1:50 Rule NPRM Australia

[338C]

There is currently a CASA NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) that seeks to change the current 1:36 rule to 1:50.

Comments on the proposal close in early April 2010.

Silence on the topic from cabin crew, the media and the politicians has been deafening.

Those that started in the industry after the CASA regulatory review in the 1990's may not be aware that there was a successful campaign to retain the 1:36 ratio. Many of the individuals involved have since left flying and are unable to resume the battle.

The issue has safety and work condition implications.

Lets hope there is a will to carry on the good work that was done by so many volunteers over so many years to make our workplace safer and healthier.

[TightSlot]

Would it be accurate to say that most of the rest of the world already operates on a 1:50 ratio? Could this possible be why the silence has been so deafening?

[flitegirl]

The 1:50 rule has already been approved for a number of airlines in Australia on narrow-body aircraft. For example, Alliance has approval to operate on a 1:50 ratio

[air doris]

I have no issue with the ratio, most operators around the world work with this. The only downside I see is for the customer. In flight services will have to be amended to allow a full service carrier to still continue to provide a premium service but thats for them to look at. As crew we can only do what we can do. Look at SYD-MEL dinner services, we carry 1 or 2 extra crew (depending on AC type) anyway to get the service done in time. Inflight service will be amended to be do-able safely and timely so from my point of view it's no problem.

[girtbar]

Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean that like sheep all must follow.

What are the projected job losses from moving to the 1:50 rule?

An errosion on saftey rules, is reducing a saftey margin.

1:39 must have been implemented for a good reason, it would be interested to compare results for 1:39 and 1:50.

[CD]

The discussion of cabin crew ratios is often an interesting one, with many opinions being shared... ;)

For those that haven't had an opportunity to review the CASA proposal, here is a link to the NPRM:

Cabin Crew Ratios - Proposed Amendment to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) Section 20.16.3 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100043)

The proposal contains more changes than just those related to the ratio and makes for an interesting read.

As 338C indicates, this isn't the first time that a change to the Australian ratio has been proposed. However, this time it is likely to be adopted as CASA has already been permitting the practice through special authorizations. If the Australian ratio does change, it would leave Canada as the only large CAA with a ratio based on the number of passengers carried rather than the number of configured passenger seats. A similar proposal here that would have permitted the option of operating to the existing 1:40 passenger ratio or the proposed 1:50 seat ratio was stopped by the Transport Minister in 2006 following a public campaign opposing the change. An archived version of the website opposing the change can be seen here:

Airline Passenger Safety - Feb 02, 2006 (http://web.archive.org/web/20060202060405/http://airpassengersafety.ca/)
Airline Passenger Safety - Sep 19, 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20061004090817/www.airpassengersafety.ca/index.htm)

Previous discussions containing some interesting views related to proposed changes to cabin crew ratios in Australia can be found at the following links as well:

PPRuNe Qantas bid to jettison attendants - 2002 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/65468-qantas-bid-jettison-attendants.html)
PPRuNe Australian F/A's please read - 2005 (http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/185257-australian-f-please-read.html)
PPRuNe Australian CC Ratio under threat - 2009 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/384686-austrelian-cc-ratio-under-threat.html)
PPRuNe (Virgin) Cabin Attendants reduction - Evacuation Time - 2009 (http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/393864-virgin-cabin-attendants-reduction-evacuation-time.html)

[thefuture]

airtag said "The Unions or anyone else for that matter did not 'really' oppose* the reductions - not even on the jungle jets with one person being responsible for 2 doors ..(WTF!!!! and with the skewiffslide at R2 how the hell did anyone prove the evac efficiency!!!!)... Apart from a few whining lines recently in the SMH and a puff piece in crikey, the CC world has generally been out to lunch. However precedent now exists and you can't retro legislate".

This is a very accurate description of the facts. I had to go and speak to the guys involved at the time before making any comments here.

tightslot: there were some very good research available at the time from Cranbroock University. now time has move on and it appears everything is going towards a risk based outcome. it always depends who (and what area of CASA and Airlines the so called experts come from)is involved in that approach. the unions don't seem to grasp the idea of providing experts to drive their interests( needless to say they could learn a lot from AIPA).

The FAAA (domestic & international) certainly has not been at its best when it comes to any lobbying,attending meetings, driving issues in CASA and the repective airlines. one almost certainly can make a case of potential (total) incompetence when it comes to issues with CASA & Government relations.
The FAAA international side is to focused on promoting themselves lately. (if i get another email or 4 page glossy self promoting magazine:yuk:) The new nickname for the "donothingunion" upline says it all. I give them credit for some of the flexibility in the last year to save jobs but you can't run all your defences or excuses for not doing much or not paying attention to issues important to CC alone on that issue.:ugh:

[338C]

Cabin crew cost an airline less much less than $120,000 a year;
Cabin crew cost much less than $10,000 a month;
Cabin crew work 20 days a month;
Cabin crew cost the airline less than $500 a day;
Cabin crew fly 4 sectors a day;
Cabin crew cost the airline $125 a sector;
A narrow bodied jet carries 100 pax per leg when 70% full;
Cabin crew cost $1.25 per passenger per sector, maximum;

The cost of the NPRM is at least 1 safety person per aircraft
The cost of the NPRM is at least one floor level door unmanned
The cost to the passenger is 1/3 reduction in safety assistance
The benefit to the passenger IF the WHOLE saving is passed on?
$1.25 per sector;

[YPJT]

I heard a rumour today that Qantaslink are planning to trial a reduced number of CC on thier B717 services. Bloody hell, with four of them they are going flat out to feed and water the great unwashed on the Pilbara routes now so how will it be with less? Unless of course you cut out all cabin service completely.:yuk:

[kjay]

Qantaslink is certainly trying to reduce the crew, but they have to have casa approval so a succesful evacution of 3 crew procedure will have to be demonstrated to casa. And is in the pipeline. They can go with 3 crew in a capped sitiuation at moment of 108 pax.
The Faaa have just sent out details of situation and urge all cc to comment on the proposed changes. All cc should check out the rule changes.
This is open for comment until the 6th April 2010.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Documents open for comment (http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/ors)

[flitegirl]

YPJT

Our protest as cabin crew must be from a safety and security perspective, not whether or not we can complete a service in time.

[338C]

The following is an extract from the Kuwait CAA web site

"For example, the number of cabin crew members necessary on any particular flight is normally related to the number of passengers – such are the international safety standards. But Kuwait DGCA policy requires there be at least one cabin crew member per main exit door. So, in the unlikely event of an emergency there is always someone to guide and assist passengers to the safest and nearest exits."

It makes you wonder if CASA has forgotten that it is funded by the public and is not an arm of IATA the airline trade body.

Suggest to those that you care about that they make a submission to the NPRM asking CASA:
How do the proposed changes to the legislation provide an equivalent level of safety?
How has CASA demonstrated that they can ensure that 1:50 has an equivalent level of safety?

Suggest they tell CASA the retain the current 1:36 ratio and to cancel all the dispensations.

[xtrolleydolly]

From my reading, the proposal is for a minimum cabin crew ratio (not a maximum). This means that if the airline wants to have the service complete and cabin secured before landing, it will need to provide the necessary (extra) cabin crew to get the job done or to plan the service (if any) in advance. Cabin crew can only do what they can do in the time made available to do the job. (Thats the law folks). If the trays are still out on descent keep the Captain informed. A fuel bill for a "go around" to the inflight department and well worded safety report will soon wake them up. (Yes this actually happened in a past life and it worked a treat). :ok:

[kjay]

Ha Ha Ha. Will have to give that a go on one of the 1hr 20 flts. Probably wont even have to give it a go it will probably happen anyway.

[boredcounter]

I have no dobt this is a safe ratio, i have worked it on the ground for too many years before electing to go back to freight.

It was 1:50 fitted seats.

If an Exit u/s a 157 seat aircraft may be reduced to 100 pax by the MEL, still 4 cabin crew reqired, Purser or Cabin Manager mandatory.

Any reference to service is null and void, 'Purser' can cancel on the grounds of flight safety. CC are there to operate as Crew.


To the person quoting Saudia, i think it was, I worked for a ME 'Large' Airline who could not cope, expansion above training! Minimum 'Legal Crew' + c10 Service crew, all in the sme uniform! GCAA governed. What is more dangerous?



Bored

[CD]

If an Exit u/s a 157 seat aircraft may be reduced to 100 pax by the MEL, still 4 cabin crew reqired, Purser or Cabin Manager mandatory.
This is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the requirements for all CAAs. For example, the MEL relief may or may not be available for a single-aisle aeroplanes as there are CAAs that only permit relief for twin-aisle aeroplanes, not single-aisle. As well, some CAAs specify that the "Purser or Cabin Manager" is a member of the minimum cabin crew required not an additional crew member -- so in your example, just to clarify, it would still be four.

It should also be noted that there are some CAAs that permit a ratio of 1:50 passengers, although the CASA proposal is based on the number of configured seats.

There really is no "international standard" to speak of as ICAO hasn't specified one. Chapter 12 of Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation relates to the requirements for Cabin Crew. Section 12.1 addresses the Standard for the assignment of emergency duties as follows:
"An operator shall establish, to the satisfaction of the State of the Operator, the minimum number of cabin crew required for each type of aeroplane, based on seating capacity or the number of passengers carried, in order to effect a safe and expeditious evacuation of the aeroplane, and the necessary functions to be performed in an emergency or a situation requiring emergency evacuation. The operator shall assign these functions for each type of aeroplane."

[338C]

Any proposal is required to provide an equivalent level of safety for the public.

Following are some questions that CASA has not answered nor provided information to the public to make a more informed decision on the NPRM.

In the absence of such data is it worth gambling on CASA's integrity given its previous performance? How long ago was it necessary to hold the Lockhart River inquiry into CASA's ability to safeguard the public interest?

How has CASA demonstrated it posses the skills to determine an equivalent level of safety? It has not.

What processes does CASA use to determine an equivalent level of safety?

How has CASA determined the processes and proven them to be valid?

Within Australian operators what is the expertise of the individuals who have conducted the risk assessments and developed the safety cases to justify the approvals already granted to reduce the ratio from 1:36 to 1:50?

What is the experience level within management of Australian air operators who are conducting "risk assessments" and formulating the safety case?

The really competent cabin safety people argued successfully to retain the 1:36 in the 2000 Regulatory Review.
Most have since retired and their expertise not replaced.

What is the basis for these safety cases? Is it scientific and/or evidence based or subjective?
On the basis of the increased risk in the air since 9/11 and the need for both the rear doors to be manned in a ditching is the safety case presented really an economic case?

The CASA CEO that signs off on the 1:50 NPRM and the other world lowest standards is setting the Authority down the path of another inquiry.
Perhaps it can be held in conjunction with the inevitable "Norfolk Island" ditching inquiry.

[thefuture]

with your assessment 338C.
"The really competent cabin safety people argued successfully to retain the 1:36 in the 2000 Regulatory Review.
Most have since retired and their expertise not replaced."

The real reason i have been told is that the current FAAA does not see any value in lobbying/challenging CASA, the government or the airlines on this and other issues.
sad times indeed.:{

[338C]

CASA CLAIMS 1.50 WORLDS BEST PRACTICE CABIN CREW TO PASSENGER RATIO

Australia has 1.36 (actual worlds best practice) Canada 1.40 USA 1.50 and
Just a few UK examples from the web:;

REGIONAL;
British European
BAE146-300
110 Pax/4 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:28)
BAE146-200
100 Pax/3 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:33)
CRJ-200/Dash 8Q-300
50 Pax/2 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:25)
Dash 8Q-200
37 Pax/1 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:37)

SCHEDULED;
British Airways
A319-100
105-126 Pax/4 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:26/1:32)
A320-200
126-149 Pax/6 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:21/1:25)
B757-200
159-180 Pax/4-7 Cabin Crew
B767-300
213-252 Pax/11 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:19/1:23)

CHARTER;
Air 2000
A320-200
180 Pax/5 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:36)
A321-200
214 Pax/7 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:31)
B757-200
233 Pax/7 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:33)
B767-300
312 Pax/9 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:35)

LOW FARE;
EasyJet
B737-700/-300
149 Pax/3 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:50)

QUESTION

Why do airlines put on more crew for service duties, but don't want to do the same for the safety of the passengers?

[ANstar]

Those crew rations seem out of date by quote a few years- Flybe (british european) dont even operate any of those flights and I am sure BA also operate the A319 at LGW with 3 crew.

As for Air 2000 they dont even exist anymore.

They seem like pre 9/11 figures even.

[Sweet_FA]

ANstar is correct, I'm afraid. Those figures are extremely out of date. Air 2000 was bought by First Choice in 1998, although the final rebranding of the aircraft didn't take place until 2004. And BA do indeed operate the A319 with 3 crew, LGW for the last three years and LHR since Nov.



Why do airlines put on more crew for service duties, but don't want to do the same for the safety of the passengers?


Because it's about money. Airlines used to be able to charge lots for those extra services and therefore were happy to pay for the extra crew needed to deliver them. But people don't want to pay all that money anymore. Premium traffic across the world has nose-dived leaving airlines looking at ways to cut costs and wondering why they need so many crew on board each aircraft. It's not right, but that's the way it is.

[YPJT]

Our protest as cabin crew must be from a safety and security perspective, not whether or not we can complete a service in time

Flitegirl, agree wholeheartedly. Sorry if I offended with my suggestion with regard to the service delivery being a prime consideration.
Don't suppose we can have our full strength beer and spirits back though. :E

[338C]

OPEN LETTER TO:

Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd,
Attorney General, Robert McClelland
Foreign Minister, Steven Smith
Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese


Dear Prime Minister and Ministers,

I am writing to alert your various departments to a situation which has the potential to bring as much discredit on the Federal Government as the recent home insulation debacle.

The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Attorney General Robert McClelland and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith trumpeted the 2010 Counter-Terrorism White Paper, “Securing Australia, Protecting Our Community”, which contained the following key point under the heading "Protection"

"Improving the security of our airports to enhance protection of the traveling public"

Totally contrary to this initiative, the Department of Transport through The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, has issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making that will effectively negate any "enhanced protection of the traveling public”.

The rule change proposed by CASA to allow a reduction of the cabin crew to passenger ratio from 1 crew member to every 36 passengers, to “a ratio of 1 cabin crew member for every 50 passenger seats or part of that number. The proposed change will be applicable to aircraft with a passenger seat configuration of more than 36 but not more than 216,” CASA's intention can only be to legitimise their already flawed concessions given to low cost carriers. The current requirement in Australia is 1:36, the requirement is 1:40 in Canada and 1:50 in the USA, the very lowest standard in the world . CASA, in its race to the bottom, makes false claims that 1:50 is harmonisation with “world’s best practice”. World’s best practice, is in fact what Australia has always had. Why do we as Australians not acknowledge that in some instances we do better than the rest of the world! What is the cultural cringe that makes us lower our standards to placate cheap, mostly foreign owned carriers? Surely it is the role of CASA to enhance the safety of the Australian traveling public.

On the 6th of May 2008 the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Anthony Albanese announced there would be “more money for security upgrades at regional airports”. Who has been providing this security and surveillance to date? I put it to you that it is the current function of the regional and domestic cabin crew. Does the Government think that removing them on some commuter aircraft, and reducing their numbers on domestic aircraft and hence their capacity to do their job effectively, will enhance “the protection of the traveling public” as per your stated aim? No matter how many scanners or airport security personnel are employed, no single person whose feet stay firmly on the ground can share the same interest in passenger and aircraft safety as those who crew the aircraft. A case in point, on 19th March 2010


-2-

Victoria’s police chief was detected carrying bullets on a flight. It was reported "Mr. Overland was found to be carrying the ammunition magazine at Canberra airport on the way back to Victoria, but had already passed through security in Melbourne and flown to the capital with the ammunition". It is a very inappropriate proposal to allow the reduction of numbers of the very people who have the most interest in theirs and the passenger’s survival and protection from security threats - the cabin crew.

As for CASA’s suggestion that passengers can safely self-evacuate when there is minimum crew, as determined by aircraft certification trials, I bring your attention to the following statement in relation to overwing (hatch style) exits submitted by the following organizations in 2002:

The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA - not an ITF affiliate), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the Swedish Transport Worker' Federation (HTF), the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and the International Transport Workers' Federation with SCISAFE.

“The review document described several concerns with the various research projects, including the fact that the age and health status of test subjects did not reflect that of the flying public, and that the subjects were often either briefed multiple times on how to evacuate, or actually given practice sessions before their evacuations are timed. Whether or not the research methodologies are scientifically sound, it is our opinion that results collected under test conditions that do not reflect true emergency conditions, should not be used to justify or propose regulations that apply to true emergency conditions.”

I would suggest “optimum” crew numbers may be more appropriate in light of the following report:

Canadian Transport Safety Boards Report on the Air France Airbus A340-313 aircraft accident Toronto International Airport, Ontario, on 18th July 2005, with 297 passengers and 12 crew members on board. This crew to passenger ratio equates to 1:24.75 with the 297 passenger breakdown comprising of 168 adult males; 118 adult females; 8 children; and 3 infants. Adult passengers included: three wheelchair passengers and one blind passenger.

"2.6 Survivability 2.6.1 General
The evacuation was successful due to the training and actions of the whole cabin crew. With few exceptions, the performance of the cabin crew was exemplary and professional, and was a significant factor in the successful evacuation of the accident. There was effective communication between the flight crew and the cabin crew. Because the cabin crew were advised of the possibility of a missed approach, they were in a state of heightened awareness during the landing phase and were, therefore, prepared to respond immediately in the event of an emergency.
The availability of three supplemental cabin crew members on AFR358 undoubtedly contributed to the success of the evacuation, as evidenced by the roles they played during the evacuation. Two were in command of passenger evacuations at emergency exits and the third played a pivotal role in opening an emergency exit and subsequently assisted passengers at the foot of the R4 slide."
-3-

To give you some insight into how proficient passengers are in self-evacuating an aircraft, I refer you to a report released by the Chairman of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Survival Factors Group in December 1999. The report was on the American Airlines Flight 1420 that overran a runway and crashed in Little Rock, AR (NTSB, 1999). Eleven people were killed. Interviews with the passengers assigned to open the four overwing exits revealed that they all had considerable trouble doing so.

Male passenger seated at 21D reported that he "tried to throw the exit out, but it hit something, so he dropped it inside the airplane… Many of the passengers slipped or tripped at the opening. The exit plug was in the way…"

Male passenger seated at 22E reported that "he had not been told specifically that he was in an exit row, and did not realize it until the crash. He had never opened an emergency door before. He looked at the exit and saw the word "pull" on the handle. He assumed the door would open." (Page 25)

Unskilled passengers cannot be expected to perform in an emergency in place of trained cabin crew.

As for the process of "risk assessment" of cabin procedures, it is my experience that risk assessments are frequently made by people using Key Performance Indicators linked to the profitability of the airline or at the very least, under commercial pressure to achieve a positive economic result for their employer. These people lack subject matter expertise, thereby inhibiting their ability to adequately identify the risks and assign realistic probability and consequence in relation to those risks. It is my belief that a big part of the risk assessment process is for the purpose of diluting accountability and to ensure no one person could be made legally liable. Safety cases are often presented with minimal if any scientific basis, with proposed mitigating strategies little more than the subjective opinion of the very party that stands to gain from a successful submission. Analysis of disasters almost always shows a combination of technical and managerial flaws that have contributed to the event occurring, with the decision-making done by people who “don't know what they don’t know”.

A successful risk assessment or safety case system should have a competent and independent regulator with adequate legal powers. The regulator must ensure the operator will carry out the process of preparing the assessment/case in a rigorous manner, with the knowledge that if it is not done properly it will be challenged. Although CASA will argue they are proposing a process that does just that, I do not believe they have the level of experience or training programs required to equip their inspectorate to challenge where necessary the claims made by Airlines


Having spent 15 years as an active contributing member of the SAE Aerospace Committee, whose task it is, to develop Aerospace Recommended Practice documents which are used by the Federal Aviation Authority as the basis of their regulations, I am entirely familiar, with the regulatory process in America and the rationale behind it. America bases its system on risk, blame and litigation.

-4-

The last CASA regulatory review under the Howard Government, subject to the economic rationalist thinking of the time, was extremely comprehensive. The review committee, of which I was a member, did a complete and thorough analysis of the case for reducing cabin crew ratios and as a result, the 1:36 crew to passenger ratio was deemed best practice and retained.. NOTHING has changed since that time except the advent of low cost carriers.
I think the Government must ask the relevant Ministers the following questions:

• Can the Minister for Transport direct CASA to explain why, shortly after a comprehensive review process and retention of the 1:36 rule, they began issuing/offering the airlines dispensations?

• Will the Minister explain how CASA is involved in an initiative that will undermine another government initiative aimed at enhancing the protection of the traveling public?

• Will the Minister advise if the Australian public has asked CASA for a lowering of Safety & Security standards?

• Will the Minister advise if the public knows when they fly on an aircraft with reduced crew numbers that their chances of surviving an accident are much reduced?

• Will the Minister direct the Australian Transport Safety Board to investigate CASA's process for accepting dispensations for reduced crew numbers?

• Will the Minister direct CASA to withdraw the NPRM?


Yours sincerely,



Beverley Maunsell
79 Louisa Rd
Birchgrove 2041 NSW
Monday 22 March 2010

Air Safety Investigator/Cabin Safety Specialist - retired
Past Chairperson S9C Cabin Safety Provisions Committee, SAE Aerospace (USA)
Founding member of the Australian Society of Air Safety Investigators
Cabin Safety Working Group.

cc
Andrew Heasley, The Age
The Editor, Crikey,
Mathew O’Sullivan, Sydney Morning Herald

[whatever6719]

What a fantastic letter...Well done!!!

[capt.cynical]

Brilliant Bev,:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Can you expect a sincere responce from K.R.--A.A- :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::(

[CD]

Well written Bev... we've missed you at S-9. Drop me a note sometime.

[skybed]

god we miss you!!!!:D:D:D:D:D:D

[338C]

It would be useful to gauge the level of response to the NPRM and the nature of the feedback to CASA.

Many worked very long hours drafting responses.
They responded because it is the right thing to do.

They responded because they are professionals representing the people who trust professionals to do the right thing by them. The public will never know their names even if they have the wish.

They responded because they feel a sense of duty to the crews, our fellow professionals.

They tried for the likes of Bev, long retired but still passionate, knowledgeable and professional.

Is it too much to expect CASA to be as professional, objective and agenda free?.

[Qansett]

I flew on Alaska Airlines many times. They have 3 cabin crews on B734, B738 and MD90.

The problem is that there are not enough crew during the flight safety demonstration. 1 crew is in the jumpseat in L1 and is holding mic - about announcement and flight safety demonstration while two other crew are in the aisle performing manual demo (of course AS don't have TVs).

However, there's a wall/curtain between business and Y section but the curtain was opened. So one crew have to perform their manual demo in both classes. Cabin crew has to show it in the business and then ran to the Y and re-do again and then back to the business to show another one then redo in Y again..and them come back again. lol

Qantas has wall/curtains in B737-800 except B737-400. I am wondering whether they will do the same things as Alaska Airlines does!

[Qansett]

"Look at SYD-MEL dinner services, we carry 1 or 2 extra crew (depending on AC type) anyway to get the service done in time. Inflight service will be amended to be do-able safely and timely so from my point of view it's no problem"

Yes... SYD-BNE B763ER, they carry two extra crew but they spent lots of time talking at the back of the last seat row. lol

I don't see 1 extra crew on B738 between SYD-BNE during dinner services. I remember our plane was full. After they finished serve the meals to the pax, then went back to the first first row of Y to collect the trays and rubbish. They still have lots of time to clean up everything before descending.

[ditzyboy]

I don't see 1 extra crew on B738 between SYD-BNE during dinner services.

We lost the extra crew on 737 dinner services (except MEL-ADL-MEL) over a year ago. Canberra still has an extra on the 734 on all flights.

They still have lots of time to clean up everything before descending.

You must work for management. We often do not have time to eat or drink on these flights. And with frequent aircraft changes on 35 minute transits between two different concourses please tell me when else we have the ability to eat or drink. Throw in even the smallest stint of turbulence or a medical (or even just a difficult customer) and the service becomes unachievable. It is OK when things run 100% according to plan though we already cut corners and rush to get the service achieved.

Please note I do not think service related items (or safety demo positions!) should factor into discussion relating to crew to pax ratio - I am just responding to these above comments.

[hiwaytohell]

What happened with this NPRM?

And are there any operators still flying in Australia with a dispensation to 1:50?

[regional_flyer]

Yes. I know at least Virgin Australia Regional (Skywest) do on some flights, mainly charters, and Cobham Airline Services (Qantaslink's 717 ops) do on all flights. IIRC Alliance may do as well.

[dizzylizzy]

So true. Open your eyes, its practically worldwide standard to have 1:50 ratio. It is going to happen, why not save your union fees now and put it towards your superannuation or an investment. They're only looking after themselves, and that's protecting the old girls seniority - nothing more nothing less.