Flight Attendants, 1:50 or 1:36

[Dropt McGutz]

Can anyone verify that the ratio of flight attendants has now changed from one to thirty six passengers to one to fifty? :suspect:

[DirectAnywhere]

Last I heard it was up for consideration in the Senate. Can't remember the name of the bill but it was something along the lines of The Aviaition Mutual Recognition Bill which would allow the NZ 1:50 ration to be used here.

I don't think it's been enacted yet but don't quote me....

[Capn Bloggs]

Only one FA is required to control 50 sheep.

[Dropt McGutz]

A couple of flight attendants were saying that an Emergency Procedures instructor had said that the legislation had gone through and they were most concerned that on the 737/800, in the event of a ditching, one of the flight attendants would have to stop the passengers using the rear doors to escape and by doing so, was sacrificing her life! If the legislation was to go through, I wonder if CASA would have to obtain proof from the airlines that they could evacuate their aircraft within ninety seconds with a reduced crew? I was under the impression that the relevant legislation hadn't gone through too but these two girls were adamant that it had. I guess the pilots would be the last to know anyway.

[DirectAnywhere]

Found it!!

Page 10 of House Daily Bills List (http://www.aph.gov.au/parlinfo/billsnet/blist.pdf) refers to "Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand)".

Intoroduced into the Senate on 23/6/05. Referred to committee on 10/8/05 and reported on 5/9/05. Yet to pass the Senate let alone be passed to the Reps and then enacted so it's not there yet.

[Wizofoz]

I wonder if CASA would have to obtain proof from the airlines that they could evacuate their aircraft within ninety seconds with a reduced crew?

As 1:50 is the international standard to which aircraft are certified in the first instance, I wouldn't think so.

[Buster Hyman]

Okay girls, break out the "Follow me when I'm screaming!" T-shirts!:rolleyes:

[Capn Bloggs]

I hope it's a ditching coz then they'd be wet! :ooh:

[scramjet77]

Only one FA is required to control 50 sheep

In your case Bloggs, it's one sheep (and not a terribly bright one) fooling 50 check captains, sim trainers etc etc.

However, I gues the kiwi option is one that you would also consider.

[BankAngle50]

This will be the end of conditions in Australia. Kiwis are the "white Kaffers" of aviation and will work for food. They dont have to pay them super etc... Once they get in here Jetstar wages look like a CX “A” scalers’! In the UK we had the tunnel and Sangatte,France; In Oz we have Freedom and Kiwi Gypsies.

[DeBurcs]

in ... a ditching, one of the flight attendants would have to stop the passengers using the rear doors ... and ... was sacrificing her lifeTwo minutes silence, please.......

Lucky there's never been a ditching around here. Although Qantas did indeed come close, if we are to be believed.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. After a ditching, you're going to find all the punters piled up in the front 3 rows like chips in the corner of a fish shop basket when the wreck comes to a stop. It'll be easy to funnel them out the front doors or O/W exits.

I think the old bomb Technician's T-shirts could be more appropriate for the tarts:

"If You See Me Running, Try to Keep Up!"

BA50...... :ok:

[distracted cockroach]

BA50, you are a knob.
If you Aussies weren't so busy backstabbing each other and got your acts together, maybe you wouldn't be so worried.
If I recall correctly it is Aussies coming to NZ to take Kiwi jobs (Jetstar v Jetconnect) So far as I know there is no Freedom base being set up in Australia, so who are the Gypsies?
Maybe NZ salaries are less than Aussie ones, but at least the Freedom contract was ALPA negotiated. FYI Freedom pilots get paid more than Jetconnect and Pac Blue, so maybe you should be aiming your salvo elsewhere.

[ozangel]

Follow me when im screaming - I LOVE IT - off to get the tshirt now...

Now where can i get the:

No you cant have a drink - cant you see im reading New Idea? Tshirt?

[4Greens]

One cabin attendant violates a basin safey tenet. There is no redundancy, in other words in the event of injury there is no one left to manage anything. Before an emergency landing ocurs an in flight rage may take out the only crew member that knows what to do.

[Metro Boy]

Try and tell the bean counters that.

[speedbirdhouse]

Or those at the top with their snouts in the trough.:yuk:

[FlexibleResponse]

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SUBCHAPTER G--AIR CARRIERS AND OPERATORS FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE: CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

Subpart H—Airman and Crewmember Requirements

§ 125.269 Flight attendants.

(a) Each certificate holder shall provide at least the following flight attendants on each passenger-carrying airplane used:

(1) For airplanes having more than 19 but less than 51 passengers—one flight attendant.

(2) For airplanes having more than 50 but less than 101 passengers—two flight attendants.

(3) For airplanes having more than 100 passengers—two flight attendants plus one additional flight attendant for each unit (or part of a unit) of 50 passengers above 100 passengers.

(b) The number of flight attendants approved under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications.

(c) During takeoff and landing, flight attendants required by this section shall be located as near as practicable to required floor level exits and shall be uniformly distributed throughout the airplane to provide the most effective egress of passengers in event of an emergency evacuation.
These are the FAA regulations which are the same as the JAA regulations. The regulations that are in effect in Hong Kong and I presume many if not most other countries also conform to those above.

In addition, the limitations section of the AFM for each aircraft type may further specify a minimum number of F/As. For example the Airbus A330/340 specifies one F/A per cabin door (ie 8 F/As). Therefore, a pax load of say, 260 would require 6 F/As for the pax numbers(1 per 50 or part thereof), but the AFM limitations section would still override that and require 8 F/As.

If you can’t man (woman?) all cabin doors, you may find some relief by dispatching under the MEL guidance for a cabin door inop. That would require a reduction in maximum passenger numbers and cabin distribution.

Australia might be thinking about standardising and re-aligning its regulations with the rest of the world.

[Going Boeing]

I understand that there is a subtle but serious distinction between the Oz 1:36 ratio and the NZ 1:50 ratio. The Oz ratio is 1 F/A for every 36 seats fitted to the aircraft whereas the NZ ratio is 1 F/A for every 50 pax which means that with a less than full load the airline can further reduce the numbers of flight attendants. This could leave emergency exits exposed for pax to open without checking for fire etc. This is potentially a very backward step being driven by accountants who run airlines.

[Capn Bloggs]

The Oz ratio is 1 F/A for every 36 seats fitted
Wrong (at least in my outfit).

[hoss]

You must work at QantasLink:ok: . Despite the protests single FA on the 300 is a regular occurance and has been for a short while now.

hoss :hmm:

( one FA for four cabin exits! )

[TAY 611]

Woomeras you often ban people for using the Sc@b word which is certainly far less offensive than the Kaffer word (post apartheid) that BA 50 uses.
Aussie, after years of re-inventing the wheel, will eventually join the rest of the aviation community.

[Captain Stoobing]

I am with Hoss on this one. It happens in our ops on occasions but most skippers are not happy with 1 fa on a 300 and generally say so. Ops controllers seem happy to leave the 2nd FA on board.

I AM WRITING THIS POST ONLY WITH REGIONAL OPERATIONS IN MIND.

A couple of points to consider

1.Service: Seeing a flight attendant dish out 36 breakfast packs, teas and coffees, and also look after 2 tech crew by getting there breakfast trays to them with no delay and a smile on their face. It is a sight to behold , seriously......... Let alone, they get this done also in bad weather and dealing with unreasonable requests from pax and techies.

With 1 per 50 service standards on full service operations will drop significantly.

2. Safety: Having had a close look at SOP's from other turboprop operators with regard to cabin procedures I am at a loss as to how a single FA will control 50 pax in a full blown emergency. I am aware they are told to use ABP's, able bodied passengers, but I can assure you ABP's are 90% useless in an emergency. They are hell bent on getting themselves out of the plane. Don't forget that with fewer passengers on board means fewer suitable ABP's to call on.

With 1 per 50 our safety standards will drop and the risk of a serious incident will increase.

I am not bagging the NZ system. I would like to see how the Air Nelson operation is working and whether they use single FA's on their 300's.I am not sure how this will affect narrow bodied jet operations, but I KNOW this will seriously reduce safety in 50 seat aircraft operations in Australia.

Capt Stoobing.

[qcc2]

had a talk to the guy who owned a regional airline in nz some years ago finding out how nz got their 1:50 pax ratio. was pretty simple he told me, he ordered this turboprop with 50 seats or thereabouts he was going to put in then he thought he only needs one f/a because he is not going to serve the punters anthing, rang his mate the minister of the then nz transport dp and all was ok. and thats not a joke.

[Wizofoz]

finding out how nz got their 1:50 pax ratio.

Hmmm, so it had nothing to do with 1:50 being the international standard used in virtually every other country on earth??

[qcc2]

wizofoz id did have something to do with the faa regs, but a more liberal interpretation of their regs.