DJ: 4 crew on 737-800 next year?

[adam_ant]

A MEL CS just showed me a memo that states VB and CASA have reached an agreement that Virgin can have 4 crew operate an 800 - with full guest loads! Why would CASA give VB such an exemption, but not Qantas? A bit of a worry. Meant to start being 'phased in' next year. YIKES.

anyone heard anything else about this?

[sydney s/h]

With the amount of service that we do in Qantas on a 50min Mel-Syd dinner flight we couldnt physically do it with only 4 crew. Our configs are 12/156 on our 737-800's.
Whats the full pax load on a VB 737-800?

That doesnt mean that QF won't try it though.....

[blueloo]

who are theses guests? doesnt guest imply they are there by invitation and not paying?

I hate corporate babble.

[Sonique]

DJ are suffering profit losses since the inception of JQ. Once the cocky airline on the block, they are now thinking smarter at ways to keep themselves competitive.

They need to lower their costs - one idea is cut manpower on a/c which is why they have been in talks with CASA.

Every airline is doing it. The honeymoon period is over at DJ. New roster systems and new costcutting ideas will have those galleys thriving with gossip.

Hang in there.

[Flying Frypan]

This is not new news. The Mutual recognition bill was placed before parliment last year. It has been passed in the senate so it is only a matter of time before parts of this are implemented. The biggest thing to effect cabin crew is the new CC to pax ratio of 1:50. (currently 1:36) So this means that we can have 4 CC on an 737-800 that holds 180 pax. It could potentially mean 3 on the 737-700, but at this time CASA have said that there will still need to be 4 crew on the 700 - 1 for each door. VB are doing the warm fuzzy by attempting to get our opinion on how this will impact our crew, but the truth is that this will be implemented regardless. It will only be a matter of time until QF follow suit.
BTW this memo wasn't supposed to go out. It was a mistake by the MEL admin staff. A whole explaination and stuff was supposed to come out first.

[sinala1]

I will go nuts if this is the case... I know other parts of the world operate this way, but thats no reason for us to start doing so. As a nation, we have one of the best safety records in the world - lets not start eroding at the pieces of the puzzle that make up this record :=

Time for the FAAA to show its worth and stop this legislation from going through - give me reason to want to re-signup as a member!!! (I left after someone from the union was employed by one of the airlines the union was supposed to represent)

[wirgin blew]

It was only a matter of time before this gem was released into the Australian domestic scene. I am sure that DJ have been sitting back letting QF do all the talking to the PM about how this will help there bottom line. Meanwhile back in Spring Hill the DJ board is probably rubbing there hands with glee thinking of the savings they can make by reducing the number of CC. Starts to make sense why more CC are leaving than being hired and why we are all working max hours plus getting called out for availables and drafts.
I suppose our pay rises have to come from somewhere and the easiest way would be to divide the pie 4 ways instead of 5.

[TopBunk]

From my experience of QF domestic service, you could do the work with less than four. The pax get very poor service on Oz domestics in comparison to European full service carriers. You're better than US carriers, but then again that's nothing to be compared to.

In the UK, 1:50 is the standard ratio. I would suggest that it is just about OZ catching up with the rest of the world.

[eidah]

I am working for a lost cost airline in the uk we also operate 737-800 carrying 189 pax have only 4 crew. Over here the law states 1 crew member per 50 pax so in theory if was flying a bigger a/c for example carrying 199 pax could operate with just the four crew.

[ditzyboy]

The pax get very poor service on Oz domestics in comparison to European full service carriers.

With all due respect, you need to get your facts straight, Mate. I assume that by 'service' you mean product offering? (I believe service to be how the staff offer the product and not how much they give you.)

Iberia - Buy-Onboard (BOB)
SAS - BOB or cold snack item in Y. All-Y on domestic flights
BA - Hot breakky then cold snack all day in Y. All-Y on domestic flights
Lufthansa - Sandwich/roll in Y
Swiss - Small snack item and choice of drink
Finnair - Cold/Hot meal of varying descriptions. Though only one class service and free seating on domestic
BMI - BOB or sandwich/roll in Y (depend on route). Tiny hot meal in cardbox box in C (business) class.
Air France - Single class domestic. Small cold snack on most Euro flights.

The lowest level of offering in Y class at Qantas (tandem snack - AM Refresh, Lunch and PM Refresh - flight under 90 mins) is equivilent to what the greatest level of service offered by the vast majority of European full-service carriers.

Few european carriers service hot meal in Y on one hour sectors. Few have two classes of service of domestic and shorter European flights.

Oz domestic travel ain't what it used to be but it's completely competitive on product offering on a world scale.

Bear in mind, too, that one (737) or two (767) extra cabin crew are onboard for short dinner services as we simply cannot get the service done otherwise. Despite airfares in Australia being the cheapest they have ever been customers expect service levels to be greater. Or maybe staff through the industry should just take pay cuts so customers' level of amenity and product offering stay the same?

[sydney s/h]

Well done ditzy boy.

I flew on European airlines a few months ago and i compare them to US carriers with regards to inflight service - or lack thereof.

On a SYD-MEL sector at dinner time we offer a hot meal in economy and a free bar of wine/beer and soft drinks plus you can purchase spirits.

In Business we offer a choice of meals, a bar service and a coffee and tea service. And you have to look after 2 Tech crew who both have hot meals as well.

All on a 1hr sector (make that 48mins on the return leg).

And you reckon we can do it with less crew???
:yuk:

[flitegirl]

I am working for a lost cost airline in the uk we also operate 737-800 carrying 189 pax have only 4 crew. Over here the law states 1 crew member per 50 pax so in theory if was flying a bigger a/c for example carrying 199 pax could operate with just the four crew.

Thank you eidah for that information. In Aus. we are well aware of the 1:50 ratio used by the rest of the world. Australian operators are probably the safest in the world and as crew we would like to keep it that way. We are horrified at the thought of our legislators allowing us to go down the road of profits before safety!

[sebby]

New Zealand operates with a 1:50 ratio and also has an impeccable safety record.

Today, I served the flight deck and also did tea and coffee for 126 pax while my csm operated on the cart with L2 position crewmember.

We offered a hot sandwhich, saleable bar and as i mentioned tea and coffee or water, this was on a 40 minute AKL - WLG sector.

In a 3 crew operation I dont believe the cabin is any less secure than with 4, or the passengers are at any huge risk of not being able to evacuate quickly.

Our overwing pax are briefed, I (as R2) know my responsibilites and L1, L2 are aware of their door responsibilities.

I believe 1:50 is sufficient, when we did full service we operated with 4. (this is on 733/4).

Accross the tasman we operate the 300 with 4 and the 400 with 4 up to a certain number of pax and 5 when the pax goes over 11/100 as an assist.

Be interesting to see when this is implemeneted. . .

[priapism]

One Mr T.J- now with Q.F , who was known at Ansett as a desk thumping megalomaniac, pushed extrememley hard to get the ratio changed fron 1:36 to 1:50. It just happened to coincide with the introduction of 100 seat CRJ jet for Kendall Airlines. It was his cost saving dream to operate these aircraft with 2 cabin crew instead of 3.

Probably because he is widely known as a total W@#nker his pleas to CASA were thankfully denied.

No doubt this will be tried again in the future , particularly with the widespread development of the one class, low service model in Australia.

[jetstarFA]

No doubt this will be tried again in the future , particularly with the widespread development of the one class, low service model in Australia.

If I am not mistaken the 1:36 ratio has already been discussed, handshaken on, passed through the Senate and will be put in place as soon as the standard government paperwork is stamped and popped in a dusty storage facility.

It doesn't matter if you are full cost or low cost it is all about cost and driving the cost of the marketplace down.

It will mean that Jetconnect (Jetstar and Qantas) and the Virgin Blue equivilent will be able to do a couple of AUST domestic sectors before popping home to NZ.... Why ? because the cost is cheaper and they can do longer hours than the AUST based crew.

It's got nothing to do with how many tea and coffee services a 3 or 4 person crew can do or who has the better service or how many business class pax get a choice of how many hot meals...Our airline managers will operate us at the lowest possible cost.....

Levels or service are all down to the individual. We all know what impeccible service is and we all know what,"this is my 8th day in a row and I have been up since 4am and that man in 12F was the 18th man to abuse me today", service is..... Doesn't how many people are there... Makes our work load a bit easier thats all....

The biggests loser will be AUST Crew Wannabies who will find it harder to find a job based in Australia....

This is not all galley rumours either, the FAAA Domestic having been fighting to stop the 1:36 ration and the above has been their biggest fear.....

Oh well.....:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[blueloo]

Just a few thougths.....with 4 crew (even 5 on occasion) on 73's, if all crew are out serving the pax, it can be quite hard to contact the cabin crew in critical (but not emergency) phases of flight. Sometimes we need timely communication with the cabin crew, without needing to go for all the bells and whistles.

If there is a passenger disruption, it can take all cabin crew to deal with the situation, in the meantime the flight deck door can be exposed to additional security issues.

So whilst sebby can do a fantastic service on a short sector, serving sambos with only 3 crew, I think there are further considerations which need to be accounted for.

After all pax service, whilst important, is really only a secondary priority to pax/crew safety.

[eidah]

Thank you eidah for that information. In Aus. we are well aware of the 1:50 ratio used by the rest of the world. Australian operators are probably the safest in the world and as crew we would like to keep it that way. We are horrified at the thought of our legislators allowing us to go down the road of profits before safety!

Just because we have less crew on board that does not mean we are less safer then if we had more. I have found that when we do have extra crew they are just in the way.

[keeperboy]

Errmmm...just being devils advocate here. ;)

But with all this harping on about 'thats why we have such a great safety record' stuff in oz/nz. I just don't really seem how it can be linked to cabin crew ratios if the safety record over there is so good that crashes never really happen. I'd say that might be down more to the pilots/maitenence/ATC. And perhaps the fact (that in Air NZ case anyway) the fleet size is very small on a worldwide scale and flying into/through less congested airspace than the average euro/US airline.

And surely operating rotations like LAX/JFK/LAX (per QF) is more of a safety hazard from a cabin crew perspective than a 1:50 ratio?

In the UK as has already been pointed out the legal minimum is one crew member per 36 pax seats.

At BA we rarely operate to the legal minimum. Tho the times they are a changin (especially for the poor buggers on s/haul). This however is totally service driven and got nothing to do with safety.

On short-haul (A319/320/321/757/767) the crew ratio is dependent on the Club (Business Class) loads.

On L/H our crew compliments are fixed. 8 on the 767 (also legal minimum - but only 181 seats on it). 12 or 13 on the 777 (route/config dependant). 15 or 16 on the 747 (route/config dependant).

In regards to service levels.....when I came home to OZ a few months ago and flew QF from SYD to MEL to see my sis couldn't believe what you guys offer on the aircraft on such a short flight. Was impressed!!!

[wirgin blew]

Its not like there is a shortage of the population that is affecting this decision. It is purely a bottom line decision by the airline boards across OZ.
In response to just because we have less crew on board that does not mean we are less safer then if we had more. I have found that when we do have extra crew they are just in the way.
Just because you are used to working with 3 crew doesnt mean that it is the right thing to be doing. The media and general population will be the first to cry if something goes wrong and an extra door at the front could have gotten the other half of the pax off.

[adam_ant]

I never thought of 3 on the 700! How does one CC open 2 doors in an evacuation with 144 paniced passengers rushing at her?, "Would you all be so kind as wait here as I open the other door?" Any tips from our Euro-Cousins?

[DJTibby]

can't you guys who work at DJ protest and/or strike? There has to be something you can do. Please don't let this happen in OZ!!!:{

[jetstarFA]

Has anyone heard of an ABP? Guess who picks up the slack when a 700 operates with only 3 crew.....:}

[sebby]

Im always scoping the cabin for ABPs!! :} :} :}

[blueloo]

thats Fantastic Jetstar FA - we can all look for ABP, and in prepared cases we can brief them on how to operate exits etc - i think a good example of this was the UA 747 HNL-SYD which had its fwd cargo door ripped off.

Unfortunately where this falls apart is in unprepared senarios - i think an example here was a BA737 which had an engine blow apart whilst taxiing, rupturing the fuel tanks - fire - unfortunately exits were opened by pax near the fire, which let the fire/smoke into the cabin, killing a fair few.

I think in all unsupervised exits (which we have currently regardless of pax ratios) there is potential for serious injuries.

[blueloo]

I hasten to add if my memory serves me correctly, the FA interviewed after the UA incident, said that her ABPs almost tried taking over the situation. So ABPs arent always that fantastic.

[Dogs_ears_up]

I know other parts of the world operate this way, but thats no reason for us to start doing so. As a nation, we have one of the best safety records in the world - lets not start eroding at the pieces of the puzzle that make up this record
Oh come on! As a nation, Australia is tiny (pop 20-22million). Why should it be a special case? Large parts of the world operate on the 1:50 rule, but australian aviation is in someway too precious to do the same? Applying the logic of the safety question, safety would be enhanced by operating with 8 crew on this type, and even more so with 16.

This is busines - you adapt to survive. If australian aviation puts itself at a competitive disadvantage by requiring more crew per aircraft than other countries, then large numbers of you will be spending alot more time at home reading pprune and looking for work.

[ZK-EBC]

1:50 ratio is fine! Reducing the DJ 737-800 crew compliment from 5 to 4 simply means one less bulging bag of lip gloss and bronzer for the male crew to trip up over:cool:

[jetstarFA]

Blueloo - I don't know if you fly or not BUT in a prepared cabin emergency one of the briefs we give to the 2 ABP's who will take over my main deck door or an overwing exit in an emergency if I (as flight attendant) am incapacitated. We tell them to throw me out and take control to evacuate the aircraft....

Blueloo - I am more than happy to operate on a 1:36 ratio but can also operate on a 1:50 ratio..... easy done... 14 more people.

The UA flight from HNL -SYD via AKL is an example of chaos.... nothing to do with ABP's trying to save the world and "take over".
In all my years of flying there are some cabin crew in an emergency situation who should jump down the slide and let an ABP take over.. I assume that with your research you also found that a lot of ABP's actually helped the situation as well

British Airtours B737 in Manchester with an engine fire. Yes exits were opened and people passed away....as well as people who were nowhere near the exits that would have gone into shock and remained in their seat and a pax sitting next to them survived..... Nothing to do with ABPS.....

AN ABP is not necessarily Mr Joe Belowaverage and his wife...An ABP can be paxing crew (any airline worldwide) , military, police, etc)

It is not my idea to operate the 1:50 ration, but if an Air France A340 operating on a 1:50 ration can get all pax of a burning plane at the end of a runway then I can get them off and A320 177 / 4 is 44.25. I can get 44.25 people of a burning plane....

Thats my job:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[uz32]

Air france in Canada was no where near a Crew/Pax ratio of 1:50. There were
297 Pax onboard and 9 or 10 Cabin crew.


10 crew = 1:29
9 crew = 1:33

Would 6 Cabin crew have got all of the Pax out in time ?- not sure. But I know most pax would prefer a crew member for each door and a ratio of 1:36

[sebby]

I think the point was that if the aircraft was full the ratio would have been 1:50... lets remember its only 1:50 with full loads.

In NZ law the aircraft can be crewed by 2 cabin crew if the pax number falls below 100 (ie a 135 seat aircraft only has 86 pax), this i think is awful... the laws are the laws and the unions only have so much power to stop this. If it is of real concern then the tech crew should step in and say something, people usually listen to them.

The union in aus would have to be one of the strongest in the world and is probably the best avenue to voice thses concerns!

[jetstarFA]

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Henry Winkler]

"One Mr T.J- now with Q.F , who was known at Ansett as a desk thumping megalomaniac, pushed extrememley hard to get the ratio changed fron 1:36 to 1:50. It just happened to coincide with the introduction of 100 seat CRJ jet for Kendall Airlines. It was his cost saving dream to operate these aircraft with 2 cabin crew instead of 3".


The CRJ only has 50 seats. I get the point though.

[sinala1]

Large parts of the world operate on the 1:50 rule, but australian aviation is in someway too precious to do the same? Applying the logic of the safety question, safety would be enhanced by operating with 8 crew on this type, and even more so with 16.

Why would anyone want to agree to reducing the ratio? Just because other parts of the world do it, that does not necessarily make it worlds best practice - just a cheaper way of doing things. The more crew on board, the better - more chance of timely, efficient cabin service; more crew to deal with obnoxious/rowdy/threatening pax; more crew to help out in an onboard emergency inflight - medical or otherwise; and of course more crew to help out in an evac - plus on the DJ B738 at least with 5 crew on a 4 sector day, we are able to get 4 out of the 5 crew having their LEGALLY entitled meal break - something that does not happen on the -700 on your standard 4 sector day (which is more common than not these days)

If these next EBA's (pilots and crew) get through at DJ, they stand to make SUBSTANTIAL savings in crew efficiency, hotel and transport costs, and of course reduced number of overnight payments - so don't talk to us about adaptability to survive, we already know and understand...

This needs to be fought people - otherwise I think it will be the straw that breaks the camels back for a large number of crew :{ :ugh: :=

[adam_ant]

Here, Here Sinala1! Couldn't agree more. Just because the rest of the world does something, doesn't mean its right! Its like that old saying, 'if everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you?"

I dread working a 4 sector day on a 700 as you haven't got time to break - even for the toilet!

I guess when service suffers and complaints go up, VB may realise it wasn't such a good idea. Not to mention the increase to supplemental pay claims!

I rang the FAAA, they said that the government looks at this change nearly every year and they are constantly lobbying against it. Unfortuneatley I think that our poor union is no match for the might of DJ and QF united. Apparently there is a lot of pressure from NZ as well as reduced crew ration allows air NZ (and I imagine PB as well!) to operate domestic in aussie airspace. Once again money is more important than safety

In the words of C-3PO : 'we are doomed'.

[milbud]

Sinala1, I contacted the people at the FAAA and a lovely young lady was quite helpfull with info! She was i noticed very careful to point out that though they are facing the fight of the 1:50 ratio it appears that our 700's are not under threat as the requirement for min 1 per "Door" will remain. Still with something like 26 800's with say four full crew's per operating day that is a saving of 104 crew per day on the fleet. Funny how that could provide the 2 crew required to operate a Embraer 175.
It's going to make working an 800 to Per fully loaded a bastard, sup forms for 4 hour flights what a joke hey matey?

:mad:

[jetstarFA]

http://www.faaadomestic.org.au/links.htm

The bottom of this pages has links to the Senate Report - Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005

Its been with the Senate for the past year and is fully supported by Virgin Blue, Jetstar and Qantas..... They will save big bucks doing this.:8

:} :}

[priapism]

Henry,

Happy to stand corrected.The CRJ was in fact a 50 seater. It was a long time ago. T.J wanted to get the ratio changed to 1:50 so they could be operated with 1 cabin crew, as per the SAAB.

[eidah]

Are you serious? You're not related to this 'aircraft' fellow are you? Anyway, when was the last time you had a chance to evaluate the differences between an evacuation with 5 F/A's as opposed to one with only 4? Oh, sorry, I forgot-we are only there to serve sandwiches. :ugh:

Actually I have worked on this aircraft 737-800 for the last four years in europe. One crew member per door only takes one crew member to open the door as we are actually trained to open the door on our own. Then two cabin crew at each end of the aircraft directing passengers of the aircraft once all passengers are off you checked your assigned area what exactly does the 5th member do.

[SkySista]

Jetstar FA, actually in the UAL 801 incident, in a taped interview one of the FAs mentioned above admitted having to physically stop the ABP's from taking over as they were so gung-ho they wanted to command the evac even though she was ok...

true ABPs can be handy but I'm sure you will agree, not as handy as someone who is trained and familiar with the operation of the doors. I mean, who wants to be opening a door for the first time when you've got 50-100 of your fellow pax screaming at you, smoke, dire, confusion etc, if you've never done it before?

At least an FA (even if an extra or paxing) has the backup of 'routine' experience with the door to be quicker than the average joe during an evac... also, no matter how much you brief your ABP's in the say, 20mins you might have, it's probably not long enough for them to truly understand the impoartance of not using an unusable exit - someone who doesn't know 'why' is likely to do as happened with the Manchester incident and open a door into smoke/flame/fumes... and kill a lot of pax...

An ABP is not substitute for an FA!! They're just a backup for 'worst case'!! Thinking otherwise is like saying a guy with a PPL will do as well as the tech crew 'as a backup'... let's not kid ourselves.. .as Sinala said, just because the rest of the world does it this way doesn't mean we should too!!

[jetstarFA]

Skysista - Valid points

BUT

Quote:I mean, who wants to be opening a door for the first time when you've got 50-100 of your fellow pax screaming at you, smoke, dire, confusion etc, if you've never done it before?

I have never opened a door in an emergency and I can bet that probably 90% of crew haven't opened a door in an emergency..... Jetstar Crew don't even open a door in normal operating mode..... I have NEVER opened a door on an A320 (once a year on aan OLD Ansett mock up for EP's total of 3 times.). So who's to say that myself or any other crew can complete the task.

Quote:An ABP is not substitute for an FA!! They're just a backup for 'worst case'!!

At JQ only 4 crew are responsible for a door (4 doors) and we have 5 crew,,, the 5th crew member supervises an overwing exit removal (if they can get there).

We have provisions in our manual to operate on reduced crew......

I used to operate with 3 crew on a 737-300 quite successfully..... Person at the back was responsible for the opening of the 2 back doors......

In the 10 years I have flown as crew and a further 25 I have flown as a pax I have never even had a blood nose.....

Unfortunately I have said Time and Time AGAIN AND AGAIN... Jetstar, Qantas, Virgin and any other airline don't care about safety UNTIL the proverbial hits the fan...... Until we have an incident (heaven forbid) the airlines of the world and especially the ones we all work for will cut corners to save dollars and cents..... FACT.... tell me I am wrong.... I won't believe that anyone in my airline or friends who work in other airlines can stride to work and not see the wrong doings of our managers and say with conviction that they feel safe....

I don't need a fact lesson on a UAL flight or flights where an ABP opens doors... All too aware of these facts and have been hearing about them and been taught them in Grounds Schools for the past 10 years...:= := := :ugh:

FACT - 1:50 will go ahead..... Get used to it :D :D

[sebby]

True that JetstarFA.. may I ask where you have flown with a 3 crew 733 operation? :confused:

[jetstarFA]

Sabena back in the mid 90's - ..... I can tell you ALL about it if you like sebby

[sebby]

Well before you get your back too far arched, I only asked because I work on 733s now in a 3 crew operation and wondered if perhaps you have worked for the same company as me.

[sebby]

No worries :ok:

[KittyBlue]

As for DJ proceeding with the 4 crew 738, this has been canned for the moment. As per the email that was inadvertantly sent out by a DM, it was retracted about 30 minutes after it was released. Yes they are holding on to it for a little longer, and from my way of thinking, once the new EBA has been completed. So therefor we ( DJ crew) should/need to stipulate in our new EBA about how many crew are required per an aircraft. This will be important if DJ purchase the Embraer jets which hold about 80-100 pax.

I couldnt imagine 4 crew on a 100 seater, so negotiation would need to be sort.

[whateva]

hey there,
yes i can confirm that it is an option for VB to crew a -800 with 4 crew, we can already do it. At the moment it requires no more than 144 PAX. The 1:50 is nothing new, it is done by many successful airlines such as south west. Freedom air have it as well, which is now also includes Air NZ A320 serivces. To be honest with you, 3 crew on a 700 is not ideal due to the service, restocking of the catering and cleaning all will prove 30 min turns and 3 crew will not work. However we must think about getting aircraft out in the mornings. Say for example a 700 is doing OOL SYD at 510am sign on. a cc member goes sick at the airport. there is nothing we can do at the moment. it will cancell the flight or wait for another crew to arrive at the airport. If we can go with 3 crew and get into SYD, we can be joined by a relief cc, or they could have paxed another crew to meet the aircraft when it gets in. Pac Blue can operate an 800 with 3 crew and reduced pax load of 150... is that what is next on the scene?

[ShesGreatintheGalley]

look.. there are plenty 'for' and 'againsts' for this topic. personally, i think the more crew the better,perhaps not evacuation wise (unless the a/c is all in one peice and its agood evac where its not broken up) but just for other things.. like inflight fires etc it would be great to have the extra crew available.
having said that.. this WILL go through. there is no way it wont. Its happening in Europe.. and our companies here want it. Perhaps we need to start thinking more about our ABP briefings instead of ranting and raving.

And i also agree.. half the cabin crew you fly with (all of us.. no one in particular) are probably useless in an evac anyway. i flew the other day with a chickie who panicked about upcoming EPs cos "she knew nothing.. had NO idea".
it makes me wonder.

xx

[sinala1]

So, its now been officially announced - 4 crew on the 737-800 rostered from early next year, and in the meantime the -800 can be crewed with 4 crew and a full pax load if someone goes sick

http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/2006/CASA321.pdf

:mad:

:{

:*

:ouch:


I don't care if its done elsewhere in the world, as I said earlier it does not mean its worlds best practice - just cheapest

Has anyone else noticed that alot of the cost cutting that is going on is happening in the CC department? 4 Crew on the B738; and this next EBA - who knows what its going to come of it...


Can I please ask that crew of other australian airlines don't blame VB crew when this is implemented with you too - we are just as against it as you are

[RaverFlaver]

What do you think the major imapcts of this will be for you at Virgin?

I'm curious as I fly on 767-300's and we have 4 crew looking after 204 pax in economy. Sure a 5th crew member would be great, however we manage to do a full service on a CNS/BNE and CNS/SYD sector.

In relations to an evacuation, what is the role of the 5th crew member at Virgin? Responsibility for o/wings as there are only 4 doors? I just want to know how you guys think this will effect things.

Cheers,

Raverflaver :)

[flitegirl]

Raver I don't think they will be worried about the service side of things - the debate and concern is over the fundamental 1:36 ration rule being undermined.

[QF skywalker]

I am totally disgusted with the 3 crew operation that QF jetconnect/Air NZ continue to operate out of NZ. ( Please note this opinion does not relate to the crew who operate for these carriers/subsidiary)
Let's think about the QF 6 incident for example. Crew have already disarmed their doors as a/c has docked on aerobridge. Then......engineers on ground report fire from landing gear due overheated breakes....this then causes 'evacuate ' PA from flight deck.
Although the QF6 indicent relates to 744 aircraft, tell me how one flight attendant at the rear of a 737 would deal with this if it were to happen to him/her ?
I can only imagine what the drill cards under the jumpseat of the poor bugger sitting at the rear R2/L2 door must say -:
1. Commence Evac Commands
2. Check BOTH doors safe to open
3. Stop 100 + rushing/scared pax coming towards you
4. Keep them out of galley
5. Stop them pushing you out of way
6. Make sure your commands are loud and clear so they obey
7. Get down on knees and arm BOTH doors again ensuring girt bar is engaged.
5. Recheck BOTH doors
6. Open BOTH doors
7.Ensure inflation on BOTH slides
8. Direct passengers off aircraft
We have some people on here who managed to serve hot sandwhiches on a 40min sector with 3 crew. Congratulations !! Service or Safety ??

[RaverFlaver]

I do realise that, however they still do go out into the cabins with carts offering a service....

My concern was, will it impact that much in an evacuation.....as you wouldn't need two crew operating a door.....unless of an incapactiated primary....that's why I was curious as to what their 5th crew members responsibility currently isin the event of an emrgency.....

RaverFlaver :)

[sebby]

In a 3 crew operation there at Jetconnect there are 2 FAs seated at the rear. The CSM is forward on their own. An Air New Zealand 733 with 3 cabin crew recently evactuated 100 pax and 3 infants with no injuries on the tarmac at AKL international. They did a sterling job, and in a very quick space of time. Google it....

[QF skywalker]

Sebby regardless of where you all sit, the point I am trying to make is the workload of a single f/a in the given situation. Don't take it personally, I know you work for the airline concerned hence why I made the comment in previous post that I am not attacking crew.

Telling me to google an Air NZ incident does nothing to stop my fears over 3 crew evacuations. Every emergency is different and not every evacuation runs smoothly - that is why I am posing the QF 6 re-arming door and evacuating question for 3 cabin crew compliment crew.

[sebby]

Hang on - I most certainly wasnt taking it personally, i merely want to take a positive out of the hard working 3 crew operation. Gee id love to have 4 crew on a domestic operation, especially regarding the 400 but its been proven once that it can work and the likes of Geoff Dixon and co would have heard cha ching at the sight of that near miss recently! Ive worked in Aus under those laws and I agree with you, 100% safety and service satisfaction will never be complete under these conditions but its been this way here and in many other places for a long time and its certainly not going to go the other way in those places but its just a matter of time before it does in australia. :bored:

[overhere]

QF Skywalker,

Like Sebby I too have worked with 3 crew on a 733.

If you use your example, during that stage of things, L1 door would be opened with air bridge attached. L2 & R2 would have crews at the door and both doors would take a few seconds at most to rearm (there is clearly no need to cross check them in an emergency) and the doors would be opened. That's at least 3 exits usable, from that it would be easy to evacuate a maximum of 126 pax in 90 seconds, especially considering most would exit through the airbridge (as they did on QF6).

The 737 door arming procedure is very quick and simple, the slides inflate in under 15 seconds.

With 3 crew, there is still always 3 primary doors covered, plus ABP are provided with comprehensive briefings at the O/W exits, essentially in a prepared evac you have 5 usable exits - remember the FAA and CASA certification for the 733 was done using only 3.

I've worked with 3, 4 and 5 crew on the 733 and all modes were perfectly safe. Unless you've seen the SOP's for the 3 crew configuration, I don't think you're qualified to comment. There are many crew on this board from both NZ and Europe who operate under this configuration and I have never read of any of them feeling unsafe about doing so.

[Londonlads]

Take Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) for instance. They usually operate with minimum crew on all their aircraft types; Boeing 737-600/700 3 CC, Boeing 737-800 4 CC, MD80 3 CC... would be surprised to see if they go out with more crew than required!

BA LGW, B737 is also crewed by 3 CC.

londonlads

[sinala1]

The point again that I will continue to make is Just because other parts of the world do it, does NOT mean that australia has to - its not necessarily worlds best practice, just worlds cheapest...

There is no mention in the exemption of the -700 having 3 crew - its only for the -800 to have 4 crew.


Glad to see the cost cutting is not being included in upper management though - did everyone see the proposition in the Notice of AGM to give Brett another 650,000 shares? :hmm:

(for those of you who didnt read the letter, you can find it here http://www.virginblue.com.au/pdfs/investors/NoticeofAGMFinal.pdf - its Section 5 on page 2 of the letter...)

[320subria]

I have to agree with Sinala 1, just because countries in other parts of the world do things differently, doesn't mean their practices are any better or safer than ours. I also work in the healthcare industry as a Nurse and having worked in the UK I can say that we are fortunate to have much better nurse to patient ratios here in Australia and I believe consequently better patient outcomes and having worked as a nurse in the UK, our healthcare system is leaps and bounds ahead when it comes to safe practice, this is why our nursing unions fight very hard to maintain the high working standards and practices we have here in Oz.

[DJTibby]

Isn't there something you can do though? There must be a way to stop it:sad: less crew on 800s will mean they need to employ less crew:{

[sinala1]

Isn't there something you can do though? There must be a way to stop it

No, unfortunately not - CASA has already signed off on the exemption :{

The only good news is that the exemption applies specifically to the B737-800 - its NOT a change of the current Ratio of 1:36 as currently stands in Australia - although how long do we think it will take before that changes too :{


Management say we will be working harder, not smarter - on a 4 sector MEL-SYD day I would like to see how we are going to be able to achieve our LEGALLY entitled meal breaks (which we are rarely getting now as it is) - whats the bet that clause is written OUT of this next EBA := :hmm:

[flitegirl]

So if these new exemptions aren't effecting the 1:36 ratio does this mean that if there is 4 crew on a B738 the pax load will be capped? If so, this has actually been happening for years with various arlines. I was paxing on a Qantas B738 recently and the CSM mentioned to me that they were "one crew member down" due to a crewing dilemma - therefore the flight was capped. I used to work on Bae146-300s which had a max pax load of about 85 however we could operate them with 2 flight attendants if the pax load was capped at 72. 1 FA was responsible for L1 & R1 and the same for L2 & R2.

[sinala1]

FliteGirl - VB have already been doing that since we had the B738's. This is a seperate exemption that allows the -800 to be crewed with 4 crew and a full pax load (189 pax, which includes 9 infants), however the way the exemption is worded relates specifically to the B737-800 only - it makes no mention of changing the CC to Pax ratio across the board... although I am sure that won't be far off :{ :mad:

[Flying Frypan]

Guys, if you read the info posted it clearly states that the CC to Pax ratio has been changed from 1:36 to 1:50. The reason the 737-700 will not have 3 CC is because CASA states that there must be a trained CC member for each non "self help" type exit, therefore a door exit. On VB 737-800 aircraft the 5th CC member is responsible for evacuating the overwing area, this will now be the responsibility of ABP's as this type of exit is considered to be "self help".
It won't be long before QF and JQ submit an application to CASA so they too can be assessed for the opportunity to operate with a reduced crew complement. Unfortunately VB were the first to do it.
This is going to be a fact in Australian aviation and it is only a matter of time before our friends at other airlines will be forced to follow suit.

[sinala1]

Actually, Flying Frypan, Section 2 of the Document I linked to previously (here it is again for those who missed it) (http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/2006/CASA321.pdf) states clearly:

"This instrument applies to the aircraft mentioned in Schedule 1 operated by Virgin Blue Airlines, Aviation Reference Number 567591 (the operator) and engaged in Regular Public Transport operations"

Schedule 1 states:

"Schedule 1 Aircraft

Australian registered Boeing 737-800 series with a type data certificate that provides for a maximum seating capacity of 189"

There is reference made to the 1:36 ratio and CAO 20.16.3 in the explanatory notes, but nowhere does it state that the ratio has been changed across the board - only in this "instrument", which applies only to the B737-800 aircraft configured with 189 pax or less.

This is not a good thing folks :*

[737opsguy]

Guys the exemption isn't as complicated as it sounds. You just need to understand how to read CASA crap.

Current rules state: Ratio of 1:36 for aircraft with a capacity under 215.
Exemption: Ignore the crew ratio, VB can crew a 737-800 with 4 crew up to a capacity of 189 passengers.

There is no change for crew in terms of safety procedures, but as Sinala has mentioned, there is a change in terms of workload for the service and the access to breaks during flight.

The other note in referencing the instrument and the explanatory note is that they have a requirement for a crew member at each floor level exit. Thus when the CAO actually changes within the next year or so, CASA could maintain this requirement and as such the -300 or -700 will still need 4 crew.

[Classic]

In the UK as has already been pointed out the legal minimum is one crew member per 36 pax seats.

Sorry, not so.
Just to clarify for other UK crew, it's 1 per 50 pax seats in the UK too

[Bailey's Dad]

The best thing to do is.......do what you can do, so if half the pax dont get served on a flight then so be it. They can submit there complaints.
I will keep you busy with getting want I want and hopefully this insanity wont last long.

[sebby]

Bailey's Dad - im pretty sure the crew arent that concerned with the service (correct me if im wrong), more the safety aspect of operating with less crew. Im doubtful that 4 crew wont be able to complete an all Y/C service with only saleable items available.

And unfortunately if it cant be done time and time again then the solution wont be adding crew but simplifying the service instead. And the downward spiral begins....

[ditzyboy]

CASA states that there must be a trained CC member for each non "self help" type exit, therefore a door exit.

What is this so-called rule that people quote? I can think of the F28, CRJ and 146 that all have floor level exits 'unmanned' in an emergency. What is the actual wording? Is there a sub-clause for smaller aircraft? How many CC were OZJet using on their low capacity 732s? I thought it was three with a goal to be two over time?

[sebby]

I actually think the wording refers to an aircraft with a standard load over 200 or something that requires one crew member for every floor level exit, so the 1:36 ratio no longer applies. During my training in australia when i worked there, this is what i was taught.

[CD]

I actually think the wording refers to an aircraft with a standard load over 200 or something that requires one crew member for every floor level exit, so the 1:36 ratio no longer applies. During my training in australia when i worked there, this is what i was taught.

Basically correct. Here is the text of the requirement:

6.1(c) aircraft carrying more than 216 passengers shall carry the number of cabin attendants as prescribed by CASA which shall not be less than 1 cabin attendant for each floor level exit in any cabin with 2 aisles;

Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3 (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/Cao20/201603.pdf)

There is no similar requirement for single aisle aircraft or those with fewer than 216 passengers.

[sebby]

Thanks for that CD. :)

[adam_ant]

Thanks Sinala1 for the Casa document. I delivered the new 'over the top' overwing brief the other day and was shocked at how detailed it was. I felt like it was in too much detail and could possibly scare nervous flyers who were listening in. Reading the CASA thing - I see now that overwing pax need to be actually briefed in gory detail on when/how to opertate the exit. It would have been nice if the company had explained the reason for the change to us. Without explanation, most crew will stick with the old brief - which will be a violation of the exemption!

The other note in the exemption as that there will be 2 abp at each overwing door - they have yet to notify us of the requirement yet either!

I think its important that all CS fill out supp payments so VB can see the effect of this is having cost wise! Lets make it more expensive in break penalty than paying an L2X!

And for you VB hopefuls - I think we may be officially overstaffed for some months to come!

Love,
Adam

Ps: Funny that VB gets this wonderful little gift from CASA who is led by former VB manager BB!

[CD]

CASA amended the requirement slightly in the following document:

Instrument number 393/06: Amendment of instrument CASA 321/06 (http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/2006/CASA393.pdf)

Here is the first one, as shared by sinala1:

Instrument number 321/06: Direction - number of cabin attendants (http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/2006/CASA321.pdf)

You can keep up with these changes at this site:

2006 Archive - Legislative changes (http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/changes/archive06.htm)

[ditzyboy]

There is no similar requirement for single aisle aircraft or those with fewer than 216 passengers.

Thanks guys for the quotes. That's what I thought - there is nothing to stop a 737-700 going out with three crew if and when the ratio is changed. What about an exemption on similar lines to that of the -800? If there is no requirement for each floor level exit to be manned on 737s how is the situation different to the -800 exemption and what occurs on 146s and the like? Scary :uhoh:

Very interesting about the requirement there is two ABP at each exit and the new briefing. So Virgin are yet to advise you if this?

Let's hope that CS fill in meal break penalties whenever they are required. When it starts costing the company money they WILL take notice. Hopefully cabin crew stick to their guns and are not intimidated into not filling them out.

I wonder how long it will take for other airlines to follow suit?

[SkySista]

Regarding the exit briefing... just wondering what was covered in the 'old' and what you now have to add? Just that with my flying, we always had to tell the pax what they were looking for (i.e. fire, obstacles, water etc) and when to move (the "evacuate" command)... what do you mean by new 'level of detail'?

And you're right, I think it may scare the pax a little, but they dont have to sit ther eif they don't want to!! Always plenty of people willing to sit there... whether they would actually do well is a particular pet subject of mine, but that's for another thread (which has already been covered :E)

[Flygrl]

On a 767 early am flight less than 2hrs flying time. The service in Y is,
4 crew - 204 PAX, 6 double carts serving breakfast, then tea/coffee, then collection 6 carts with 2nd tea/coffee, then 4 double carts serving snack - a choice of 3 things - savory, sweet and/or piece of fruit followed by bottled water or bottled juice and a soft/alcholic drink on request, then there is a collection serivce after that!
Ive travelled in Europe on a 2+hr sector and have had to request a drink of water, which arrived in a paper cup! And was slapped down a 'meal'- some kind of sandwich which was still frozen! Coffee, "Im sorry mam we dont have time for hot drinks on todays flight!" As for inflight entertainment, BYO!
And dont mention the fact that in QF we have blankets and pillows, Baby Meals, Special Meals and for premium pax in Y newpapers. And a free movie with free headsets for all!!!!!
So dont tell us we dont have a bloody good service! Our feet and backs pay for it at the end of the day.

With all due respect, you need to get your facts straight, Mate. I assume that by 'service' you mean product offering? (I believe service to be how the staff offer the product and not how much they give you.)

Iberia - Buy-Onboard (BOB)
SAS - BOB or cold snack item in Y. All-Y on domestic flights
BA - Hot breakky then cold snack all day in Y. All-Y on domestic flights
Lufthansa - Sandwich/roll in Y
Swiss - Small snack item and choice of drink
Finnair - Cold/Hot meal of varying descriptions. Though only one class service and free seating on domestic
BMI - BOB or sandwich/roll in Y (depend on route). Tiny hot meal in cardbox box in C (business) class.
Air France - Single class domestic. Small cold snack on most Euro flights.

The lowest level of offering in Y class at Qantas (tandem snack - AM Refresh, Lunch and PM Refresh - flight under 90 mins) is equivilent to what the greatest level of service offered by the vast majority of European full-service carriers.

Few european carriers service hot meal in Y on one hour sectors. Few have two classes of service of domestic and shorter European flights.

Oz domestic travel ain't what it used to be but it's completely competitive on product offering on a world scale.

Bear in mind, too, that one (737) or two (767) extra cabin crew are onboard for short dinner services as we simply cannot get the service done otherwise. Despite airfares in Australia being the cheapest they have ever been customers expect service levels to be greater. Or maybe staff through the industry should just take pay cuts so customers' level of amenity and product offering stay the same?

[737opsguy]

I am not a cabin crew member but have an interest in this area, so anyone with cabin crew experience please answer this.

The change at Virgin Blue and the impact it will have it not a safety issue but more one of workload management. Can the crew carry out the same duties but with one person less and what changes to duties (ala service) may be required. And also will the crew meet the break requirements.

Flygirl you mentioned the service standard for 204 pax with 4 crew. Not having flown on QF (I assume it's QF) for a while, what would the 'time per row' be. I mean how long would it take you to serve one row of seats. The reason I ask, is that on some full service carriers the service is the provision of a prepared meal tray that is provided to every passenger. Whereas at Virgin Blue, each passenger has a personalised order which must to catered for and then have a transaction. I'm not saying either is better, just curious over the time it takes.

What I am trying to ascertain is the time per row and thus the overall time you are in the aisle serving when doing a full service of prepared meals versus the time taken when you pay on board and order what you like.

Thanks

[737NG_Girl]

737opsguy its pretty difficult to give a "time per row" for a pay-as-you-go service, as each passengers order can vary considerably. For eg, pax orders vb & sandwich - takes 5 seconds to get from carts, open VB, hand to pax and all done - total transaction time less than a minute. Pax 2 on the other hand orders hot chocolate, sandwich, cheese & biscuits - total transaction time probably closer to 2 mins by the time the hot choccie is made up etc. Same goes for coffee - because its individual instant sachets, it takes longer to make up. Somtimes you will get 5 rows of pax who order nothing, other times you will get 144 pax ordering $10 worth of food/drink each on a 1 hour sector.

To answer your question regarding achieving breaks, its not happening now!! So I really don't see how it will be possible with 4 crew on the 738.

The problem with the service is that there is not a lot that can be done to change it - so all the hype from management about how we will be "working smarter, not harder" is a bit hard to swallow - and now they are asking for our submissions and suggestions on how to change the service flows, because they have made changes that we did not want or ask for! := Why should we have to figure out changes to the service flow when we did not want the reduction of crew in the first place? :*

I also wonder if anyone has put any thought into the fact that now on the -800 with only 4 crew, if someone goes sick mid-duty in a port thats not a base there is no longer any redundancy there - they cant just cap the flight and go with 4 crew, now the flight will be delayed/cancelled altogether? :ugh:

[737opsguy]

737NG_Girl, Thanks for your answer on that one. It helps put things into perspective. I can only assume that for a full service airline (eg QF) the service can be achieved a lot faster as you are simply grabbing a tray from the cart and handing to each passenger. This compared to the variations you get from each passenger in the Virgin Blue scenario means the service must take you a lot longer.

In relation to a mid-duty sick scenario, doesn't that issue already exist for the 700's where there are already 4 crew? One goes sick and bam, the aircraft is grounded until they can pull in a reserve, find a relief crew if they at a regional or wait for another crew to be flown in and hope the original crew still have hours left to get home. The new 800 with 4 crew means that instead of having 144 really really happy pax there is now 180 pax.

The 'work smarter not harder' approach is fine in terms of improving the way crew perform their duties so that it makes it easier for them. But why did they wait for the change in crew numbers. Why wasn't this kind of thing being looked at before to help the crew out. Why does it always need to be a transaction: you give us something we give you something. I thought we were all working for the same company at the end of the day.

[sebby]

We hardly just offer a tray to every pax. The pax also chooses from a beverage, which isnt as simple for most people as you may think :ugh: , mainly because when people are getting something for free they tend to take a bit longer to decide.

In the case that its a non breakfast service, we follow the "tray delivering service" with tea and coffee, whilst juggling numerous 2nd drink requests, and then the desert service. On a 737 with just 2 crew "handing out trays" this can take up to 1.5 hours. Clearing in, which is usually done before ice creams, is done with up to 3 carts.

Im not saying any service is easier than the next but dont brush off the fact that a full service carrier just hand out meals to everyone which would make it easier. I also rearrange the tray with small gestures, eg moving the tea cup handle outwards. Every second counts when you're on a full flight and you're still clearing in when top of decent comes! :hmm:

[adam_ant]

Everyone:

We are losing the issue here - all carriers work differently, some work harder inflight while some work harder on turn around, we are comparing apples and oranges with this discussion - this thread is about VB getting an exemption to reduce crew compliment on the aircraft. I am certain those of you at other oz carriers will feel the flow on affect of this, but for the mean time can we stick to VB and what this new rule is going to mean for VB CC and our working conditions?

Many Thanks,
Adam

[chickrefueller]

i work for a full service airline in the usa and we have min crew on most flights..a 737-300/500/700 is 3 crew and a 737-800/900 is 4 crew..works just fine and we serve drinks and meals!

[VB F/A]

[quote=adam_ant;2920345]Thanks Sinala1 for the Casa document. I delivered the new 'over the top' overwing brief the other day and was shocked at how detailed it was. I felt like it was in too much detail and could possibly scare nervous flyers who were listening in. Reading the CASA thing - I see now that overwing pax need to be actually briefed in gory detail on when/how to opertate the exit. It would have been nice if the company had explained the reason for the change to us. Without explanation, most crew will stick with the old brief - which will be a violation of the exemption!

I agree that this was 'timed perfectly', but realistically the new brief is a step up in my opinion. Is L2X really EVER going to get to the overwing except in an Alert? Would love to see them fight against 90 people trying to head the other way.

[sinala1]

Thankyou Adam_Ant, I thought I was the only one who felt the thread was drifting away from the reason it was started!

737opsguy I think you missed 737NG_Girl's point - my understanding was say for eg the B738 with 4 crew goes up to BME and a crewmember goes sick on turnaround. Unfortunately relief crew, for whatever reason, is unable to fly that day - so instead of being able to take off one crewmember and cap the flight, the a/c is grounded and the whole crew is stuck in BME. (erm although I have heard the Cable Beach Club is quite lovely :E ) - so there is no longer the redundancy that was there in the event of mid duty sickness. I agree the -700 is already like that, but still it was nice having a bit of backup on the -800

[CD]

There was an interesting discussion in the D & G General Aviation & Questions forum last November that is related, at least to the overwing exit issue. However, the thread has been archived and you can only seem to get it through Google now.

Anyway, here is the quick link:

Boeing 737 series 700 and 800 emergency exit rows (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:6vMj2lZ_gjcJ:www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-198413.html)

[adam_ant]

I agree that it was always highly unlikely that L2X was going to get the overwing. I also agree that the brief is probably more effective despite its tone. Of course the new proceedure will now marry with that on the 700 - L2 will open L2, start the flow of pax evac. and then make her way to the overwing to direct the opening of the overwing exit - now THAT will be impossible. I laugh everytime I read that!

Its sounds to me that worldwide the overwing is a right off as far as CASA,FAA etc are concerned if not crew are required to be there for evac.

On a personal note - I wont miss L2X - always hated standing in everyones way during disembarkation - and never enjoyed the solitude of 'floating'.

[whateva]

There are many issues with this ratio, yes airlines in nz operate a 300 with 3 crew, their flight times are over 2 hours, imagine trying to do a 4 sector mel lst mel 45 mins, and mel cbr mel 45 mins, trying to do the service, rubbish clear, restock, and banking all at once. Indeed not serving passengers may get some of them to write in and complain, it will do very little as management have always been about cost savings. My issue with the ratio is crew fatigue, 4 crew on an 800 means there will be no time have a break on any flight! breaks now are very rare, but atleast there is time to shovel some poorly made and luke warm crew food into your mouth while doing banking and flight reports! after a 12 hour day (with delays) then being told to evacuate on the fianl touch down would just cause deaths. there is no word of 3 crew on a -700 yet, but i am sure its not far behind. I regret to say it, but it will take an accident where there is a loss of life to get them to change the ratio. Airlines now days are only concerned with the bottom dollar and giving the management teams big rewards for making the airline earn more money by risking safety and giving poor service, they have lost sight that if an aircraft went down, and there was a loss of life all this will come out and the public will loose faith in the airline and casue it to shut down. Then i wonder if the massive ammount of cash management recieved was all worth it.:=

[QF skywalker]

Congratulations on your order for the EMBRAER jets !! They will be a hoot to fly on ! The EMB 190 can get to anywhere in Australia.

Whats the bet 2 cabin crew per aircraft ?

Sinala and Smile - you both are going to love regional flying :)

QF SKY

[sinala1]

I wonder who will get the flying though - will it be us or a seperate company???

Yeah I am willing to bet 2 crew on the EMB170 and 3 on the EMB190... I can almost gaurentee the 'exemption' so lovingly applied to the B738 will end up being an actual change of ratio to 1:50 in Australia, therefore allowing 3 on the EMB190 :ugh: :ugh:

[wirgin blew]

My bet will be 2 on both sinala. You can have a 4 crew do a trip like this. MEL-SYD as a 4 on a 800/700. Split up then have 1 crew do a SYD-CFS-SYD the other do the SYD-CBR-SYD. Then reform and do a SYD-MEL.
Nice little 4 sector day dont you think.

:ugh:

[QF skywalker]

Sinala,
I'm thinking a base within a base. Each DJ base will have a DJ regional base added to it. Crew will use same facilities, wear same uniform, get same company memos but will be on lower award rates and will only fly on EMB a/c. They will be employed by Virgin Regional. Can't wait to see the cabin crew agreement for this venture - should make for interesting reading.

Then down the track, you have a situation similar to QF (lowest bidder ). Virgin regional start stealing your flying and vice versa :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Has your EBA been signed yet ????

[boredcounter]

As highly trained Crew, carry out all your actions in the event of a major 'prang'
1:50 is safe, proven by many EU and USA carriers, catch up please.
Many here base their opinions on service. Sell yourselves short why dont you. Please learn 1:50 trained Crew is safe, if not the governining body will deny the operation.
With the Middle East airlines looking to under-cut your prices and to be fair service levels with Flippers and Indians etc etc, whilst using "Crew for the Doors" and service crew to serve, in the same uniform, as nothing but waitresses, now that is unsafe! (QR)
Well, you draw your own conclusions.

[737opsguy]

The new Embraer jets are going to be operated by Virgin Blue and not a separate company. They will be crewed by Virgin Blue Cabin Crew who will eventually all be dual rated. Initially there will be a small group who start as EMB only crew but eventually everyone will fly both.

Therefore its same crew, same uniform, same service type, same company etc.. its just a smaller plane going into some new ports.

[wirgin blew]

Just been looking at cabin config on Embraer website and there is only 2 cabin crew seats, 1 at either end so the 1:50 ratio will be coming in on these aircraft for sure.

[737opsguy]

Yeah that spooked me too when I saw it. Apparently the pax seats are 2 inches wider and really comfortable. I was speaking with a guy in engineering the other day and they said that they have setup a cabin layout which is different to the standard one EMB have.

There is no way that I can see CASA approving 1:50 straight out of the factory so they'd have to buy them with an extra crew seat in the cabin. Unless of course they change the CAO by then but I can't see that happening.

[SkySista]

I'm sure with an order like Virgin's, Embraer would happily add an extra crew seat.. manufacturers change cabin configs all the time... shouldn't be a hassle. If in the future they use less crew then there is a spare seat, it happens now on those Alliance Fokkers, nothing new there..!

As for my earlier q's regarding exit row briefings.. anyone care to answer?? Anyone?? :}

[sebby]

WHATEVA - if you can tell me the route we fly in nz that is over 2 hours I will give you a million dollars!!!

We also operate the 400 with 3 crew - a full akl - wlg (45 minutes) is a disaster, especially during winter when the weather is awful and the cabin prep PA is made 20 mins after take off.

NZ DOMESTIC FLIGHT TIMES: -

AKL - WLG 45 mins
AKL - CHC 1hr 20 mins (MAX!!)
AKL - ZQN 1 hr 40 mins (MAX!!)
WLG - CHC 30 mins (45 max)
CHC - ZQN 30 mins
CHC - ROT 1 hr 5 mins (MAX!!)

We do the same thing as you EXCEPT all our pax have something because its free! We have a saleble bar aswell so banking is required. I do this almost everyday so maybe get the facts before saying we have it easy due to these mysterious 2+hour sectors ?????

[whateva]

oh, sorry i should make myself clear with that one, i mean on the trans tasman routes, pac blue as it stands can operate a -800 with 150 pax with 3 crew. i know how hard it is, i used to work for an airline that seved hot brekie on a 45 min flight, its bedlem! If only there was a way to make them realize we have no hope in providing safety and service to all passengers. Honestly the time has come for me to give up this game, 10 hour days, 21 days a month with reduced rest at home and out port, working like dogs, no where else to go and also no seniority to work up to whats left?

[CD]

There is no way that I can see CASA approving 1:50 straight out of the factory so they'd have to buy them with an extra crew seat in the cabin. Unless of course they change the CAO by then but I can't see that happening.

Embraer has a number of different cabin crew seating options available to the customer. However, the standard location for the third CC on the 190 is an aft-facing seat at 2L.

[VB F/A]

Hey SkySista,

Basically the old VB overwing brief was just a 'do you know you're sitting here, please familiarise yourself with the instructions on the card, let me know if any questions'.. nothing about what to look for, when to act, what to do etc....

Much better in my opinion - except for how much longer it takes.

Hope this answers your question ;)