Does your flight attendent get lunch? Does the Loader get lunch. Does the check in person get lunch. Do the engineers get lunch. They all have in important job to do, they all can suffer from fatigue and low blood sugar etc.

Maybe i should start a post on the importance of taking a piss when you need to.

[Soulman]

And as QF9 prepares to line up, the Captain calls for Runway Entering Checks.

Captain: Landing Lights?
F/O: On.
Captain: Transponder?
F/O: On.
Captain: Engine Start Switches?
F/O: On.
Captain: Flight Crew properly nourished and good to go?
F/O: Nahh, sorry Cap - I didn't get lunch.
Captain: Well... Looks like it's back to the gate.

Soulman.

[Kaptin M]

Does your flight attendent get lunch? Does the Loader get lunch. Does the check in person get lunch. Do the engineers get lunch.I wasn`t aware that any of those people had the ultimate responsibility for the safe control of the aircraft and the safety its occupants in flight.

Loaders, check-in personnel, and engineers (except F/E`s) are all ground jobs, meaning they have access, AT ALL TIMES, to facilities such as staff canteens, cafeterias, convenience stores, etc.
Without demeaning their positions, if ANY of them get food poisoning, low blood sugar, or any other incapacitating illness, they are able to remove themselves from their workplace and not be a threat to the safety of the aircraft.
Similarly, a sick F/A is not an immediate threat to the safety of passengers.

"No" ys120fz, my employer has not taken away crew meals from the pilots. I believe that crew meals are an important issue for LCC employed pilots, and see that Tiger Airways (for example) has made up some feeble, bs excuse as to why they won`t be supplying their pilots with crew meals...and "No", I have not/am not made application to that mob.
I believe ths is a Safety issue - the cost of which would work out at only a couple of cents per pax.

From 5 yo L & R..."If you want lunch that bad then take your own." The hygene and storage standards that airline meals provide cannot be guaranteed to be met by the individuals - how safe is a chicken/fish/seafood meal prepared at home some 12 hours earlier going to be?

Crew meals, like other safety items onboard an aircraft are the responsibility of the employer, imo.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

So, let me see if I understand the majority of posters here (most of whom I ardently assume are NOT flight crew).

You lot are saying that it is not the respnsibility of the airline to provide it's technical crew with sustainence? You are saying that it is not a safety concern, with, oh, say 200 souls on board?

OK, sure, let's tell the punters that the Captain and F/O haven't been, and won't be fed. The Captain and F/O are now running on fat reserves, and their blood glucose levels are depleting, ergo energy. That depletion affects brain function, and speed of thought and motion, and reaction time.

GREAT IDEA! Fools...

Whatever happened to the old "Chicken for the Captain, beef for the F/O" routine? :ok:

I keep forgetting that we simply run on caffeine.

[Non Normal]

I'd see it more as an issue of accessibility.

You can't always hop off the aircraft to buy your lunch/dinner (or whatever food) even if the aircraft does get on the ground, if you are on a tight turnaround, whereas a lot of ground-based people can physically get to a shop to procure their own lunch.

Because they do not have an easy access to food (they can't even ask someone else "in the office" to get it for them :E ), I do think the employer would be responsible for providing the flight crew with an opportunity to have the food (even if the staff had to buy it, if the company is being a really tight whatever).

I do believe that not eating properly can be a flight hazard, for the same reason already stated by RTA.

I do not really see that hyginie should be a major issue though, whether the crew prepared their own food at home or bought it from a kiosk or the food is provided on the aircraft. It's just called basic food hygiene that everyone should observe, whether one is preparing food for him/herself or others.

[ys120fz]

km I agree. In fact in Oz, it is a requirement that 'the employer provide the opportunity for crew to take sustenance at appropriate times'.

Going along with that, one woul dhave to assume if they don't provide the opportunity, then they must provide the sustenance to be taken onboard.

Earthlings find it difficult to believe that you can't park and nip into a restaurant at 35,000'.

[Kaptin M]

Not only mere earthlings, ys120fz, but even more God-like creations - such as some airline managements (and I will NOT mention Tiger Airways, nor Virgin Blue as examples) - apparently look at the issue more from a pax point of view, ie. one sector, however earthlings and Glc's seem unaware that pilots may often be busier during transits (the time on the ground between flights) than inflight for various reasons, eg. maintenance problems, flight planning, pre-flight preparation, etc, etc, which precludes us from getting anywhere near a food outlet even IF one happens to be nearby.

Unlike just about EVERY other employee, flight crew cannot plan on taking meals at pre-determined times - the Safety and control of the aircraft (eg. avoiding weather, following ATC instructions....) must ALWAYS take priority, which may mean that on some flights - even though they are during the regular meal hours when every other worker "downs tools" - it might not be possible, at all, to eat. And then after blocking in, conditions may prevail that again preclude the crew from eating during the turnaround.
That is a couple of the reasons I believe the employer should provide the sustenance necessary to ensure that it is available - safely prepared, and safely stored, until able to be eaten.

Taking a few sandwiches along (that were possibly prepared hours before the first flight departs) and leaving them sitting in your nav bag for perhaps up to 8 or 10 hours, because the employer is trying to save a couple of cents (per pax), is inviting E. Coli along as well!! :ugh:

[SydGirl]

Kaptin M,

Whilst i've never flown up the pointy end, I do agree with your comments 100%.

The company DOES have an obligation to ensure that their tech crew are properly nourished whilst on duty. As another poster above has mentioned, it's not like you can just nip down to the staff canteen and pick yourself up a snack - particularly when doing long sectors or have turnarounds in outports without adequate eating facilities (or a break in which to eat your meal!).

It's all very well for the company to throw you a meal voucher in order to fulfil their obligations, but that doesn't really address the need for sustenance. Having seen many a crew meal in my time, I can agree wholeheartedly with the poster who lamented that the packaging would be more nutritious than the contents. This is especially true of regional carriers.

Just my thoughts.
SG
:}

[TheNightOwl]

Just a minor point, Kap, although I may have missed it. I agree that an employer should provide a meal for Tech Crew in flight, but is that same Tech Crew prepared to reimburse the employer the cost of the meal? Is there some reason that you (collectively, not personal) should get free food at your place of employment and, if so, WHY?

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:uhoh:

[Kaptin M]

If you agree that Tech Crew in flight should be provided with a meal(s) whilst on duty, then I assume it is on the grounds of Safety.
So should Tech Crew also be responsible for providing other Safety equipment on board, eg. torches in the cockpit, crash axe, O2, safety harnesses, etc, or is the provision of Safety equipment an employer responsibility?

[DirectAnywhere]

My employer can have the $2.99 it costs for the average crew meal.

[TheNightOwl]

You are a devious man, Kap, you know EXACTLY what I meant, the food you want the employer to supply has to be paid for, why not by you? I would be in the same physiological state as you should I neglect my regular food intake; assuming I was still a sim. tech. would that preclude me from repairing a 35Kv Power Supply on the grounds of safety? AN didn't pay me to eat, why should your employer pay you? I said nothing about safety grounds, and to equate a/c safety equipment with crew fatigue is drawing a long bow, by even your standards. I suppose your reasoning could be that torches, O2, harnesses, etc., are replenished as required, why not crew food? Neat, but not in my book - if it is my responsibility to feed myself at work, then you can do the same. The fact that your employer can provide the food on-board does not preclude you from your responsibility of paying for it.

Over to you,

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

[amos2]

...and you're an idiot Owl!

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

TNO,
Surely you can see an ALARMING gap between aircrew, and a sim-tech! A sim tech can stop, walk around, grab a meal, and go back to work (all the ones I ever worked around did!).

If a sim tech depletes his energy reserves, starts muddling things, and the like, who can he hurt except himself (unless he falls onto someone from the gantry)?

Aircrew cannot stop what they are doing, stand up, walk around, grab and sanga, have a chat, and go back to work.

If aircrew deplete their energy reserves, starts muddling things, and the like, who can they hurt? Couple hundred on board, and potentially thousands on the ground...

I know you deliberately seperated your response from safety concerns, but everyone seems to shirk the issue.

If it came down to management deducting a small amount out of paypackets for meals, then so be it, but it is not a good thing (most international airlines provide food for tech crew!). A sandwich or two would merely cost the airline PENNIES, and surely their profit, EVEN on low cost sectors, covers the cost!

I still ardently believe, as Kap does, that it is a safety obligation OWED to not only itself and crew, but the travelling public.

[planemad2]

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me that you are NOT saying a fit Airline Pilot will become so incapacitated to be dangerous, if he doesn't get his Lunch on time? :rolleyes:

Unless you are operating 10-12 hour flights surely it is not a big problem?

During the Pilot's Strike in 1989, the America West Pilots used to duck into the terminal and happily buy their own Lunch during turnrounds, didn't seem to worry them. ;)

[amos2]

...and we now have another idiot!

Doesn't the mind just boggle at the fools we put up with?

[planemad2]

Why do people here always resort to slinging insults? :(

Obviously I guess because they have no sensible response. :uhoh:

[amos2]

Ok! Idiots, (Owl, planemade2 and others) here's the challenge...

have an early dinner, get an early night and set the alarm for 0430 (that's 4:30am for the idiots, unlike Owl, who don't know what I'm talking about).

While you're showering, shaving etc, grab a cup of tea and a slice of toast and then into the car by 0530 arriving at work by 0600 (or thereabouts).

Now, let's work through, shall we, until 1700( 5:00pm for the idiots) without any food or liquids or sustenance of any kind, and then come back and tell us all about it!

You know, like, how it was a piece of cake and no drama at all, and how you could do it any time at all, like even every day if need be.

Looking forward to your reports!!!

[planemad2]

IF you are even a Pilot, and you operate like that, I would think you are probably breaking some sort of Regulations.

I think you will find even the worst LCC in the World has drinking water on board. ;)

As I said before, if you are a fit Airline Pilot, surely going without one meal would not incapacitate you, and unless you are doing long haul flights even this would not NEED to happen.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Amos,
Unfortunately, it seems, some people think a pilot in an australian airline will fly, say, Brisbane - Sydney (1hr 20) and that is it for the day. YEAH, RIGHT!

How about say 4 to 5 sectors a DAY? That is, the air crew does ALL those continuous legs.

No, we don't just do an 1 or 2 hour flight, and have an overnight or home trip.

Planemad,
I think you are starting to get it.

Yes, it IS breaking "some kind of regulation" - it\'s called COMMON SENSE.

Like I said above, we don\'t do 1 sector a day - we do SEVERAL sectors a day, with 30 minute turn arounds at each (just enough time to have the aircraft refuelled, walk-around, reprogramme the FMS for the onward journey, talk to the load master, get clearances.....)

IF we are lucky, the FA\'s will give us a cuppa and a sandwich.

Best thing of all? Take a damned apple or banana. Better than nothing, and won\'t poison you!

[planemad2]

I am well aware of what you do, trust me. ;)

However I still say any fit person should be able to go without a meal IF necessary, without becoming incapacitated as some have suggested.

As I said before, obviously on long haul flights you would NEED to take something with you or be supplied with food.

However I cannot see how it is a drama on short haul flights, even if you do 5 legs a day, that means you have 4 transits where you can get food if you are starting to feel light headed.

As I also said before, the America West Pilots here in 1989 used to manage all their work during turnrounds, buy and eat their Lunch in the terminal, and say what is the holdup.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

The less said about America West pilots the better!

[greybeard]

Well now, don't take too much notice of the "American Heros" who could do it all in 30 mins with time to spare, we could open old war stories about them and their ways??!!!!

A sensible and appropriate intake of food and drink is well documented in many studies in many industries including Aviation.

Points often missed by the non flyers are the 6-10% humidity enviroment Pilots work in for all the flight time, the inability to eat at "any" time due wx, workload and even the cabin Crew's ability to actually get the "food" thru the door with the now regulated security. particularly if one pilot has to leave their seat to check the identity of the prospective deliverer if no Camera is fitted to the system. (that is another "privacy" issue as well).

I have had the privilage of flying in Asia with the laddies of Muslim persuasion, who would go ALL DAY without food/drink as our poster suggests, be assured that the performance and ability of the serious followers was noticably derated with this practice. Some Asian/Middle East Airlines actually issue Memos to the Crew in the period noting the relaxing of the Fasting requirements on a matter of Flight Safety. If the serious Believers allow a dispensation we of more liberal beliefs would be well advised to follow their lead I feel.

As to who should pay or not be paid or take a box lunch after nearly 40 yrs of Airline food of many persuasions including "home catering" Mrs GB wins all contests for quality and it comes with the habitation clause taken 40 yrs ago.

Employers/Accountants are in charge of the best fun we can have with our clothes on, sod them for their penny pinching ways of "Profit Maximisation" if they won't feed us and we bend the metal, how will it all look in the Courtroom???? if when our blood sugar levels were assessed from the investigation to be "low".

Food for thought if only in jest.

Big steak, lots of Chips, Hann light or Two, Mouse Hunt on the Telly, day off

C YA

[planemad2]

I always found them to be extremely professional? :ok:

Not so some of the other Operators during that time.

I can understand that after decades of being fed all day for free while on duty, people will be opposed to losing that benefit, however I still think it is drawing a long bow to suggest you NEED these meals for medical reasons.

Most Airline meals, even Crew meals, I have ever had were not that great anyway. ;)

[Non Normal]

Planemad said: However I cannot see how it is a drama on short haul flights, even if you do 5 legs a day, that means you have 4 transits where you can get food if you are starting to feel light headed.


Without offence, how anyone would think that the tech crew would have time during a short turnaround to get off the aircraft, get into the terminal, queue up and obtain the food, and get back to the aircraft while still fulfilling whatever else they have to do is quite beyond me, I must say.

I would also like to point out that missing a meal is not always healthy, even for some healthy people. Do you want to go 12 hours without food on a regular basis and report back in 6 weeks?

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Plane Mad, I am starting to think perhaps you are one of the America West heroes that stayed behind...

When you are NOT as professional as you should be, yeah, you would have time to dash into the terminal, line up, grab an overpriced meal, sit and eat, and ask why everyone else is taking so long...after you've done a 2 minute non-inspectory walk around, do the FMS on the fly, and so on...

The standards at America West have been discussed before here and elsewhere - look it up!

[planemad2]

Well at the risk of repeating myself, we saw this every day with NO dramas back in 1989. ;)

The Crew when talking to Airline Operations prior to arrival, ordered whatever they wanted, then went in to the Terminal on arrival, picked it up and paid for it (themselves), took it back to the Aircraft and ate it, with still plenty of time to complete their duties.

In fact they were always wanting to know why it took so long to turnround in Australia as compared to the USA.

Incidentally, the next time I see any Crew go for 12 hours without something to eat, will be the first time in 40 odd years. ;)

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

At the risk of repeating MYSELF, judging standards against America West pilots is NOT a good thing!

I find this press release interesting...

Officials at America West Airlines [AWA] believe the findings of the National Program Review are outdated. "We have made tremendous progress since the audit," declared a company official. A company statement issued when the final report of the National Program Review was released said, "The findings do not accurately reflect the state of affairs at America West today ... Today we are offering our customers safe, consistent, reliable service that is good or better than any other airline. This performance should provide assurance that America West is operating a far different airline today than it was 18 months ago." >TK


Whether it is about it's 41,000 aircraft safety violations (maintenence and other) that they were fined for by the FAA, or other aspects is not clear...

[Kaptin M]

RTA, ignore him/her - it's his FOURTH post where s/he has deliberately mentioned the America West scabs, in an attempt to get some bights.

His/her last post was full of ****e....with still plenty of time to complete their duties.As everyone has been made aware, the standards at America West have long been questionable, and planemad's accounts only go to further confirm what lacsadasical, slap-happy operators they were! :mad:
Unless you are operating 10-12 hour flights surely it is not a big problem? It's tour of duty time that's important - a pilot may be flying only 3 or 4 sectors but have in excess of a 12 hour duty period.
In fact they were always wanting to know why it took so long to turnround in Australia as compared to the USA.Why don't you run off and ask Dick Smith, sonny!!! :p :}

[planemad2]

If you want to try to keep your free meals you have been getting for decades, often even taking them home, good luck to you.

However don't try to justify it as a medical requirement.

I only entered this discussion because some of you were attacking another poster for daring to question your logic, then you attack me and another group of Professional Pilots. :(

Many of the crew meals I have seen, you are probably more in danger by eating them than missing out on one of them.

Indidentally too, these Pilots you lot are rubbishing, were flying at time with full Airline catering, but they didn't usually eat the crew meals provided free to them by the Airlines, they bought their own.

[Non Normal]

Planemad2, there have been some reported incidents (thankfully small) in the past where going without food for an extended period of time were cited as a contributory factor, so I suggest you don't dismiss it so quickly as a safety issue.

[planemad2]

Hopefully then this is covered by a CASA Regulation?

Next you will be saying you NEED the limo transport back because of a medical reason. ;)

[Kaptin M]

planemad2, you don't seem to realise that you are running around in ever decreasing circles (to finally disappear up your own fundamental orifice :ooh: ) and are countering your own argument by using your heroes - the America West pilots - as examples.
Obviously even they understood the need for nourishment by going into the terminals to buy food.
If the truth's known, they probably ate the crew meal(s) provided PLUS the extras they bought.

Now read back through the thread and you'll see that the reason employers should provide crew meals is to ENSURE that the pilots have sustenance available for the times when it is simply not possible - for a variety of reasons....lack of time between turn-arounds, non-availability of food at turnaround stations....for the crew to obtain meals.However don't try to justify it as a medical requirement.It is not being "justified" as a medical requirement, but as a SAFETY requirement, based on proven medical evidence of the debilitating effects of low blood sugar level on performance.

In fact, greybeard raised a very valid point when he mentioned the Muslim pilots who fast during the daylight hours of Ramadan.
I too have flown with the pilots (and F/A's) who chose to do this, and there most definitely is a NOTICEABLE loss of performance on their part, esp. in the afternoons, when they had been without food for about 7 or 8 hours, and more.
(And no, this is not having a "go" at Muslims, as there is a dispensation for them, if they elect to take it.)

Back to TNO - the case of ground-based personnel was discussed previously. Quite simply, at any time they can down tools and shoot off to somewhere to grab some food.

[planemad2]

Dear Kaptin M,

I would have much more time, and respect , for you IF you just came out and said that you have been getting these free meals for decades and want to keep them.

To try to justify it on medical grounds is ridiculous.

I purposely did not mention your fellow Professionals by name last time, but you bring them up again?

Were you one of the strikers in 1989?

Your attacks on me and The Owl don't seem very professional?

As I pointed out last time, IF this is a real health problem, surely it is covered by a CASA regulation?

[Non Normal]

Planemad2,

Issues don't have to be a health problem to be a safety problem.

[planemad2]

Boy you people are so picky.

Surely IF it is a safety problem, it is covered by a CASA regulation?

Is that better............

Either way you want to put it, surely nowadays IF it is a workplace health and safety issue, the Airlines would HAVE to supply the meals, and it should be a CASA/FAA/CAA etc regulation, is it?

[Non Normal]

Whether it SHOULD be and whether it IS are two different things.

[planemad2]

Well IF what some of you are saying is true, why on Earth isn't it in Regulatory Regulations right throughout the World?

It obviously SHOULD be. :(

[Kaptin M]

Dear planemad2, why do you think we...have been getting these free meals for decadesBecause it was based..on medical groundsAs I said in my previous post, you are countering your OWN arguments with what YOU are writing :p :ok: Were you one of the strikers in 1989?No, I was NEVER on strike.surely it is covered by a CASA regulation That is an issue well worth noting, as CASA are ultimately responsible for ensuring the overall Safety of aviation in Australia.

[planemad2]

Kaptin M,

Please accept my humble apology, I incorrectly thought you must have been one of the strikers by what you were saying, sorry.

Nobody has answered still whether or not this is in any regulations if it is so critical to the safe operation of Airliners?

IF it is not, surely it should be.

Wouldn't your campaign to save these meals on duty surely be better directed at CASA, and getting them to enshrine it in regulations?

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

CASA CAO 48 makes mention of: "Adequate sustenance means sufficient quantities of food and drink"

CAO 48 deals with flight crew time, duty, and other limitations.

Para 1.4 goes on to say:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired."

Now, the factor that may impair that ability may be as lowly as lack of adequate sustenance... FATIGUE via BGL depletion (known medical FACT)

ADDITIONALLY, I found this, albeit listed under Aerial Agricultural Operations:
2.15 An operator must not require or permit a pilot to operate an aircraft unless, at the commencement of the duty period:
(a) the pilot has had the required minimum rest period free of duty; and
(b) the pilot has had the opportunity to take adequate sustenance; and
(c) the pilot is free of any fatigue, illness, injury, medication or drug which could affect the safe exercise of his or her licence priveleges

Why that is not broadend to ALL commercial operations is up to tyhe boffins that be at CASA :yuk: It probably IS denoted to RPT somewhere too, but have you ever seen the CAO's????????????????? RPT operators have a BIT more responsibility.....

As to the term "strike", no, none of us ever were. That is purely a media invention at the hands of the fragile little Ms. Jana Wendt...

It was a "Go Slow" dispute. Worked regular worker\'s 9am to 5pm hours. Technically, we were never on strike. Strike means stop work.

When the airlines did not agree to the conditions et al, we all merely resigned. NEVER a strike... DISPUTE, not strike.

I am sure Kaptin has a lot more knowledge of the political pedanticism than we "non-heirarchy" AFAP members do/did.

[planemad2]

Well there you go.

After all this, and some insults, maybe someone can get CASA to clarify those regulations, then all will be okay, the Airlines will HAVE to provide the meals.

Glad I was able to help. ;)

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Yeah, thanks, made me drag out those bloody regs... :*

Gave me something to do on my leave! You can only mow, BBQ, paint and sleep so much... :zzz:

[planemad2]

Well IF you run out of jobs, let me know, my Wife will soon find you some....... ;)

Just found this at another site.

YES, it is a joke, I think. ;)

The only other words that will more quickly capture the attention of the steely-eyed, granite-jawed airline captain are "Uh, oh, they forgot to load the crew meals".

Now you have me searching the Internet for ideas.

I was trying to find some regulations, but so far found these.

http://a1480.g.akamaitech.net/f/1480/124/4h/images.ebags.com/images/Products/17719_sq250.jpg

Designer Notes

Designed and built at the request of Flight Attendants (they are now bringing their own meals along for 3-4 day trips), this cooler is an excellent choice for people who want to look professional when bringing food to work.

Bernard Majeau, Product Design Manager.


Product Features

Designed specifically for the unique needs of Flight Attendants
Top “dry” compartment has two zipper pulls for easy access and is perfect items that do not need to be kept cold
Zippered mesh pocket in the lid keeps napkins and other small items in place
Bottom “cold” compartment is insulated on all six sides and has a leak-proof welded PVC liner
Front tip-out pocket has two zipper pullers for easy access and side pleats to prevent contents from spilling out
An elasticized mesh pocket against the body is great for packets of mayo, mustard, etc. plus there is zippered mesh pocket against the front – a perfect place for silverware
Unzip the special pouch pockets on either end to reveal mesh drop-bottom water bottle carriers – sized to hold a .5 liter bottle on one side and 1.0 liter bottle on the other
There are three ways to carry the Crew Cooler
1) Padded web handles that are rivet-reinforced and box-x stitched for traditional tote-style carrying
2) Removable adjustable shoulder strap
3) Rear pass-thru pocket for stacking on top of your wheeled carry-on
ID Pocket on the back fits a standard business card
Satin nickel zipper pulls are easy to find and easy to grab
All seams fully finished
A TIP FROM THE PROS: Use zip-loc bags to hold ice. A variety of sizes will help to keep the ice where you want it, prevent the melt-off from soaking into food containers and from leaking to the outside of the bag while you are on the go, and are easy to refill from the galley, hotel, or office.

[Interceptor]

Planemad2

Would you happen to be one of those Airline accountants who had aspirations to become a flyboy but couldn't cut the mustard ?

[planemad2]

Just when everything in PPRuNeland seemed peaceful, along comes another with a chip on their shoulder.

Why is there so much of this, is it common with all Pilots?

I have posted nothing nasty, not insulted anyone, yet have been accused just on this one thread of being an idiot, an America West Pilot and now an Accountant who couldn't make it as a Pilot.

You are (in general) a very sorry lot.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Plane Mad,
Yes, there is a chip on a LOT of australian airline pilots, and a LOT of it stems back to 1989...

Those who appear on a certain list go around life expecting to be attacked and confronted for their actions in 1989 / 1990. It's a case of the "scabs, and the scab-nots" (pun intentional).

Have I ever attacked one of the "heroes"? Not physically - I don't think anyone from our rank did. Have I emotionally and psychologically "attacked" a hero? You bet. I carried a "clicker" for many years, in and out of uniform. Just one click is enough to see a grown man hide his face. You walk through ghosts.

Care factor these days is negligable, but I still won't talk to one, except here... :hmm:

I am sorry to get political and personal again, but, you asked.

As an aside, it is AMAZING how many young airline pilots these days go OUT OF THEIR WAY to confirm that they did not join an airline until a particular date. I have found that more than a few times.

Woomera- fell free to yank this post.

[planemad2]

Okay, so you hate each others guts.

But why take it out (not you, others) on me, and that other poster (The Owl from memory) who are not even Pilots. let alone directly involved in what happened back in 1989. :confused:

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

I don't think Kap M ever REALLY attacks TNO - I think, like NORMAL ADULTS, they merely have heated discussions when differing viewpoints and opinions are raised. I myself have had mutually disagreeable posts with TNO, but we always kept it "clean" merely differing with each other. Differing opinion is NOT attack.

Problem here is, that the "attack radar" is constantly on with a LOT of posters - myself included at times - they think people are affronting them if they disagree. Human psychology.

There is not much anyone can do to change the attitudes in australian aviation. WE (non scab) will NEVER get over it per se, and THEY (the "heroes") won't either, for different, albeit similar in context, reasons.

You learn to live with it, as much as it tastes like crap!

To coin an old TAA slogan " Vive la differance!"

[planemad2]

Okay, I have seen threads here about 1989 which I avoid like the Plague.

This one was meant to be about Crew Meals, and I sadly thought it would be safe. :(

Guess I will have to be even more careful.

Excuse me if I don't answer on this one any more either.

[amos2]

I apologise to my Prune friends for calling them idiots...

misguided would be a more appropriate term! :8

[Kaptin M]

Perhaps we ought to change the title of this thread to "The Kiss & Make up Thread" :O
I'm feeling all warm & gooey inside.........................just like CREW MEALS.

Some of the ex-MAS pilots would probably agree that some of the best crew meals were had there - but THAT'S another story (because this is the D & G forum??? :E )

Thanks for the input, pm2, and RTA for researching the CAO's,
Let's hope the thread provides enough "nutrition" to move things along with some of the employers who cannot see why there is a Safety issue involved wrt ensuring pilots have accessibility to sustenance whilst on duty.

It is NOT a case of looking to get something for nothing!

[ys120fz]

RTA, i said this back on page 2, and you have found the reference for it.

(b) the pilot has had the opportunity to take adequate sustenance; and

I say again that along with ensuring the opportunity is provided, and that would be at an appropriate time, if an opportunity can't be provided, then a meal should be provided. Not necessarioly a three course feast, but a basic meal that will keep the sugar levle up.

Now there are people who have critica lsugar levels; at the extreme of that are diabetes sufferers, and if you've ever seen one of them hanging out, doing all sorts of irrational things, then you would agree that taking food atan appropriate time is most important. I have a friend who has a cirtical sugar level, and when he's approaching it, pity helop anybody who crosses him. His behaviour is no longer voluntary; its driven by his low sugar level, and it's not nice to be around. Of course he recognizes the symptoms and has something to eat way short of that....most times.

[planemad2]

IF anyone hasn't seen this site, check it out.

All about Airline Meals, including Crew Meals.

http://www.airplanemeals.com/

[TheNightOwl]

Jeez, leave for a couple of days and all is sweetness and light when I get back! Not on, fellas, thank God amos is here to prove that the world is still turning correctly and he is still the dim***t he always was!
I wish, RTA and others, that you would correctly address the issue I raised - I asked why you would expect an employer to pay for your in-flight meal, NOT whether you should have one available. I am well aware that, as a simtech, I could leave a job to eat, and how that compares with being trapped in a cockpit, but may I point out that, when I went for a meal, I did not expect AN to pick up the tab! Why would you expect your employer to feed you for free?
I'm quite sure that a drop in Blood/Sugar level could, in some circumstances, lead to a safety problem in flight, I'm just not convinced that it is QUITE such a serious problem as some would have us believe. Yes, I understand the problems experienced by diabetics, I am qualified in First-aid, but I also understand that such a condition would disqualify you from practising your trade as a pilot.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[jedda]

TNO,Hypoglycemia affects non diabetic people as well as people who have diabetes.It can result when a person has eaten a high proportion of fast acting carbohydrate,hence an over action of insulin resulting in a drop in blood glucose levels(a lay mans definition)Also,I think the ANO's say you may not operate an aircraft under the influence of drugs.Insulin,as taken as an injection by a person with type1 diabetes ,is a hormone.Of cource teh airline should supply meals to its crew for no other reason than it's always been done.Think of the eye candy DJ get every time they get a meal;The others get heartburn.Old boilers !

[air-hag]

can anyone believe this thread is still going on???

What's happened around here, D&G used to be interesting.

How about KM, Anos, TNO and Wiz all get in a scrap and the rest of us will stand around and cyber-kick them until they go nuts....

I've been hanging out in JB with the Pallid Poms looking for something interesting. They are a VERY weird bunch of in-breds over there. Even odder than the sheep-shaggers and hobbits from InnZidd. Must be something to do with living on tiny little islands. Anyone actually BEEN to England??? What a dump. No wonder they all want to come over here.

Actually they are very "cliquey" in JB, if there's such a use of the word. A few aussies try hard to fit in (I don't think any of them has a licence) but generally it is that dry old "wit" the poms think of as humour.

Oh well... back to Kaptin Emm's engrossing sandwich debate. I have taken food to work lots of times when I got sick of the work-slop the Fitters-and-Turners in the galley come up with. Never been sick once.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

TNO,
Sorry to have strayed somewhat from your original retort. To naswer it, I think you must weight the pros and cons of feeding a pilot FREE:
PRO:
1. It ensures a safety factor - an obligation I still believe the airline owes tech crew. Whether tech crew decide to partake is THEIR choice.
2. Cost is VERY low for a meal - even if it is a sandwich for pity's sake! Cost? Less than you think! And it need only be one. I am sure a $1.99 WITH INFLATION, GST, and seasonal adjustments sandwich isn't going to hurt the big bad airline!

Cons:
1. Yes, it costs the airline. So does bad advertising, bad safety, poor crew performance....

It was NEVER a problem pre-dispute, so why the problem now? Yes, I know the contrats and conditions changed MARKEDLY post-89, but... Penny pinching can only go so far!

You also mentioned the inability of a diabetic to hold an ATPL - that is correct. Now, consider that a diabetic is only dangerous when his/her blood sugar either rises or falls below a normal level (5-7 is normal). Now, a NORMAL non-diabetic who's blood sugar drops or raises significantly is ALSO JUST AS DANGEROUS! I know a LOT about diabetes - my sister is diabetic, and I grew up with it. Seeing someone drop in BGL's is something SCARY to watch, from going irrational and angry, to sweaty and uncontrollable, to full on near seizure. I once watched my sister convulse uncontrollably, cracking a front tooth, before we managed to jab a glucose shot into her.

Yes, shanges in BGL are both phsysiological and psychological - MAJOR effect on the chemistry of the mind!

Again, why should an airline pay for tech crew meals? SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY! Off duty or overnighting - WHO CARES - that's up to the employee, but ON DUTY - I believe it is an employer obligation!

[Kaptin M]

On August 28, TNO wrote,
"I agree that an employer should provide a meal for Tech Crew in flight.."

On August 29, RTA provided us with the results of some researching he'd done, and wrote,
"CAO 48 deals with flight crew time, duty, and other limitations.

Para 1.4 goes on to say:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired."
Thereby placing the onus on the operator ie the employer to ensure that the flight crew members are not a threat to the Safety of the flight they are crewing.

In other words, the Safety equipment needed to counter the adverse affects caused by low blood sugar levels during flight, due to lack of nourishment, is the RESPONSIBILITY of the operator.
Quite plainly, TNO, nourishment of the crew on duty has to be considered a Safety issue

Just as crews are required to undertake simulator a couple of times every year - to ensure their proficiency and SAFE operation - and for the same reason aircraft are required to carry reserves over and above the minimum sector fuel - to ensure flight SAFETY, the SAFE OPERATION of the flight(s) conducted by the duty crew must also be maximised....not minimised.....by having the employer provide that training, fuel, and crew nourishment.
Would you also suggest, TNO, that we should pay for the required sims, and extra reserve fuel carried?
As a passenger, how secure would you feel, if you were advised that the pilots were paying for the fuel on your flight?
Aviation history is strewn with casualties that have resulted from crashes caused by fuel starvation, where the (usually private) pilot has had the personal responsibility of paying for the gas.

Let's stick to the Safety aspect of why meals are REQUIRED for crews on duty - that is the crux of the argument. :O

[ys120fz]

TNO, I`ve been an admirer of your posts and wisdom for some time, long before I became a contributor myself.

KM, also a sometimes admirer of yours, but sometimes not.

It may have been put further up in the thread, but whilst I agree with both of you on some points, the main point may have been missed. Sorry if it`s been covered; I may not have read thoroughly enough.
My belief is that since pilots must eat their meals on the run, i.e., don`t have a defined meal break, the meal isprovided as form of compensation for that inconvenience.
TNO, you have a meal break; Km no doubt doesn`t.

If pilots downed tools to head to a restaurant at the recognized meal hours, then chaos would result. I believe tha airlines recognize this and are getting good value by providing a meal in lieu of a meal break.