QF Staff Travel. FA jump seat use

[ditch handle]

Recent developments suggest a move to the above-mentioned policy whereby operating crew are able to have their travel companion occupy a FA jump seat on full aircraft for staff travel purposes.

It seems to me that this new policy is at odds with another of QF's recent initiatives whereby it proposes to sell exit row seats at a premium for the extra space/legroom they provide.

How are people [frequent flyers?] who've bought an exit row seat going to react when they find that, after boarding in Singapore, they are going to have to sit and watch someone gorge themselves on lobster and caviar and glasses of French whilst having their space, privacy and legroom severely limited?

Has anyone in "management":rolleyes: considered the trip hazard created by having a pulled down jump-seat outside the doors 3 toilets [where people stand and congregate] in a pitch black cabin?

Have any of these issues been considered?

I doubt it.

Also.

Does it project a professional image of the company, or otherwise..........?

What would/does CASA think?

[airtags]

ditch
as I understand it the use of the seat is for T/O & landing only -
the staff (crew) companion would use crew rest seats at other times except when crew are using them. - believe it mainly came from the 380 where the crew rest seats are rated at 9g not the 16g required for T/O & landing (which in itself is a triumph for those who did the scope document)

....................would not want to be in the jump seat for the whole sector - been a while, but last time I sat in one I didn't see any IFE, leg rest or tray table and the recline was uncomfortable.....(sounds a bit like a downgrade eh!!!) :E

[ditch handle]

Airtags,

Oh, OK.

So if I have it right it's only in place for the A380 where the FA crew rest seats are only approved for use in cruise?

If so apologies for the rant and wasted bandwidth.........

[Pegasus747]

incorrect airtags... started as an A380 issue but now all A/C except 737 and its for Tech crew families only apparently

[astroboy55]

For 'aircrew'...cant see why that wouldnt include CC:ok:

[blueloo]

It is for aircrew ie tech and cabin, but its purpose is to avail the Capt (for traveling beneficiaries) a seat in lieu of the now unavailable flight deck seat(s).




"The Captain may authorise the allocation........"

[Pegasus747]

well that is not my understanding but i dont think they should be used by anyone. including Tech or cabin crew families. Those seats are for operational crew only and flight attendants spend all there time getting passengers off them on night sectors as it is.

Tech crew families have access to 1st class and business class and economy and Cabin Crew families have access to business class and economy class.

I do not think that operational seats should ever be used by passengers. As for only being used for landing and take off....thats tosh

they will be there for the whole flight and in the way of the crew and the passengers at the exit row seats.

Cant imagine that a passenger who has paid extra for an exit row seat would be happy being crunched up with a staff passenger encroaching on the space they have paid extra for....

Another loopy idea by the lunatics that run Qantas.... No doubt CASA and the travel writers in the media will have a view about it i am sure

[DutchRoll]

I do not think that operational seats should ever be used by passengers.
Having seen numerous occasions where much heartache was avoided by allowing a family member on a jumpseat (back in the days before faceless bureaucrats intervened and decided my wife was too much of a terror threat), good luck with getting everyone to agree to that principle!

[hadagutfull]

I have not heard of cabin "jump seats" being offered.... but crew rest seats for sure... on the provision that no crew member objects to it use by staff trying to get out of a busy port.

[Tempo]

Firstly, the FSO states that the CAPTAIN may authorise the use of the assist jumpseat for AIRCREW and their travel beneficiaries i.e. Tech and Cabin. It does NOT state that it is tech crew only.

Secondly, the FSO does not mention anywhere that this is for takeoff and landing only. One would assume that after takeoff the crew rest seats could be used but this may not be an option. If not, then it's the jumpseat the entire way.

Thirdly, this applies to 380,744,330,767

BA use this same policy regarding jumpseats. A friend of mine did LHR to BKK in a 744 cabin crew jumpseat late last year.

READ THE FSO BEFORE POSTING ON PPRUNE!!!!

Tech crew families have access to 1st class and business class and economy and Cabin Crew families have access to business class and economy class.

I do not think that operational seats should ever be used by passengers. As for only being used for landing and take off....thats tosh

Captains get First Class upgrades, everyone else its business only

And finally, when it's really tight and you have to get home are you not going to ask for the flight deck jumseat then????

[funbags]

peg, you don't reckon anyone should ever occupy assist cc seats. What about the average punter who for years has been sitting 2 feet behind us in the flight deck!

That is not exactly the best situation ever. Shooting an approach in poor weather with some 'neville' talking to you all the way down!

It's called helping out your fellow staff. Just another comment from a lhcc member and their superior attitude. How bout helping out your fellow Qantas employees/beneficiaries instead of always thinking about yourself. You're only in the seat next to them for 5 or 10 minutes. We've got them for 14 hours in some cases!

hadagutfull, have a look at CSO's or FSO's depending on who you are!

tempo, peg would be the first to ask for the jumpseat and impose on you! But to have anyone impose on him. Perish the thought! :ugh:

[lowerlobe]

Just another comment from a lhcc member and their superior attitude.
Now coming from funbags thats the pot calling the kettle black....:yuk:
Then Funbags tells us about our attitude to staff and this is how he describes them...with some 'neville' talking to you all the way down!
Funbgas...you really should read your own posts if you want to see a condescending attitude....

Has funbags or any other skygod ever considered that the jump seat is there for the safety of cabin crew?

How do you think it feels to be walking through a cabin especially on a night sector and suddenly get caught out with some turbulence that the techies did not think would be as bad...

Then when you get to a jumpseat find it is taken by a staff pax.....

This is a safety issue funbags not some ego driven problem you have...

[an3_bolt]

How are people [frequent flyers?] who've bought an exit row seat going to react when they find that, after boarding in Singapore, they are going to have to sit and watch someone gorge themselves on lobster and caviar and glasses of French whilst having their space, privacy and legroom severely limited?


Ha ha - getting a bit excited "ditch handle"!!!! :ok: Fat chance of seeing any of that stuff. More like left over crew sambos if anything at all.

OK - keep the sensationalist winging and complaining going ..... Downunder zone would not be the same without it.

[funbags]

lobey, safety issue hey. Much more of a safety issue having someone in a cc assist jumpseat than someone in the flightdeck yapping away! We've been doing it for years trying to help out staff travelling, but enter into the cc domain and it's stay away! We're not gonna help getting staff on! It's a safety issue. Yeah much more important than staffies in the flightdeck, you might get interrupted reading your Woman's Day magazine! :hmm:

I bet you were the first to ask for a jump seat when you were working, and you would of been so polite! Please Mr Captain, can I please have the jump seat Mr Captain! Thankyou Mr Captain! :yuk:

Back to the lawn bowls and slippers mate!

[lowerlobe]

This is a safety issue funbags not some ego driven problem you have...
Read the thread again funbags....this is about the use of CC jump seats for staff travel....

This is about safety for Cabin Crew .....not your warped ego ranting about the flight deck once again...remember the world of aviation does not start and finish with the flight deck....:yuk:

The tech crew are sitting up there with their seat belts on but we are walking around in an aluminium tube at nearly 600 mph with no seat belts....

If we need to put one on because of turbulence I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the cabin crew jump seats to be available....

It's not the fault of cabin crew that the authorities have stopped the use of the seats on the flight deck...in any case that fixes your problem of someone sitting behind you doesn't it......that is if you really are tech crew,which I doubt.

[funbags]

lobey, you've only been gone a little while, and yet you still know nothing.

The authorities haven't stopped the use of jumpseats on the flight deck. Just limited it to those travelling to/from work. So Einstein, it doesn't fix the problem, as you put it, of someone sitting behind us. Besides if it helps someone get to/from work, then great. Perish the thought that cc could help a fellow staff traveller, very selfish as usual. Hey lobey, it might be the travel beneficiary of a fellow cc person that's on the jumpseat! But you wouldn't even want to help one of your own, let alone, the wife of a techie. Thank goodness you've left. Times have changed since the DC4 days!

Apology excepted by the way! You're wrong again. BTW, I won't be responding to any of your posts again. You've left, you're a non entity now, and you're always wrong! :E

What it does do is give the authority back to the Captain as to the use of jumpseats. Despite what cc think, it is the Captains entire aeroplane, not just the bit at the front. And before any of you want to argue this point, read the CAR's. Yeah, they're the really important things (legal things) that govern aviation, not the galley gossip that make cc think that the cabin is theirs! Because it's not! I could also mention the chain of command which puts the tech crew higher up the chain than the cc, I know hard to believe that the Captain is higher up than the CSM or the CSS! :rolleyes:

[Jet-A-One]

They'll probably just over-sell by a few more..

[ditch handle]

Yes, it does appear to be an ill conceived reaction to having staff travel access to the rear flight deck seats removed.

With it seems, little or no thought given to the practicalities, commercial considerations, and/or safety concerns of cabin jump seat use.

Typical Qantas really :rolleyes:

___________

Funbags,

small dick, big watch ?

[twiggs]

I think it is a good thing.
The seats are a means to giving people travelling with crew somewhere to sit to get on the aircraft.
There is nothing to say that after takeoff they couldn't be relocated to an assist jump seat at a door that is away from pax legroom, eg L2 on a 744.
Perhaps they could even be relocated to the aft tech crew rest if it is not being used during flight, the high comfort seat at R2, or even the CSM workstation.

[What The]

Funbags, small dick, big watch ?

What a delightful crew member you must be to be around. Probably delight in calling female cabin crew "Tech Crew Moles" as well.

Here's a free tip. Your misery is probably the reason you spend a lot of time alone in slip ports. Lighten up, enjoy the job for what it's worth, and broaden your horizons from your limited network. You never know what you might learn, and the friendships you might make.

Then again, it may be too late for you. If that is the case then please leave as YOU are the problem with Qantas Long Haul cabin crew.

[ditch handle]

What The,

do me a favour. Read two pages of Funbag's posting history and then get back to me about his physical attributes and adornments.:rolleyes::

[blueloo]

thought this was about jumpseat usage..... any thread involving CC and you can't help yourself but turn it into a slanging match.

[Pegasus747]

i have been very happy over 25 years to allow my cabin crew rest seats to be used by the family of the operating tech crew or cabin crew on the day. Even on flights where we didnt have bunks we have not left family members behind.

Jump seats are a different story... they are for the operating crew only in my opinion. Should never be used by non operating crew. I dont think that passengers should ever see non crew in those seats. It would also mean that the "passengers" in a crew jumpseat would also get a "flame Orange" life jacket like an operating crew member...and i am surprised that CASA would permit that.

Seems to me that the Qantas Chief Pilot has interpreted his ability to make such a ruling without consulting any other stakeholders... perhaps even CASA

As i said i am happy where possible to have crew families in the crew rest seats...its a pity the Tech crew never EVER give up their crew rest seats for families. We all get tired and have a legal entitlement to rest seats but the tech crew never give theirs up

[blueloo]

My only comment would be that it is spare jumpseat usage. As crew are now down to the minimum, there are spare seats in some cases. Now knowing Qantas, unless its a double jumpseat, I am surprised they havent removed them for weight saving......

So bare in mind - the seat is surplus to requirements. I am pretty sure it doesnt have to be there, so whether a staff uses it or not is irrelevant.

[ditch handle]

Quote-

"so whether a staff uses it [cabin jump seat] or not is irrelevant."

_______

Well spoken [from a position of self interest and ignorance].

[DutchRoll]

its a pity the Tech crew never EVER give up their crew rest seats for families. We all get tired and have a legal entitlement to rest seats but the tech crew never give theirs up
Sorry Pegasus, but that's crap, IMHO.

In my experience, refusal for a tech crew rest seat happens when the tech crew rest is required for CASA limits, of which there are several complex pages worth to consider, and also when it cannot be occupied for takeoff/landing. It's not just a simple matter of the total tour of duty, and busting them is not an option for us. We have licences which are quite "loseable", remember. In fact not that long ago we operated a 3 pilot crew and all actually agreed to forfeit the crew rest (despite it being specifically set up for our flight) so that a family member could get on. However we first had to check the limitations to ensure that it was not legally required.

In my experience the vast majority (yes there are always exceptions) go out of their way to accomodate both tech & cabin crew family members accompanying operating crew.

[Pegasus747]

Tech and Cabin Crew both have "legal" entitlements to Crew rest seats and bunks.....

Tech crew entitlements come from their EBA's and the CASA regs and the Cabin Crew come solely from their EBA which is also a "legal" entitlement.

The cabin crew rest was fought for by strike action in the 1980's and i for one will still show sensible discretion to assist familes of tech and cabin crew when possible.

We just have to agree to disagree about the use of crew jumpseats. I think from a marketing perspective its a poor decision. And Twiggs the CSM workstation is not for passengers to sit in. and since the reduction of Cabin crew rest seats with the reconfiguration of the 747 Crew rest under the stairs, those curtained seats at R2 are either work areas for crew setting up carts for meal services or additional crew rest seats for eating meals or resting.

I just dont know where some of these idiotic ideas come from...

Crew dont all work in a zone of the aircraft where there jumpseat is and when needed to be seated in an emergency all the jumpseats need to be available for operating crew to sit down in an emergency.

As i said we will have to agree to disagree but i think the people that have paid extra for the exit row seats would not be happy having a passenger facing them for the flight like they are in a railway carraige, nor having the additional space that they have paid for encroached by an airline employees travel accessory.

Buy back up tickets like all the other Qantas Staff have to do when they travel or get the respective unions to negotiate some sort of "firm" travel if accompanying a crew member on a duty but stay away from operating crew jumpseats.

[blueloo]

Ditch. what can i say.. Selective quoting is the sincerest form of flattery

[Capt Fathom]

Seems to me that the Qantas Chief Pilot has interpreted his ability to make such a ruling without consulting any other stakeholders... perhaps even CASA

Chief Pilot's are CASA delegates!!

[twiggs]

Usually I agree with your posts Pegasus, but to call these ideas idiotic is idiotic.
Why can a CSM workstation not be used during flight?
It regularly gets used now when staff using cabin crew rest need to vacate the seats while crew are having their breaks.
It has a seat belt just as the high comfort seat does, and providing crew are OK with it, why shouldn't it be used during flight?

[B772]

It appears QF may be following the BA policy where the surplus 'jump seats' are available to all staff. The BA staff travel website has a box you tick if you are willing to travel in a 'jump seat' if offered.

[flyergirl]

I too think it is a good idea, as long as some very clear communications are given to the CC world. So far, we have received nothing to advise on the procedure to follow. Yes, the FSO is in place, but the average CC does not have a great deal of awareness of these, and would never see one.

I personally have been helped THAT many times by generous flight crew I have lost count. A big thank you!!!!!!

I like to think we can help out our collegues, by allowing the use of cc rest seats where possible, but as has been said, this option gives control back to the captain( yes I am aware of the chain of command and CASR91) which is as it should be.

What I can aggree with Peg on is, the look in the cabin is not brilliant, as it is true we are always trying to get pax off those seats.....


In the end, I hope that common sense prevails....too optimistic????:)

[lowerlobe]

Funbags..I'm glad you will not be responding to my posts because your replies are to be honest not much of a challenge and are less than astute.They show a basic inadequacy that belie your understanding of aviation and life in general....

This is about the use of CC jumpseats by staff which I disagree with on a safety basis.....You cannot escape talking about the flight deck for even one post and this shows how myopic you really are...

By the way I was under the impression that we were talking about operating crew family members....and those were the staff pax that i was saying are unable to use the flight deck .....Einstein:yuk:

[Keg]

Cathay have had a similar system for quite a long time too. I recall in '99 on a very full CX flight HKG-SYD talking to a F/O who was traveling in one of the 'assist' positions. It didn't seem to be a major drama.

...its a pity the Tech crew never EVER give up their crew rest seats for families.

Pegasus, the chip on the shoulder is obvious and disappointing. I've seen the tech crew rest given up to cabin crew (and their beneficiaries) whenever it's not been in use by the tech crew- both 767 and 744. That would amount to dozens and dozens of times over the last decade. In fact, I've never seen the contrary. It's alway been available when not required by the techies.

However, I can always review my opinion on the matter and start refusing it now. I'll be sure to mention you as the reason. :E

[ditch handle]

Keg,

There is a difference between tech crew, crew rest seat and jump seat which I believe is the point Peg747 was making.

When cabin crew facilitate staff uplift on full aircraft they do so by giving up their crew rest seat rather than in the case of pilots, an unused jump seat.

But of course you knew all that anyway........

[Capt Fathom]

Where's my popcorn & coke!

This is getting good! :E

[Pegasus747]

by all means do so Keg....

I am asked for cabin crew rest seats very often and have never refused anyone..tech or cabin crew....

But by all means you can over react to whatever you like Keg... obviously great leadership and maturity displayed there... hopefully you are not in actual command of anything as that sort of reaction doesnt display any maturity whatsoever... Guess thats to be expected of people not recruited for maturity or personal skills....

notwithstanding your immaturity i will still continue to assist tech and cabin crew families with the use of the seats that are under my control (CC rest seats) subject to the views of the other operating crew....I am just saying i dont agree with the use of jump seats...

by all means KEG.....give the tech crew rest to your families when not in use... they are yours to do as you wish as are the CC rest seats ours.... Just because i have never seen tech crew rest seats used in my 25 years experience doesnt mean it has never happened....

But i have certainly seen CC seats requested and agreed to regularly....if you decide not to offer your seats "when they are not in use" in future because of something i have posted i would suggest you are rather sad

[astroboy55]

I have been told by a fairly senior CSM that in the last EBA one of the 'gives' for the CC was they no longer had the right to vote on the rest seats..ie it was Captains choice. I know the FAM still states that it is up to the CC, and when I queried him on this he said that QF were yet to catch up with the new provisions. Can someone confirm or deny this?

Not a wind up, not trying to get anyones nose out of joint..

Cheers

[twiggs]

Astroboy55, I'm afraid you were being wound up, or that senior CSM doesn't know what they are talking about.
It is a cabin crew decision.
And as far as I know, it's not a vote.
If one person disagrees, then it's no.
Pegasus will confirm.

[Pegasus747]

The CSM yu spoke to was wrong....has nothing to do with the EBA and never has.... its Qantas Policy and in fact the position of the crew is actually strengthened


CCOM states clearly that Cabin crew determine who get the seats. It must be unanimous of all Operating Crew. If one crew member (cabin) says no then no one can use the rest seats.

The role of the Captain is firstly to be advised that the Cabin Crew have offered the seats... The captain will then determine whether that fits with the weight and balance and fuel requirements. If the captain determines that by offering the seats there are no implacations for the Aircraft then he/she will advise ground staff that the use of the seats is authorised.

It is the CSM that will then advise which passengers ( by name) who will be allowed to use the seats. If the passengers are subsequently offered a passenger seat and the crew seats are not required by them, the ground staff "may" approach the CSM to see if the seats are available for anyone else and that will then be either authorised or denied by the CSM.

That is what is contained in Qantas Policy as negotiated by the FAAA in the CCOM.....

The seats are at ALL times under the control of the operating cabin crew who are the only ones that can determine who may use them. The captain as the PIC has the ultimate say in whether they may be used or not but NOT who can use them.

[Keg]

ditch, fully comprehend that Peg was referring to techie crew rest seats. The tech crew rest seat on the 767 got given away very frequently when not required by the tech crew. Even when required by the crew we would occasionally still use it as long as the cabin crew had a plan for where the person we put in it for takeoff and landing was going to go for the rest of the flight. The said 'person' could vary from a partner of one of the crew and I recall at least one occasions where the person in that seat for T/O and landing wasn't anything to do with any air crew member.

The upper deck crew rest seat on the 744 is not suitable for use take off or landing but was always given away to the cabin crew or other beneficiaries when not required by the tech crew. It enables the person to sit in the C/C rest for Take off and not take up one of their crew rest seats in flight.

Peg, it seems as well as a chip on your shoulder you also don't get sarcasm or understand emoticons. I guess that's consistent with your demonstrated lack of EI thus far. You're welcome to any un-used tech crew rest seats on any flight I operate. Now if only you could arrange a transfer for me back to a fleet that has them fitted to more than two aircraft! :}

Lol @ Capt Fathom.

[Pegasus747]

Keg ..drop me a line and i will do what i can for you ...my powers are limited though

i will have a chat to Al for you...he will have a lot of spare A/C coming up by the sound of things so there could well be a bit of movement for us all

[funbags]

Pegs post #40 is exactly spot on about the use of cabin crew rest seats. Any other interpretation is incorrect.

[jungle juice]

After reading this response from twiggs about the use of cabin crew jump seats.I think it is a good thing.
The seats are a means to giving people travelling with crew somewhere to sit to get on the aircraft.I'd almost forgotten about another of twiggs posts about the use of cabin crew jump seats when talking about cabin crew rest breaks and seats.I very much doubt it RedTBar.
Even Emirates have no crew rest seats on their 777's.
Jet* Asia definitely do not have them and I can't imagine Jet* international would waste valuable pax seats to put crew in when they have perfectly good jump seats to sit in.For my money I don't think using cabin crew jump seats for staff is a good idea.It does not look good to other passengers and from a safety viewpoint it is very shortsighted.

[DutchRoll]

Pegasus, I have never, ever seen a tech crew rest seat refused on the grounds of what the EBA says we're entitled to. We cannot lose our licence for waiving an EBA entitlement. We sure as heck can for ignoring a CASA regulation.
There is a difference between tech crew, crew rest seat and jump seat which I believe is the point Peg747 was making.
Yeah ditch handle, once again I'm going to re-iterate that the "techies won't let us use crew rest seats" argument is crap. I cannot think of any other way of putting it. We are aware of the difference between rest seats, jump seats, etc. We have them too, remember?

Keg is exactly correct that tech crew rest, R-E-S-T, seats have often been made available on full a/c for family members of all descriptions. In fact I agree again with Keg in that in 10 years I've never seen them refused for no good reason. On one occasion we even copped a "tech crew checks" delay to do it on the 767, which required an engineer to be instructed to come back up the aerobridge and reconfigure it! This makes two extra passenger seats available which are blocked out during the booking process, but prevents the tech crew rest from being reclined, which has CASA implications. Of course he didn't mind as long as we (tech crew) copped the delay, and in fact his parting words after doing the reconfig were extremely complimentary. The CSM was the same. As much as this revelation will abjectly shock and horrify management types (maybe certain former CEOs will do the world a favour and have a coronary over it), most of us believe in looking after our own fellow crew members, front and back, and their families.

Reasons that a tech crew rest seat would be refused are almost exclusively CASA-related where things like, for example, flight deck duty limits cannot otherwise be complied with. On some a/c the "seat not to be occupied for takeoff or landing" placard comes into consideration too. Also the post 9/11 restrictions affect it on aircraft like the 744, where the tech crew rest which can be occupied for takeoff & landing is actually inside the restricted cockpit area. These are unfortunately problems which neither myself, nor Keg, nor any other tech crew can solve.

[cart_elevator]

I dont see an issue.as long as cabin crew still get the say on who gets the jumpseats.after all the tech crew get discretion on their jumpseats, so should we.as we currently do with the cabin crew rest seats.

[twiggs]

I think you need to read the thread from the start cart_elevator, you seem to have missed what the new policy for flight deck jump seats and cabin crew jumpseats is now.
FYI, cabin crew will not have a say regarding the use of spare cabin crew jumpseats, it will be at the discretion of the captain.
Cabin crew only make the decision re the use of our crew rest seats.

[ditch handle]

It's an ill conceived knee jerk reaction that I'll be very surprised to see get up.

[blueloo]

Ditch - it is up. A current FSO states it. Whether it changes or not is a different story. Hopefully it will revert to having family members allowed back on flight deck, rather than some unknown potentially disgruntled commuter.

[jungle juice]

whatever happens usually does ,but remember this from a regular contributor
I think everyone has lost sight of what this job is about, and it aint money.
It's about the destinations

[DutchRoll]

Again, so we don't get bogged down into who's right and who isn't, blueloo is absolutely 100% correct.

As a last resort, unoccupied cabin crew assist jumpseats may be alloted to family members at the Captain's discretion. Flight Standing Order 125/2009 refers. Applies to all aircraft except the 737.

That's it. End of story. Game over. Full time - for the moment at least. My humble apologies to those who don't like it. None of this would be an issue if the faceless bureaucrats working in DOTARS (or whatever its latest silly abbreviation is) applied a little common sense to their job, which appears to be asking far too much of them.

[Capt Kremin]

...wot dutch roll sed....

[ditch handle]

That you can quote the FSO number still doesn't take away from the fact that it remains a jerk reaction and ill considered on many many grounds.

Self interest aside of course :rolleyes:

I reckon despite the FSO that the fat lady hasn't sung yet.......

[blueloo]

Whats with this self interest theme you keep on banging on about ditch?

Whose self interest? Is it the person who wrote the FSO, the company for allowing the FSO, the Captains in the future who may or may not avail themselves of the opportunity to allow someone be it a traveling companion, cabin crew, cabin members traveling companion?

[ditch handle]

Let me put it to you this way :rolleyes:

If the cabin crew lost the ability to use their crew rest seats to onload family members accompanying them do you think the same policy would be enacted?

That was a rhetorical question as we both know it wouldn't.

Now I find it next to impossible to believe that tech crew like yourself would argue for this initiative to be introduced under these circumstances for the many and varied reasons that have already been mentioned.

Self interest.

Get it?

[blueloo]

I still think you are missing something here.

Yes it is the Captains right to choose who this may be offered to.

Yes it may be offered to the Captains or other tech crew members companions first - which is where your self interest theme seems to be directed.

...in reality though and this will no doubt depend on where the jet is headed, how many sectors of all sectors available will it be used for tech crew members traveling companions? by and large not many - maybe it will be skewed towards international destinations where crew get longer slips.........

Therefore it leaves the seat(s) available for essentially 1+ (no idea how many seats are avail on the diff configs) extra staff member be they Captains companion or another aircrew members beneficiary.

Its this other aircrew members beneficiary bit I believe you are missing. If the seat is available, there are only a few Capts around who will refuse it for other aircrew members staff beneficiary.

Surely getting as many staff away as possible is not self interest?

[ditch handle]

So you think this is a good idea and should be implemented regardless of whether the rear flight deck jump seats are available for "travel companion" onload or not?

[DutchRoll]

Bugger me drunk.

Dutchy puts on Gollum "Lord of the Rings" mask..............

It's mi-i-i-i-ine, me precious, mine! Precious cabin crew jumpseat! Smeagol won't let precious be taken away! Aaaaaaargh!!!! Nasty techie Captain's trying to steal precious! Aaaaaaargh!!!! Smeagol not happy. Not happy. Smeagol going to get precious back. Smeagol wants precious but nasty hobbit tech crew trying to deprive Smeagol of what is rightfully his! Aaaaaargh!!!!

......and so began the Fellowship Of The Tech Crew to cast the cabin crew jumpseats into the fires of Mount Doom.

[ditch handle]

So you think this is a good idea and should be implemented regardless of whether the rear flight deck jump seats are available for "travel companion" onload or not?

[twiggs]

ditch handle, you seem to have missed the fact that the rear flight deck jump seats are no longer available for travel companion onload, hence the need for the new cabin crew jump seat policy.

[ditch handle]

Gee Twiggs.

Really.:rolleyes:

Tell me you were trying to be ironic......?:}

___________

Again........

Blueloo,

so you think this is a good idea and should be implemented regardless of whether the rear flight deck jump seats are available for "travel companion" onload or not?

[Capt Kremin]

DH I don't think you have grasped the situation. The Tech Crew Rest seats are ONLY available when a long haul aircraft flies a two pilot crew.

That is a rare circumstance. Otherwise they are used by Tech Crew for required crew rest. They can be used to get someone on board who then must vacate the crew rest if it is required for its designed purpose. Just recently I had a cabin crew member ask to do just that to get his daughter onboard and I willingly obliged like I always do.

The flight deck JUMP seats, cannot be used for any beneficiaries under any circumstances. They used to be available and I have lost count of the number of cabin crew and their beneficiaries who used them when I was flying. That is now history.

You seem to be saying that now that now these jump seats on the flight deck are generally unavailable, then any spare jump seats in the cabin should only be available for cabin crew? What is the logic behind that?

If they are to be generally available then it makes sense to have the aircraft commander, who has the final say on all aspects of the operation, to have the final say on that as well.

[Pegasus747]

i would prefer to have the tech and cabin crew families in the Cabin crew rest seats rather than on display in the cabin on the assist "operational" jump seats

there is no problem with tech or cabin crew families of the operating crew asking for the cc rest seats... i have a problem from a number of perspectives with any "passengers" staff or otherwise on jumpseats in the cabin

[funbags]

Give up ditch you are losing.

Gosh, I'd hate to have you serving me onboard an aircraft. Never wrong, arrogant attitude.

I'll give you some advice, you are wrong here.

Just remember. It's not your aircraft. It's the Captains. Stop the brainwashing, the cc don't own the aircraft, the Captain does. Read the CAR's. :ugh:

[ditch handle]

No.

What I'm saying is that I don't think cabin crew jump seats should be used for anyone other than operating cabin crew.

I don't think that they should be generally available to anyone whether they be the family of cabin crew, tech crew or Alan Joyce.

My point is that you lot [pilots] wouldn't be supporting the use of those seats for the family of cabin crew if the situation was reversed.

Not because you are priques by the way but because I'm certain you would identify that from an operational perspective the policy is flawed.

It's my firmly held view that it's supported by pilots only because you've lost due to a change in regs any autonomous alternative.

Forgive me but you blokes [and girls] are professionals [funbags excluded] and I find this policy operationally flawed and the position of pilots who support it, hypocritical.

[Keg]

Written a report yet Ditch? It'll only be with people putting a burst in that you can hope to have it changed!

[ditch handle]

No, not yet however I'm reasonably certain that it is being seen to.

[Capt Fathom]

My God!

What a fantastic work environment you lot have!

You actually work on the same plane together? :uhoh:

It almost borders on hatred! What's going on?

[ditch handle]

You'll of course find that those arguing against this policy are advocating that no one uses the seats except operating crew.

Capiche?? :rolleyes:

[Pedota]

I ask that both sides in this debate insert another word into your discourse . . . CUSTOMER.

Just for fun, and with no offense and the greatest respect, I modified “ditch handle’s” latest post (although I could have picked others) and I ask you all to take a look at yourselves.

I read somewhere else today that BA has taken another step to becoming a LCC . . . no meals (after 1000hrs) on flights less than 2.5 hours. Maybe QF will follow?

Increasingly we ask what is the differential ‘value proposition’ that ‘full service’ airlines like QF says it offers its CUSTOMERS . . . other than paying for generous staff travel benefits, unfunded ‘pensions’ and unused frequent flyer points – all accrued in a previous era.

I assure you it is in my interests to see QF to remain and safe and prosperous airline . . . but these discussions don’t imbibe confidence.

Best to all

Cheers

Pedota

No.

What I'm saying is that I don't think customer seats should be used for anyone other than customers.

I don't think that they should be generally available to anyone whether they be (sic) the family of economy customer, premium customer or Alan Joyce.

My point is that you lot [Qantas employees] wouldn't be supporting the use of those seats for the family of customers if the situation was reversed.

Not because you are priques (sic) by the way but because I'm certain you would identify that from an operational perspective the policy is flawed.

It's my firmly held view that it's supported by customers only because you've lost due to a change in regs any autonomous alternative (or perhaps changing business models?).

Forgive me but you blokes [and girls] are professionals [funbags excluded] and I find this policy operationally flawed and the position of customers who support it, hypocritical.

[ditch handle]

Would they be the same customer who pays $160 extra for an exit row only to find someone staring directly at them from the jumpseat, in competion for somewhere to put their legs?

[Nunc]

Get over it ladies. For years tech crew have willingly given up flight deck seats to cabin crew and their family members but unfortunately it has not been reciprocated. Best example after 2 CC given flight deck seat CSM advises that the CC jumpseats not available to which hero FA on flightdeck responds"nor should they'. So you lot keep your crew rest seats but I hope you treat any family members on jumpseats with the same respect and grace you and your loved ones have always got on the flight deck. It is the Captains aircraft and at least some balance has been restored. Tech crew can at least now bring their kids away without the worry of some FA objecting to giving up a crew rest seat. While I'm at it I cannot believe CC have denied their own the crew rest.

[OCCR]

Just buy backup tickets!
it amazes me how many staff travellers only purchase QF tickets.
Bl00dy tight @rses.

Although I have never voted against giving up my crew rest seat, it infuriates me as these people "knew: the flights were going to be tight!

BUY BACKUPS!

[Transition Layer]

I tend to buy backup tickets wherever possible but they would be a lot more attractive if:

(A) They could be done online without having to spend 2hrs+ on hold with Staff Travel
and..
(B) A refund didn't take at least 2 months

[Pegasus747]

Nunc...

you better read the details....

If you are under the impression it can be used for the skippers kids you are mistaken....

It can only be used by ABP's over the age of 15. Of course if the Kids are 16 or over it wont be a problem but the exit row rule applies

[OCCR]

honestly.....let them use the crew jumpseats, if they are that desperate.....
it relieves the pressure in having to give up the crew rest seats.

I think most people will think twice about sitting on the jumpseat at R3 or L3
across from the toilet!
They wont be able to use the CC rest seats as they will be used.

Come on you tight@rses just buy frikking backup tickets, so what if it takes 2 months to get a refund.

Personally I would like to see a ban on staff using any seat other than a pax seat, end of the bloody story, and it relieves the pressure on the CAPT and CSM.

[funbags]

OCCR, why would you buy backup tickets for your family when you want them to travel on YOUR flight, you know, the one you are operating??????

Sure, buy backup tickets when you are all travelling as a family on holidays, but when YOU are operating on the flight, you want your family to travel with you, and that is what we are talking about here, your family using assist seats when the crew member is operating, either tc or cc. It's not rocket science.

Sounds like the LHCC protecting their little empire. Imagine if all the techies over the last thirty years had said no to all LHCC commuters from using the jump seats on the flight deck, due to 'impinging' on our work environment. Imagine all the LHCC that wouldn't have got to work, or would have bought full fare tickets on Ansett, Virgin; even backup tickets! There would have been an uproar, 'stuck up techies' won't give up their jumpseats etc etc etc. You can't win with you guys, always want it your way. :ugh:

[jungle juice]

it relieves the pressure on the CAPT and CSM.
I think you will find that this entire issue is because the drivers are upset they can't put the wife on the flight deck anymore.

They put more submissions to CASA and the company to get a dispensation than the UN put out resolutions on Iraq.

They used so much energy and paper in this effort it's a wonder that Islands in the pacific have not gone under because of the increase in global warming and sea levels.:E:E:E

Seriously,let's stop the pi$$ing contest and look at the bigger picture.

I think the bigger issue here is one of safety.As someone else said when I'm walking around the cabin and we hit turbulence it is nice to know that there is a jump seat just ahead of me that I can grab and buckle up.

I don't want to get there and find someones wife or husband stretched out playing soduku

[jungle juice]

funbags or should I say Pontius pilate because we all know you are not a real pilot.
You never make a post in any of the pilot threads.
You even stalked cabin crew in the cabin crew areas away from D&G areas of pprune.
You admit that you want long haul cabin crew banned.
You are anti long haul cabin crew but pro the cheap QCCA and the overseas bases.

There is only one group who fits that description.The office

To those here who are real crew.Yes it is good when you can take your wife away with you but you have to face facts.Sometimes it is full because it is a business.
I have always bought back up tickets for my wife and kids if I take them away just in case.This is because as my aircraft is leaving I don't want to be worried about them being stuck somewhere.
This is just like insurance and the days of using the flight deck are gone and we have to accept that.We can't always use crew rest because they are here for crew to get rest.

Unfortunately 911 changed just about everything with our job.

[MaxHelixAngle]

This is unbelievable,

LHCC and Techies are all ONE team. What is all this banter about 'restoring the balance of power' and the 'us and them' attitude. We all work together on ONE aircraft and for ONE common purpose, and most of us also want the opportunity to take family members along with us without the stress of having them bumped.

Those who work for the Q, have a think about this: How appropriate or helpful is it debating an internal company policy on a public and anonymous forum? If you have real safety concerns about the policy raise it through the appropriate internal channels.

All you are succeeding on doing here is damaging the Qantas brand and embarrassing all of the reasonable and dedicated Qantas Cabin and Tech crew who enjoy their workplace and the team they work with.

Anyone with any Divisive comments (cabin and tech) are just fueling the divide, I don't care what axe you have to grind, your comments are only going to have a negative effect and you are only making Qantas a worse place to work!

For all those external to Qantas, thankfully the divisive attitude demonstrated here is only a vocal minority and not representative of the wider Cabin and Tech crew TEAM.

Regards,
MHA

[indamiddle]

seems to work on LH. i am all for it.
just a bit concerned with up to 6 extra people wandering around 2 class 747. how do i keep the buggers out of R2?

[Bazzamundi]

Having just been at work, it appears that the great majority of F/A's seem happy with this. It would appear to be a small minority who are so vocal on here.

Last year I was on a BA flight where the jump seat opposite was being used for a staff traveller. Why are people in QF being so special about something most other airlines have had for decades? If it was a safety issue, why would all those other airlines that have been doing it for so long have continued with the policy?

If we can't look after our own, then the business is really in trouble.

[jungle juice]

Bazza,Are you strapped in when you are on the flight deck?
Would you like to have a seat that you could get into fast if you had to with no problems such as someone else sitting in it?

If another carrier had an operating procedure that we did not you would automatically adopt it simply because they do it?

If this is so much of a problem why not approach the company to get some sort of system that allows crew to take their partner away on one trip a year!

[Pegasus747]

apart from the safety issues.... i would be less concerned if our customers were not being charged an extra $300 for an exit row seat for the extra space.

Having that space taken up by someone permanently sitting on a jumpseat opposite them and taking their leg space is a more immediate issue.

Personally i think that staff travel is crap anyways these days and you are better off buying a commercial ticket.

I dont relish having passengers complain about their "paid" for space being taken up by staff passengers. If Qantas wants to remove the extra charge for exit row seats my Service objections will vanish

[twiggs]

Bazza,Are you strapped in when you are on the flight deck?
Would you like to have a seat that you could get into fast if you had to with no problems such as someone else sitting in it?

JJ,
there will be seat available for you to strap into, it's called the primary position.
The person will be sitting in an unused assist seat. So if there are 15 crew, there will be 15 jump seats available somewhere on the aircraft for all crew.

It's no different to when no pax are using jump seats.
If you need to strap in fast and and someone else beat you to the jump seat, you have to find somewhere else, even if you have to wedge yourself between seat rows, as per procedure.

As for Pegasus' concern for the pax that paid their premium for the exit row, exit row pax are well aware that crew will need to sit there from time to time and they know that the seats have an advantage over normal seats whether the jump seat is being used or not.
It is entirely possible that the operating crew will be sitting there themselves for most of a turbulent flight.
There will still be room for them to extend their legs while sitting.
Your argument really is flawed as they did not pay for "space" as you put it.

[Pegasus747]

time will tell Twiggs... i am rarely wrong about these things... i am prepared to admit i am wrong if that eventuates.... i will wait for the "public" reaction...

All this caused by the stupidity of DOTARS

[bbear75]

You are all talking as if this new FSO is something that is going to be implemented every single flight! This is a last resort at providing a way home for an operating crew's companion. It is not ideal by any means, but I can not see it being a common occurence. As we all know, a crew rest seat is almost always given up to get a fellow employee/operating crew's companion home.

In the case of the crew jumpseat needing to be occupied for the entire flight, I am sure (hope) we are all smart enough to make a mental note not to aim for that one when the seatbelt sign comes on. In reality, the seat won't be occupied during service when everyone is "on", and when our breaks have started, the full range of jumpseats won't be needed. Also, the assist jumseat would have been exchanged for a more discreet jumpseat, depending on aircraft type.

I think it is a sensible agreement that gives us a way to get our loved ones home, particularly on the aircraft where the crew rest seats are not to be used for T/O and landings.

As for what the pax thinks.... it's amazing how understanding other humans can be when you explain a situation to them in a calm, empathetic manner with a smile :ok:

[jungle juice]

there will be seat available for you to strap into, it's called the primary position.
Louise,So the only crew member that walks past that seat during the flight is the primary?
When turbulence hits do you go to your jump seat Louise or do you grab the nearest one?
What if your assigned seat is L5 and the manure hits the turbine when you are walking from L2 to L3.
You are telling us that you don't jump into the nearest jump seat but instead walk all the way through the aircraft to L5.
Instead of always taking the opposite view why don't you think once in a while Louise.
exit row pax are well aware that crew will need to sit there from time to time............Your argument really is flawed as they did not pay for "space" as you put it.
Now that really is rubbish Louise.

[blueloo]

Seriously, go to a fast food store and ask for a Mc Common sense meal.

[Capt_SNAFU]

Jungle juice may I ask what you would do if the aircraft had a full compliment of F/A's? i.e no spare jumpseats. Where would you sit then, if hit by turbulence?

[ditch handle]

You still haven't answered my question blueloo so for your edification I'll post again.-


"So you think this is a good idea and should be implemented regardless of whether the rear flight deck jump seats are available for "travel companion" onload or not?"

[twiggs]

Jungle Juice must have been very bad at musical chairs!:E

[jungle juice]

Capt_SNAFU,Since when have we worked with the number of crew we did only a few years ago?
blueloo & Capt_SNAFU,I'll ask the question again.
For this question I'll assume that you are tech crew.
When you are seated in the flight deck,do you have your seat belt on?
Of course you do just as you tell the passengers.
So what is so different about us that you don't think it matters?
Obviously,you can't understand a simple scenario such as unexpected turbulence.
I am saying that if there is a jump seat that I can get to I would prefer it to be available.
Why do you have back up systems on the flight deck?
Do you always expect things to go perfectly well?
No, because you plan for the unexpected.
Why do you have someone check your work and why have a checklist?
In our world when things go pear shaped it's good to have an ace up your sleeve.
If you want to take risks then use your own neck and not mine.If there is only 1 spare jumpseat it is one we have we can use in an emergency.
If you think that doesn't make sense can you let me know what flights you are on and I'll avoid them like the plague.
'Not Louise' twiggs,As I said try to think now and again independently of the office or amuse yourself by playing musical chairs at the BOS desk instead.

[packrat]

The likelihood of the scenario arising where staff pax need to utilise a jumpseat will be very rare indeed.
Its a bit like arguing about the next total eclipse.
Its all very well to intellectualize the scenario until it becomes personal.
By that I mean when you or a family member needs to avail yourself of the jumpseat.
Then all whatif arguments are shown the door

[Kiwiconehead]

I tend to buy backup tickets wherever possible but they would be a lot more attractive if:

(A) They could be done online without having to spend 2hrs+ on hold with Staff Travel

You can easily buy interline tickets online.

On the Staff Travel website just select "Application Forms" on the Bookings tab.

You are then presented with an electronic version of the form you use to buy tickets via fax (which is also easier than 2 hrs on hold) - fill it out - press submit, tickets arrive in mail.

[blueloo]

So you think this is a good idea and should be implemented regardless of whether the rear flight deck jump seats are available for "travel companion" onload or not?

I think its a good idea given the current limitations we have due DOTARS.

Is it ideal? Maybe not.

Is it unsafe? No, personally I don't think it is unsafe.

Other than the suggestion of not utilising this facility - a suggestion of a few minority people (who may or may not have valid safety issues) - what other issue is there?



As for seats and turbulence? Well - the current policy in a nutshell has 2 scenarios - anticipated turbulence and unanticipated.

In the first situation - you have at least a minutes notice until you have to be seated - more than enough time to find your seat - and if from most accounts - a large portion of crew spend vastly longer than a minute fiddling around before being seated - but hey thats your choice.

Unanticipated - well pretty sure that says you find a seat anywhere immediately - even if you have to wedge yourself somewhere.

Practically...... I have never had to give an "immediate" PA - not saying crew don't, but I bet when it is given, most crew still don't wedge themselves somewhere between pax.

As for finding a crew jumpseat because of beneficiary in a seat...... well I can think of lots of senarios where this argument falls flat. This will no doubt be seen as an attack on cabin crew but its not. I am just saying use a bit of spare brain matter - which is hopefully what most of you do every day anyway.

a) you are trundeling down the isle next to the cabin crew rest seats and you need an immediate seat.... ooops can't use the closest seats (ie cabin crew rest seats) because they are occupied by staff. is this any different to the nearest jumpseat being occupied if turbulence is such an issue.

b) you hit turbulence like the A330 in learmonth - oops - no time for anyone to get to their seat anyway. (Apologies - I am not trying to trivialise a very serious event where crew got hurt)

c) ill pax (non staff) is having a panadol and a projectile yak in a rear cabin crew seat.......what do you do

d)half or more of the crew are in the crew rest whilst you have an event needing your seat.....should be plenty spare jumpseats as the rest of the crew are in the crew rest

e) this policy is not utilised - the company sees an opportunity to remove the excess weight of the unnecessary extra crew seat - what happens now is it unsafe?

[cowabunga438]

well that is not my understanding but i dont think they should be used by anyone. including Tech or cabin crew families. Those seats are for operational crew only

All I can say is thank god it doesn't actually matter what you think on this issue.

Dog in a manger attitude.

[cowabunga438]

Bazza,Are you strapped in when you are on the flight deck?
Would you like to have a seat that you could get into fast if you had to with no problems such as someone else sitting in it?

This is the most absurd argument I have ever heard.

Firstly often all flight deck seats are taken. So no tech crew don't care when they are no extra seats. There is no issue about not having a spare seat.

Secondly it is not your seat they are taking, it is a spare one. One that on some aircraft doesn't even exist. Do you refuse to fly when there is no spare seat. Do you refuse to fly when you carry extra CC. Do you refuse to fly when the flight is full so no spare seats in the cabin?

[cowabunga438]

I am saying that if there is a jump seat that I can get to I would prefer it to be available.
Why do you have back up systems on the flight deck?

Tech crew have been gladly giving away flight deck seats to everyone, including CC for years. There is never a problem about not having a spare seat in the flight deck to get to in a hurry. Seats are there to be used, not there to be empty "just in case".

Tech crew have never viewed the extra seats in the flight deck as operational spares in case of turbulence. It is frankly ludicrous that you even suggest a spare crew seat in the cabin should be viewed this way.

Why is it there is never a problem asking a captain for a spare flight deck seat or spare tech crew rest seat (e.g. A330 which is in the cabin area not the flight deck). But there is a god almighty fuss if the CC think they might be helping someone out?

Even now most CC prefer asking the tech crew for the use of spare seats rather than using CC rest seats. It is an absolutely appalling attitude some of us CC have. I am ashamed.

[Razor]

You all bang on about having a seat available when there is turbulence but the majority of you take a hell of a lot longer than the 1 minute from seat belt sign on to be seated. I sit there and watch it time and time again. Don't go the double standard just to suit your argument.
I have never refused a jump seat or use of the Tech crew rest when it is available. I have had occasion when one of the group said no from the CC. Very sad when you know it really could help someone out. It is about helping each other out. Sounds like we can't win whatever way we turn on this.

[Bazzamundi]

When the 400 was operated with more cabin crew than it has now, surely that must have been dangerous also. If you hit turbulence then, there was one less jumpseat available given you had one more crewmember occupying one of those seats.

PPrune really is a dead horse now given the standard of debate going on. While Rome burns and QF mainline employees face an uncertain future, so much angst is directed towards something that should be of benefit for us all, but which is despised by those who feel they should have control of it.

[goodonyamate]

Even with the CC rest seats, the Captain still has final say. The CC can vote to let someone specific sit there, but the Captain can still deny access to the seats. FWIW i find the relationship/co-operation between TC and CC regarding getting family on is always far greater than what is witnessed in the above arguments. :ok:

[ditch handle]

What is it with you lot?

You can obfuscate this issue as much as you like by ranting about family, past wrongs and the saintliness of our Captains but at the end of the day the issue remains the same.

Those arguing against the policy don't think [for a myriad of reasons] that non operational crew should occupy cabin jump seats.

I'l list a few reasons-

1. Dropped down jump seats in pitch black aircraft are a trip hazard for anyone around them as they cannot be seen.
2. The need to ask someone to move to access safety and medical equipment.
3. Reduction in the number of seats available for crew, who may need them in a hurry, during turbulence.
4. Increased difficulty "managing passengers" out of them when they can plainly see them occupied elsewhere by non crew.
5. Increased congestion around toilets and galleys which makes what we do on oversold aircraft more difficult.
6. Occupied jumpseats flies in the face of the new policy where we sell exit row seats for a premium.
7. It's going to look shabby and unprofessional which I believe isn't the image the company tries to leverage it's premium fares off.

[goodonyamate]

You can argue all you want DH...the policy is in, thats the way it is. It may change in the future who knows. Until it does, deal with it.

PS - when i said the relationship/cooperation between TC and CC was good, i meant it goes both ways, ie i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member.

[ditch handle]

Quote-

"i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member."

_________

Neither have I.

[blueloo]

Ditch - you are hard to please, but after some careful thought, I have a solution for your points.

1. Dropped down jump seats in pitch black aircraft are a trip hazard for anyone around them as they cannot be seen.

Carry night vision goggles. As an added bonus you can perv from your hotel window in slip ports.

2. The need to ask someone to move to access safety and medical equipment.

Carry your own personal physicians kit on your belt. Then you can be a travelling paramedic on board.

3. Reduction in the number of seats available for crew, who may need them in a hurry, during turbulence.

Carry your own personal camping chair. That way you can sit anywhere you like. Daytime or nighttime

4. Increased difficulty "managing passengers" out of them when they can plainly see them occupied elsewhere by non crew.

Ban all passengers. Face it cabin crew don't like them anyway!

5. Occupied jumpseats flies in the face of the new policy where we sell exit row seats for a premium.

We can ask the Captain to sell the extra jumpseats to the beneficiaries at a premium. That way nobody is discriminated against. Everyone is ripped off equally. (As an added benefit the captain can use the money to buy crew beers later)

6. It is going to look shabby and unprofessional which I believe isn't the image the company tries to leverage it's premium fares off.

Whats the problem with this - its where we seem to be headed anyway?

[Capt Fathom]

When you are seated in the flight deck,do you have your seat belt on?
Of course you do just as you tell the passengers.
So what is so different about us that you don't think it matters?
Obviously,you can't understand a simple scenario such as unexpected turbulence.

Interesting how the passengers and crew down the back rely 100% on the pilot's to get them safely from A to B.

But to then say the pilots have no concept of Unexpected Turbulence!

You either get on the plane and trust the guys & girls up front to do their job, or you stay at home and say, "I don't trust these people. I'm not going to work".

You can't have it both way guys!

Flying is a dangerous business. You may takeoff and never be seen again!

Let's not get too precious about it.

The original discussion was about a vacant seat wasn't it?

[ditch handle]

Blueloo,

you wrote- "

I think its a good idea given the current limitations we have due DOTARS."

______________

Kudos to you for the admission that your support of the policy is entirely self serving.

[blueloo]

Kudos to you for the admission that your support of the policy is entirely self serving.

.....really it wouldnt have mattered what my reply was. You would say this anyway. You have said this to virtually anyone who has replied here.

You have ignored my logic (which is fine), and everyone else's reasoning.

Its like the one bloke in the platoon who is marching out of time - yet he reckons he is in time.

It seems as though this(self interest theme) is the only thing you are interested in, and really all your points about safety etc are purely a smokescreen about some other deep and dark issue you have. Not sure why you have this issue, but I reckon it has nothing to do with your concerns about safety.

[ditch handle]

But it was your reply and I admire you for it.

Now. If one of you lot would kindly list a number of reasons for the policy perhaps I and others reading might be persuaded on the merit of said policy.

I'll start you off-

1. Captain's wife gets to travel. [Valid reason and not a piss take]
2...............?

[jungle juice]

ditch handle,Don't worry about this as you'll never win with a group that yet again wants something at someone else's expense.
They sit up there strapped in and can't understand the concerns of others.

The first rule of yours is the main one and that is the drivers are upset that they can't take their wife on the flight deck anymore so they expect us to wear it.

'I'm alright jack':ugh::ugh::ugh:

[blueloo]

out of morbid curiosity* i persist, i guess:


And the Truth Shall Set You Free!!*

Well its taken many pages of drivel, outright crap that there is some underlying safety consideration, but here we finally have it summed up in Jungles last post I'm alright jack'


It really comes down to petty jealousy. (Which we really all knew anyway)

You can sugar coat it all you like - this is all it is.

What amazes me still, despite it being said countless times before, and you are still completely oblivious to it, is that this provision may very well be used to save your bacon one day by helping your travel beneficiary out

Now this may be a false assumption, but given your outright hatred of a group getting a new entitlement (esp tech crew having final say) , I suspect you may be the type of person who other crew members - be they cabin crew or tech, are unlikely to go out of their way to help you.

So my suggestion (free of course), is cheer up, and instead of being so negative, petty, and jealous, look at is as a positive.





*Liar Liar Jim Cary

[lowerlobe]

PPRuNe really is a dead horse now given the standard of debate going on.
Could not agree more....
And the Truth Shall Set You Free!!*
Some here can't handle the truth* and that is as JJ said is all about the techies wanting somewhere to put their wives now that they can't use the flight deck.

I note that not one of the techies has admitted what was asked and that is do the techies have their seat belts on when they are at work on the flight deck....

Blue Loo this is not about hatred, simply because I do not know of one cabin crew or tech crew who hate the other group...

This is as I said before the techies trying to get around the ban on using the flight deck for their wives and the jealousy from some here on Pprune that cabin crew have the temerity to question this.....because of your attitude to cabin crew in general.

If I am wrong answer the question on whether or not you have your seat belts on when you are at work?

Like just about everything that happens with the company it will be a fait accompli and it is a waste of energy to even try and put a point of view forward....

* Apologies to Jack Nicholson

[funbags]

It's guys like ditch and jungle that would be the first to ask the Captain for the flight deck jump seat when they need it. Please Mr Captain, thankyou Mr Captain!

Try and get them to help out by releasing an assist jumpseat; it's no way, it's a safety issue, it'll disturb other pax, you'll disturb me reading my New Idea. Any excuse will do because it impinges upon their little empire.

You know the best thing, it's out of their hands anyway. It's now policy and it's up to the CAPTAIN, not them.

[ditch handle]

Blueloo,

you wrote-

"What amazes me still, despite it being said countless times before, and you are still completely oblivious to it, is that this provision may very well be used to save your bacon one day by helping your travel beneficiary out"

_____________

Are you really so obtuse that you can't [won't] see that those arguing against the merit of this policy are doing so, BEYOND ISSUES OF SELF INTEREST !!!

Now.

I'm waiting for point two on my list of "fors".

[lowerlobe]

Again this fixation of Pontius Pilate ...sorry Funbags with the flight deck....

This thread is about the use of the spare jump seat in the cabin.....NOT THE FLIGHT DECK

Still no real pilot answers the question about seat belts because it throws their argument out the window....

I agree with JJ about funbags though...
funbags or should I say Pontius pilate because we all know you are not a real pilot.
You never make a post in any of the pilot threads.
You even stalked cabin crew in the cabin crew areas away from D&G areas of PPRuNe.
You admit that you want long haul cabin crew banned.
You are anti long haul cabin crew but pro the cheap QCCA and the overseas bases.

There is only one group who fits that description.The office

Funbags go back to the office and leave this issue to real crew

[argus.moon]

While the dogs(Ditch and JJ)bark the wagons roll on

[funbags]

Sorry did you say something lobey.

It's this sentence that really aggravates you, but it's true; You know the best thing, it's out of their hands anyway. It's now policy and it's up to the CAPTAIN, not them.

Retire gracefully. Let the current workers battle it out here, because your opinion means very little now!

I would have thought 930 on a Saturday morning was Bingo time anyway!! :D

[Fatguyinalittlecoat]

Still no real pilot answers the question about seat belts because it throws their argument out the window....

NO. It's because they don't have to. This IS Qantas policy. Move on.

[airtags]

my goodness things are very tribal these days!
When will some of the wayward children realise that we're all on the same side!!!

So to put this whole thing back on track:

1. Use of CC Jumpseats by a non operating crew or pax require amendment to the Ops Manual (not negotiable)
2. Said Ops Manual change must be notified to regulator
3. Said regulator will probably (almost g'teed to) want to impose conditions (quite rightly so considering we are talking about the primary escape exit for pax)
4. Conditions would most likely to be similar to occupant of overwing exit row with the addition that the occupant has had some form of type relevant EP training and adequete briefing
5. Item 4 above requires consultation and subsequent approval of regulator and said regulator probably would want physical evidence of briefing, compliance etc as they did with Type III exits.
6. In rare instances the non operating person being placed on the CC assist jumpseat may affect the crew ratio
7. Note that item 6 above is calc'd on total PAX seating capacity and forms part of AOC -
[8. Former policy of F/Deck jumpseat did require an ASIC]

So when commonsense, the regs and due process finally catches up with this little routine the likely outcome is that depending on the extent of the regulator's specs for item 4.....................................many of our partners/family members may not get the CC jumpseat anyway!

Let's face it the whole thing has quickly arisen largely due to an inarticulate out of date staff travel system and a brain farted decision to save a bit of petty cash by only using under-rated (9g) crew rest seats on the 380 ....all of this resulted in what was deemed to be a "one-off" quick fix by one well intentioned Capt. who was supporting his crew.

Unless I'm bugging out of a third world war zone, I really don't want to ask my CSM & CC to play nanny to George from Catering's Aunty on the jump seat. I also don't want George's Aunty in the way if we have to shove a few hundred people out the door in an emergency.

Plus I really don't want to see the perception of CC as safety professionals eroded by having someone in jeans, t-shirt and thongs sitting in a CC jumpseat. It's certainly not the look of a premium airline.

The sensible fix is to give accompanied crew's PRIMARY benficaries priority uplift.

Note to inhabitants of QCC:
(a) the sensible fix is a whole lot cheaper than addressing items 1 through 7 above.
(b) in the event of sensible resolutions not being part of management SOPs suggest re: items 1 & 2 - that it might be a very wise idea to put these at the top of Monday's To Do list

[funbags]

airtags, you have no idea what you are talking about. You can't have George from Catering's Aunty on the assist jumpseat. It's for travel beneficiaries of the aircrew who are operating on that flight! :ugh: Not any staff passenger.

Oh, and it's already policy, which means it's effective immediately. A FSO makes it policy. :ouch:

[Capt Kremin]

So for all the hyperventilating going on in some quarters, there is the rub.

It will only be used for family of operating crew members, not just tech crew.
No general staff travellers, no fare paying pax.
They won't be small children and it will be used only as a last resort.

I can't see the problem myself, nor can I see it being availed upon as a matter of routine. Sounds like a positive to me but you wouldn't know that from some of the hyperbole being generated here.

[airtags]

oh for goodness sake - please lighten up funbags -
I'm well aware of the policy detail - I was simply using a tabloid analogy to illustrate a point and paint a picture.

If it helps, I'm happy to edit the post to assist comprehension for those who find it difficult to imagine what 'George from Catering's Aunty' probably looks like!

Irrespective of one's visualisation skills, putting someone behind me on the F/D jump seat and putting someone on a CC jump seat at a primary door are two very different things.

May well it be proclaimed on an FSO but an Operator dashing off an FSO before lunch does not negate the points listed in my post. The FSO has been hurrriedly issued without the necessary regulatory provisions being addressed - and that's something we all should be concerned about. It's also gone out (I'm reliably told) without consulting the CC world.

No I know the latter is certainly not necessary, but the really strange thing is that whether it's our partners or partners of the CC working on the same a/c as us - one would think there'd be a bit of common unity.

It is, indeed after all a last resort option - I'd much prefer my wife to at least get the chance to watch the IFE breaking down!!

[Pegasus747]

Airtags.... i couldnt agree more...

you have better illustrated my concerns than i was able to...

My other concern of course is the fact that we are now charging frequent flyers an extra $300 to sit at the exit row and that limited space will now be encroached by staff passengers permanently sitting there

At the doors 3 exits on the 747 this is also the space where passengers stand when waiting for the toilets... if the jumpeasts there are now where a couple of passengers may be seated then you will also have passenger crammed into the limited space between the passengers who have paid $300 extra for the space and the deployed jumpseat.

I for one this its a very poor marketing decision. I think it a far better idea that accompanying staff buy back up tickets or the F/A and Pilot Unions approach the company jointly to get a better priority or firm ticket when accompanying an operating crew member once a year perhaps

This is about the safety of the crew and the interests of our premium fare paying passengers. Quite frankly in these difficult times our priority has to be the passengers not the accompanying staff

[mohikan]

This thread is a classic example of a almost uniquely QF phenomenon.

That is, relative to other airlines, and their own occupation within the airline, QF cabin crew have an over inflated view of their operational worth and importance.

Its a six week course to earn 50K per year. Money for jam when you consider the 'big stick' the cabin services dept weilds in QF and the reality that there is very little thinking or decision making on the job AND you can have no interest in efficient service delivery and you will never be held to account.

For years QF cabin crew have believed they are in charge of the aircraft. Guess what - the CAR's dont mention you at all. They only mention the Pilot in Command.

In my view QF CC have been allowed to get away with too much BS for far too long. They way they infest this forum - designed for professional pilots, is just one example.

Im glad this jump seat initiative has been taken, and I actually hope that a flight attendant takes me on over this so I can stand them down and f**** them off from the aircraft and hopefully the company.

[Cunning_Stunt]

Helmet, bunker etc.

[funbags]

Lovely post mohikan, not a truer paragraph has been written.

Over inflated view of themselves!

Waiters/waitresses at altitude, that's about it! :E

[ditch handle]

Looks like the skygods have had the final word on the topic. :ok:

[jungle juice]

Pontius funbags,why don't you post something on a pilot thread.
Is it because you're not a pilot?
What floor at QCC do you work in?
If you want to masquerade as a pilot then you should buy the book 'Flying as a Pilot for Dummies'.It's right next to 'How to develop a Personality'
please lighten up funbags
airtags,
The reason why pontius funbags cannot lighten up is because he is only here to get cabin crew banned.
As you said this is an ill thought,short sighted idea generated by someone who has no idea of what happens in the cabin just like funbags.

As Pegasus said,you have put your points very succinctly and it's good to see a technical crew able to think about an issue without denigrating cabin crew as opposed to pontius funbags and mohican.
They way they infest this forum - designed for professional pilots
Mohican,Do you really think that you are the only people employed in the world of aviation because this is the description of the D&G section.
An independent family of forums covering all aspects of the Australian/NZ aviation scene.

[Pegasus747]

to those that think that they can stand a flight attendant down without consequences are kidding themselves....

It will be the quickest loss of command ever...

you stand a flight attendant down because you disagree with their point of view and then the following thing will happen.

the rest of the cabin crew will be instructed to get off the aircraft by the FAAA.

Sure you will be in command but you will not have any flight attendants prepared to work with you.

Now of course you are right the CAR's dont mention the Cabin crew. This is despite a plane cannot leave unless there is one flight attendant per floor level exit and one per pair of over wing exits.

when you look back through the flight deck door and there are no cabin crew try taking off without them.

Even a freighter has a flight attendant so you can at least have a cup of tea.. Why dont you tell the company you no longer need the cabin crew member when you operate a freighter or positioning flight. It would save the company money and the flight attendants would hardly complain.

The only thing that is dangerous having the captains wife on the flight deck would be the danger to his super.

bring it on you brave captain (if you are one) and start standing crew down who disagree with you. You will find flight attendants a little different to deal with than a second officer who actually has to listen to the crap you talk.

how do you ever have sex with your wives without a second officer sitting at the end of the bed reading the checklist??

1. Pants down.
2. flaps at correct setting
3. viagra inserted......

rofl and you think flight attendants have egos lol

[griffin one]

looks like another punch on coming in some far away bar between the sky gods and platechuckers,If were talking about inflated egos,Even the zepplin didnt have the amount of helium most tech crew have of themselves.
Cant wait for the captain to refuse to depart because wifey hasnt got her seat, guess she will expect a glass of kruk whilst sitting in the cc seat as well.
skygods my frekkle, overated playstation players on the A380

[blueloo]

It will be the quickest loss of command ever...

you stand a flight attendant down because you disagree with their point of view and then the following thing will happen.

I can guarantee this will not be the case.

I can guarantee that if required it will be put in CASAs hands and taken out of the companies. And I know of 1 Captain who has bypassed the company and gone straight to CASA. The Capt is still well and truely employed as a Captain.

The equivalent of mutany under the CASA regs is not taken well by the regulator.

Whether the company or your union can help you against prosecution from the regulator is a different matter. Good luck finding out.



Oh and this ones a beauty:

Even a freighter has a flight attendant so you can at least have a cup of tea.. Why dont you tell the company you no longer need the cabin crew member when you operate a freighter or positioning flight. It would save the company money and the flight attendants would hardly complain.

I have done many ferry flights without cabin crew. In fact they happen quite often. Would you believe tech crew can arm the doors. And more interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly the plane did get airborne successfully without cabin crew on board.

[griffin one]

yes but only after you made sure you had your sandwiches,delivered by catering.

[blueloo]

yes but only after you made sure you had your sandwiches,delivered by catering

absolutely - and coffee. vastly more important than fuel. :}

[griffin one]

too true, one lump or two

[A_B_P]

In amongst all the squabbling and name calling there are some really valid points.

It's a shame you lot don't show your true colours at our annual CRM sessions together. It would certainly be alot more entertaining and honest. :hmm:

[Back Seat Driver]

I have rarely met a QF FA who wasn't a top chapette or chap. I doubt these 'usual suspects' spewing their self righteous indignation are even real QF CC. :bored:

[jungle juice]

I have found the same Back Seat Driver.
I have not met a tech crew that was not a top driver or drivette.
I doubt these 'usual suspects' spewing their self righteous indignation are even real QF CC
I too suspect that the usual suspects are not real drivers either:E

[funbags]

It will be the quickest loss of command ever........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha :O


Best laugh I have had in a while. Keep them coming peg!

You guys really have a superiority complex! Stick to the chicken or beef, let us make the adult calls!

[AlphaLord]

!.What an embarrassing thread
2.A total waste of bandwidth

[captainrats]

Who are in no way representative of the hardworking diligent men and women of Qantas.
You lot are a disgrace

[blueloo]

.What an embarrassing thread
2.A total waste of bandwidth

It is isnt it.

[mohikan]

Peg.

Clearly if we have a differing point of view in an area that is not covered by company regulations then we would need to refer said issue to our respective higher managements for a decision. If you were not happy then with that decision it would be your choice not to operate I guess. If I am not happy with the decision I shrug my shoulders and get on with it because plenty of things happen on the line each day that are less then ideal and its just a matter of getting on with the task at hand

But in this case we are NOT talking about a differing point of view.

The flight standing order on this issue makes it company policy. Policy forms part of the CASA endorsed operator approval, WHICH MEANS that ALL operating aircrew, both tech and cabin, are required to follow said policy unless in the view of the licensed aircrew an emergency exists where the regulation needs to be disregarded so as to ensure a safe outcome for the flight.

Note that a family member sitting on a cabin crew jumpseat does not constitute an emergency under the CAR's

Also note, that the pilot in command is empowered, indeed is LEGALLY obligated to enforce and follow all company policy and the CAR'S.

If you chose, on the day of the flight, to refuse to follow company policy, then you may be held out of service to allow a crew member who will comply with the policy to replace you.

And the beauty of the situation is that it won't even be me that has to make the decision.

Once I inform the Duty Captain I have a crew member refusing to follow company policy he will consult with cabin crew management and you will be dropped like a hot potato.

And to make sure of things I will also place a phone call to the CASA FOI with a heads up that an ASIR is coming his way which talks about a crew member who refuses to operate under company policy and by extension the CAR's.

The FAAA won't save you then I can assure you.

There will be no time for mediation or any other PC bullsh** due to the need to achieve an on time departure.

You may not like the policy, and thats your prerogative. But you will need to progress your concerns through your management using the appropriate processes, and in the mean time comply with company policy like everyone else has to.

[firepussy]

Our friend above is in dire need of a bonk

[Pegasus747]

nice back track..

cabin crew have never refused to follow lawful directions of the captain or CSO's or FSO's or any other lawful instruction.

Your previous post inferred that you were looking forward to picking some sort of concocted flight with a flight attendant so that you could stand them down.

forget casa and all that bull**** ok..

if you behave completely irrationally and start standing crew down who merely disagree with your view then you will be deemed "unsound" and the FAAA will get the crew off the aircraft until you are examined and deemed "sound"

We will not fly with some lunatic having a breakdown....its not safe

Now if a flight attendant breached a regulation or disobeyed a lawful instruction then probably before you could stand them down the CSM would have already contacted management in SYdney and had it done for you.

You will find that all this drama is about the fact that DOTARS has stopped you having your family on the flight deck which is plainly stupid.... but having them in a crew jump seat is even more stupid....

[Keg]

Wow, you go flying for a day and I miss three pages of.....



.....absolutely nothing! :} :E

Peg, I don't think there has been any back track by Mohikan as you allege. This was their original point:

Im glad this jump seat initiative has been taken, and I actually hope that a flight attendant takes me on over this so I can stand them down and f**** them off from the aircraft and hopefully the company.

Pretty clear that Mohikan was talking about the jump seat issue and whilst Mohikan has been considerably more blunt than I would have been, the point made is 100% correct. A CC member who stands their digs against this policy on board when the Captain is acting in accordance with the FSO is putting a sign on their chest that says 'stand me down please'.

As I alluded to previously, if you don't like the policy you can use any number of tools to fix it- Safety Obs report, ICAN, whatever. Arguing with the Captain would be option number 83 on a list of 84 things you could do.

[blade.runner]

The scenario upon which this thread is predicated is unlikely to occur more than once or twice a year.
Yet we have normally rational posters like Kegmeister and Peg 747 getting hot under the collar.
Zip up your pants gentleman and put into some sort of perspective what it is you are raving about.
How does Qantas function with all this infighting and nonsense going on?

[air doris]

Regardless if you are a Captain/FO/SO/FA, rules have changed and I'm happy with them. CA's, forget the days you can bring your family aboard, get with the real time, cant believe you think that is still ok. A simple blanket rule is NO FLIGHT DECK access. These rules are in place for your protection, not any one elses. Remember that. Think about where you work and think about how many lives are in your hand. Think about kids that shoot kids. No not your child, but access to the cockpit is suicide. Think about Colombine, and all the disasters that have happened, no not your kid but anyone can bring a plane down, thats why we have NO ACCESS. If you were my captain I would be very concerned if your kids were up on deck. 30 years ago I wouldn't have a problem but now, no way.

[airtags]

An FSO, just like a CSO is an statement of company policy in respect of a given regulatory regime.

An Operator's individual company policy however does not dictate what is essentially a Federal jurisdiction. The Operator's approval is designated by the regulator not by the company.

Too this end the current FSO is not reflected as a change in the Ops Manual and the change has not been presented to the regulator in accordance with the requirements of the Act and required process.

That said - and until alternative compliance procedures are effected, the FSO would be followed on-board accordingly with the appropriate reports initiated to both the company and the regulator.

In the event however of an unsuitable person being placed in the CC jumpseat, I would expect a professional liaision to take place between the Captian and the CSM. I would expect, just like in 767 days that an unsuitable pax in an exit row would be moved and all would be in agreeance.

If the seat to my left was say batting from a position of adversarial stupidity, then I would not hestitate in closing the door and having one of 'those' full and frank discussions. If the CSM was batting the same way I would not hesitate in backing the chair.

But If the situation was giving rise to a risk to the safety and security of the a/c or the pax, and the risk was not being addressed due to escalated stupidity (on either side), then I would certainly prefer not to fly the sector and would certainly be making a phone call or two.

Reality is that this reform is a last resort and given we will no doubt have an amended FSO expressing a few more compliance conditions once the regulator is formerly advised then maybe aPprune 'cease fire' is appropriate.

As stated previously one would have thought that the operating crew were all on the same side. ......maybe the thread should be parked while process catches up.

Still think however a much better solution is to fix staff travel (which is really the cause of most of this grief in the first place) and then the bloody CC jumpseat would probably not be needed !

AT

[Keg]

Yet we have normally rational posters like Kegmeister.....getting hot under the collar.

Lol. Nothing further from the truth. I'm intrigued by the lack of intellectual rigour exhibited by some in the manner they conduct the discussion but I really couldn't give a fig about the subject at hand as it's highly unlikely to affect me on my aircraft and routes.

In the unlikely event it does then as a reasonable person and understanding the overwhelming majority of CSMs are also reasonable then I'd back our collective ability to manage the issue appropriately. It's only when someone is unreasonable and the issue is no longer about seats but rather failure to adhere to company policy that the discussion will take a very different tone.

No pissing contest, not getting wound up about it, just a statement of fact. Hopefully this will be my last post on the matter as I've wasted enough time as it is on it! :ok:

[cowabunga438]

Jungle Juice you really are a sad sack. This has nothing to do with safety. This has to do with your reidiculous hatred of pilots

ditch handle,Don't worry about this as you'll never win with a group that yet again wants something at someone else's expense.
They sit up there strapped in and can't understand the concerns of others.

The first rule of yours is the main one and that is the drivers are upset that they can't take their wife on the flight deck anymore so they expect us to wear it.

'I'm alright jack'

CC and their beneficiaries can sit in those seats as well. It doesn't take ONE SINGLE THING away from you, and in fact could help you, your friends, your work mates and thier families. But no you jump up and down with these completely insane scenarios when in fact your only problem with it is you think this is some sort of pilot take over.

So rather than look at this an go "great my work friends can now get their kids home from OS" you go into a pilot hatred frenzy.

Get a mirror and take a good long hard look at yourself.

[cowabunga438]

Quote-

"i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member."

_________

Neither have I.


It has hapened many many times.

Conversely I have never heard a tech crew refuse a jump seat.

God I am even more ashamed now. What a bunch of petty children

[cowabunga438]

Quote-

"i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member."

_________

Neither have I.

I what way does this new procedure stop you from sitting down.

When techies give away the jump seat does it stop them putting their seat belts on.

Do you have trouble putting your seat belt on when there is no assist seat.

Completely senseless argument.

[ditch handle]

Cowawhatever,

Again.

What is it with you lot????

Myopic, self obsessed, obtuse,............... retarded!!??

Those arguing against the policy are doing so because they are looking at it from an, operational perspective.

You are not.

For at least one of the reasons mentioned above.

Obtw. My completely senseless argument was a piss take [and cut and paste:rolleyes:] from the other completely senseless argument that immediately proceeded it.:rolleyes:

[cowabunga438]

Too this end the current FSO is not reflected as a change in the Ops Manual

Incorrect.

[Pegasus747]

yawn!!!!!!!!

[cowabunga438]

Those arguing against the policy are doing so because they are looking at it from an, operational perspective.

Incorrect.

There operational aspects have been covered. The post quoted above clearly demostrates that JJ has a problem with tech crew. JJ didn;t mentioned operational aspects. JJ mentioned pilots getting something from CC. It was pure spite.

The fact is this is not a significant operational matter. It is safe. There are the number of seats required for people to sit in.

I have talked to many many many CC over the last few days about this. Luckiliy they think JJ is a sad sack who needs to get a life. The vast majority thinks this is a good thing.

[cowabunga438]

What is it with you lot????

This line says it all.

What do you mean "you lot"? I am a pilot am I. Did I address the individuals (JJ DH and Peg) or did I make a silly stereotype?

So you say "you lot" then try and defend your position as being based on operational merit, rather than a stereotypical view of a group of people whose only common attribute is their job.

Basically you just let the true colours show

[ditch handle]

It would of course be self evident [for anyone with a semblance of intelligence] that "you lot" refers those arguing in support of the policy.

You are the one who is rather pathetically trying to personalize the issue.

[cowabunga438]

Personalise the issue!!!

Give me a break. So IF (and nobody believes you for a moment) 'you lot' refers to those saying this policy is OK - the vast majority of CC and techies - you are saying that you are retarded and obtuse if you agree with the policy? Yeah obviously we are personalising the issue.

Basically almost everyone is a retard except you and a couple of others? Disagreeing with you (because this policy is safe, is operationally sound, and helps both CC and techies) means you call the person "you lot" and a retard.

Either way you make no sense. You made a stereotype, it was personal, it made no sense. Then you accuse me of personalising the issue. Good grief!


The procedure is safe. JJ made a comment about techies, then you say "you lot".

I think everyone here knows exactly what is going on. Luckily most CC and techies do not agree with you.

[twiggs]

Ditch handle,
it's rather ironic that you and your cronies refer to me as someone who doesn't fly because your arguments against the policy do show a lack of understanding of how things operate on the aircraft in the real world.

Fortunately we don't have to hear from your comrade for a while as it appears they have been sin binned.

jungle juice
Banned... Persona Non Grata

[ditch handle]

Gee Cowawhatever. I do believe you are starting to froth at the mouth.

Yawn .................:zzz:

_________

Now let's discuss shall we, your rather subjective use of the word, "safe".

Who deems it safe?

The regulator? Ah, no. Not consulted.
The internal stakeholders who's individuals will have to work with the policy? Ah, no. Not consulted.
The emergency procedures department? Don't know but doubt if consulted.
The relevant OH&S departments? Don't know but doubt if consulted.

It seems pretty clear to me that the only person who deems it safe is the chief pilot who wrote it...........oh, and "you lot"...........

[Capt Fathom]

Last says everyone!

It won't be long now! :E

[funbags]

Give up ditch, you're wrong.

It's policy, the pilots have control, and you hate that. Just admit it already. :ugh:

[ditch handle]

Twiggs,

that you're boasting about having to resort to bleating to the moderators to have someone banned because you can't get over them, intellectually, strikes me as kind of......well........?

Pathetic.

Qantas chose you well..............