Is there a maximum number of passengers per cabin crew

[Duralumin]

On a recent Easyjet flight I noticed there were 180 passengers but only three cabin crew. This seems rather a large ratio and is not even enough to have one cabin crew at each main door for evacuation. Is there any CAA or other guidance on the ratio or absolute number of cabin crew ?

[HeartyMeatballs]

One crew member per 50 seats (occupied or not) are usually required and what is always planned on. There's no requirement for one FA to guard one or more doors (no different to doors 2 or 3 on a 321).

It's a CAA approved procedure that under certain circumstances reduced cabin crew may be carried due to a crew member going sick 'down route' as it were down a maximum of 50 pax (not seats) per operating crew member. It is extremely rare and I've never seen it done 7 years.

Flights can not and are never planned to operate with less than minimum crew. However you cannot depart certain airports with reduced crew. What route was this on and at what time?

[easyflyer83]

The above procedure described by heartymeatballs would never happened with 180 passengers. The passenger figure would have been no more than 150.

[Herod]

easyflyer83. As mentioned in post 2, the requirement is (or was) 1 cabin crew per 50 seats, not per 50 pax. Years ago I departed base with a 98 seat aircraft and 2 cabin crew. We had a tech problem and returned. The replacement aircraft (same type, same number of pax) was a 110 seater. We had to delay while another cabin member was called in off standby.

[easyflyer83]

No, reduced crew on a 180 seat aircraft has to have the passenger figure restricted to 150.

[Rwy in Sight]

Since we come to Easyjet and their crew what is the point of having 156 seats on an A320 thus for just 6 more passengers a fourth crew member is required which is good for the crew numbers. The question is why the airline did not op for 150 pax and 3 crew?

[Duralumin]

EZY6158 from Geneva to Bristol on the 2nd Oct, I believe that was a 180 seat plane and if there was a spare seat I didn't see it. There is a chance there was a 4th crew member who stayed at the back but only three names where announced and only 3 ever walked forward of the midpoint.

FYI a nice interior with the new seats and the crew I saw where doing a very good job.

[DaveReidUK]

Since we come to Easyjet and their crew what is the point of having 156 seats on an A320 thus for just 6 more passengers a fourth crew member is required which is good for the crew numbers. The question is why the airline did not op for 150 pax and 3 crew?

Presumably because the incremental revenue from the 6 extra seats on the A319 at EasyJet's average load factor more than pays for the cost of the 4th crew member.

[Phileas Fogg]

Since we come to Easyjet and their crew what is the point of having 156 seats on an A320 thus for just 6 more passengers a fourth crew member is required which is good for the crew numbers. The question is why the airline did not op for 150 pax and 3 crew?

It is correct, it is one cabin crew per 50 fitted seats, not one cabin crew per 50 bums on seats.

Alas the aircraft designers, bearing in mind that so many different operators have different seating configs, do not make airliners in multiples of 50 seats to optimize cabin crew utilisation.

Should any 156 seat operator choose to reduce staff costs then they have the option to remove 6 seats, on the other hand the beancounters have probably had their abaci out and reckoned that those 6 seats earn more revenue than the p1ss poor salary that additional cabin crew member may be paid.

[EcamSurprise]

EZY6158 from Geneva to Bristol on the 2nd Oct,

4 CC were on board.

[DaveReidUK]

Should any 156 seat operator choose to reduce staff costs then they have the option to remove 6 seats, on the other hand the beancounters have probably had their abaci out and reckoned that those 6 seats earn more revenue than the p1ss poor salary that additional cabin crew member may be paid.

Wot I said. :O

Presumably the extra revenue also pays for whatever dosh Airbus were able to extract from EasyJet (and Germanwings, Air Berlin, etc) for the privilege of having the second overwing emergency exit that's required on the A319 if it has over 150 seats.

[Duralumin]

Thanks, my bad.

[Phileas Fogg]

And, in many an airline, it is the inflight sales that pay for the cabin crew salaries so, within reason, the more cabin crew then the more opportunity to flog drinks, sandwiches, duty frees and whatever other cr@p they may have on board any particular flight.

[Rwy in Sight]

So if my math is correct it seems Easy Jet gets quite often load factors higher than (151/156)96,8% regularly to make the carrying those six additional pax along with the revenues generated by them in flight.

Regarding the second emergency exit ISTR from a conversation with an Airbus person in the 2002 Farnborough that the part of the fuselage containing the two pairs of the emergency exits was transferred from an A320 making it somewhat cheap (if there is such a notion in aviation). And just a thought regarding that deal, why Easy jet did not ask for exclusivity on the 4 emergency exits on the A319 (even maybe by paying a premium) obliging the other low cost to go to the larger and maybe more expensive to fill A320? Kindly take it easy with that answer since I only have a very very general idea of revenue but I think the smaller aircraft may protect the yield better (all things being equal less seats higher fare).

Thanks in advance

[Phileas Fogg]

RIS,

I think this has headed for a thread drift already, correct, in theory, that more seats per aircraft then the cheaper operating costs per seat but then one needs to fill those seats to justify the additional operating costs.

Ryanair didn't make mega profits operating the likes of BAC1-11's and B737-200's but since they went for an entire fleet of stretched B737's it would seems they've gone from strength to strength.

Easyjet, from the outset, have gone for the mid sized B737/Airbus, it is their business model and it seems to work for them.

On the other hand there was Buzz operating BAe146's, they didn't last too long, BMIBaby operating, I recall BMI cast offs, even B737-500's ... The rest is history.

Down where I am there is Cebu Air (Cebu Pacific Air) operating, short/medium haul, a mixed fleet of A319's, A320's, some A321's on order, and ATR72's ... A mixed fleet and it works for them, dependent upon the often restrictive lengths of runways in these parts they can chop and change aircraft types to accommodate more or less passengers on any given day.

[ExXB]

WestJet has moved from just B737s to a mixed 737-600 (one of the very few operators of this variat) 700/800, Dash-8 and B767s.

Even Southwest, which 'invented' this LCC model has operated aircraft other than 737s, for example after their merger with AirTran.

[PAXboy]

This seems like natural progresion, as LCCs mature into the new mainline carriers. We also see (I think) that legacy carriers are simplifying their fleets?

I sit to be corrected.

[EcamSurprise]

Slowly but surely EJ is reducing their A319 fleet and increasing the A320 fleet.
All future deliveries are planned to be 320s (or bigger?)

[Phileas Fogg]

This seems like natural progresion, as LCCs mature into the new mainline carriers

So, as an example, if I want to fly from BHX to HKG am I likely to utilise such 'mainline' carriers as RYR or EZY or more likely to utilise one of those old fashioned carriers such as Swiss?

[Tall Bird]

I was on Air Transat YYZ to LGW on 1/9 when we were delayed for 25 minutes or so during which one CC left the flight. Her section colleague told us the MAN flight, leaving 45 minutes later, was two CC down and would not be able to take off unless there was a move over. Thus, two flights left each one CC short but still compliant apparently.

[PAXboy]

Phileas Fogg I'm wondering if legacy carriers are streamling their short and long haul fleets. So that, they might be using one type around europe, say, and one or types of the same range for everything else. One might have A319 or 320 and then 330/340 or 350. For example. It's a guess, but one based on 38 years observation of commerce.

[Phileas Fogg]

PAXboy,

I used to commute significantly in/out of BHX.

With LH it might have been a CRJ to DUS, a BAe146 to MUC and an Airbus or Boeing to FRA.

With LX it might have been a BAE146 to ZRH, a BAe146 ZRH/MXP yet an A320/321 ZRH/FCO.

With KL, something like 5 services a day, it could have been a F70, a F100 or one of two varieties of B737.

These are just examples of different sizes for different niche routes, try and put an Airbus, Boeing or larger Embraer etc. on everything then some routes simply wouldn't work.

[EcamSurprise]

I was on Air Transat YYZ to LGW on 1/9 when we were delayed for 25 minutes or so during which one CC left the flight. Her section colleague told us the MAN flight, leaving 45 minutes later, was two CC down and would not be able to take off unless there was a move over. Thus, two flights left each one CC short but still compliant apparently.

My airline also has the same option. If you are not departing a base you can reduce the crew by one of you meet certain criteria. Max number of pax onboard (not seats) is 50 / crew.

[Chesty Morgan]

YYZ is an Air Transat base.

It is common on long haul flights to carry more than minimum crew. I'd suggest that in this case TB's flight had at least one extra crew member who could be spared for the other flight ensuring that they both left with at least the minimum.

No flight would have left short of crew.

And it is crew per fifty seats not per fifty passengers.

[EcamSurprise]

And it is crew per fifty seats not per fifty passengers.

For the normal requirement, yes.

But, in my Airline, in the case of operating with reduced crew it is the passenger numbers which count NOT seats.
So in a 180 seater with one crew down, we can only carry 150 pax.

[Chesty Morgan]

The wording may well vary but the restriction is based on the actual number of seats per cabin crew as it is in the fully crewed case.

[EcamSurprise]

So you're suggesting to operate a flight with reduced crew, we should remove the physical seats from the aircraft?

[businessair75]

easyflyer83 was absolutely correct. Procedure is that if you are operating with minimum crew (A320 that is 4) and, for whatever reason, you have to depart a non-crew base station with 'reduced crew' then the passenger figure for the A320 and their A319 has to be reduced to 150.


RE: EZY's decision years ago to configure their A319's with 156 seats actually goes back to EZY and Airbus wrongly believing that they could get an A319 with that config certified to be operated by 3 cabin crew if the second overwing exit was adopted. Since then, there was a trial where 6 seats were physically blocked off but long term this was decided against by the airline.


Finally, there seems to be a couple of comments and misconception regarding cabin crew pay. Certainly when I was there, not that long ago, cabin crew pay at easyJet was actually pretty good. A few years ago a full time UK based junior would earn around 23K with a senior between 25K and 28K. Commission would only account for about 3K with some 'Northern' bases earning up to 5K. It's hardly the poorly paid job that some seem to think, certainly in the context that 26K is the average UK salary. The problem these days is that contracts can often be fixed term to start with. Even so, for money the charters and some LCC's are much better paid than the legacies on todays contracts.

[Phileas Fogg]

So you're suggesting to operate a flight with reduced crew, we should remove the physical seats from the aircraft?

Ecam,

Yes, that is the rule in United Kingdom and a few other places I've lived/worked.

Many years ago we had a sick CC member, we thought the rule was bums on seats so we offloaded some pax and operated the flight home with reduced crew, thereafter we learned of our misinterpretation of the rules.

[businessair75]

That rule must has changed then because in that scenario, provided the departure airport isn't a crew base, it is just a reduction of passengers, not seats. It is an exceptional circumstance.

[Phileas Fogg]

That rule must has changed then because in that scenario, provided the departure airport isn't a crew base, it is just a reduction of passengers, not seats. It is an exceptional circumstance.

"Exceptional circumstance" can be misinterpreted.

The occasion I refered to we operated Y148 B737's and our standard crew was 4 CC, operate flights around Europe and N. Africa with minimum crew then an operator is asking for trouble and in the event of a sickness down route I wouldn't interpret that as exceptional ... that someone got sick!

On the day in question that I refer to we'd had 2 CC go sick, one before departing base and one down route and when we subsequently read the rules there was nothing in them regarding "exceptional circumstances".

[Chesty Morgan]

So you're suggesting to operate a flight with reduced crew, we should remove the physical seats from the aircraft?

I'm not suggesting anything.

The restriction is due to the number of seats per crew member, which is 50, not the number of passengers per crew member.

Total passengers carried may exceed 150.

[Phileas Fogg]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1580/NPPL%20Part%204%20Amendment%2002%20Feb%2007%20-%20Public%20Release%20v%201%200%200.pdf

(14) On a flight to which this paragraph applies –
(a) there shall, subject to sub-paragraph (b), be
carried not less than one member of the cabin
crew for every 50 or fraction of 50 pa
ssenger seats installed in the aircraft;
(b) the number of members of the cabin crew
calculated in accordance
with sub-paragraph
(a) need not be carried if the CAA has grante
d written permission to the operator to carry
a lesser number on that flight and the opera
tor carries the number specified in that
permission and complies with any other terms and conditions subject to which such
permission is granted.

[EcamSurprise]

All I can say is that some operators, as mine does, have a specific rule / allowance in the case of sickness of crew down route.

We have a standard of 4 crew.
We can reduce by a maximum 1 crew member but the passenger numbers need to be reduced accordingly and as long as we do not depart from a base.
And no, we don't need to take the screwdriver out and remove any seats...

[Phileas Fogg]

Ecam,

If your operator has a UK AOC then I would suggest that your operator has misinterpreted the rules as I and my operator once did and/or it has been approved in your Operations Manual by oversight.

Have you actually seen it in black & white in your Ops. Manual? ... Might be an interesting read next time you've got a few minutes!

[EcamSurprise]

I know it well and have done it before IAW the OM.

One of the points taken directly:
"The number of passengers is reduced. A maximum of 50 passengers may be carried per cabin crew member (infants not included). "

We have other restrictions such as it must be approved by our Duty Manager. A safety report must be filed. Passengers must be seated in a position where they can adequately the safety demo. We can only reduce by one crew member (than usually required). Etc Etc

It's very very clearly worded to allow us to do it in unforeseen circumstances if we meet certain provisions.

And yup. UK AOC with 230+ aircraft.

[Chesty Morgan]

(infants not included).

So you can see that it is a restriction on the number of seats per cabin crew not the total number of passengers, which may exceed 150.

[DaveReidUK]

So you can see that it is a restriction on the number of seats per cabin crew not the total number of passengers.

Yes, the quote in post #33 (from the ANO) makes that clear. It also implies than any exemption made would be on a per-flight basis.

If EZY (which I assume is the carrier in question) have managed to write a provision in their Ops Manual that allows them to fly with 3 cabin crew "in unforeseen circumstances" and report it via an ASR after the event, that would seem to be a fairly liberal interpretation of the regulation.

Having said that, if the practice didn't have tacit approval from the CAA, presumably EZY would have been pulled up by now.

[HeartyMeatballs]

I don't see the problem. Normally in 99.99% of ops it's 1 CC per 50 seats. By definition you can have not more than 50 pax. If operating with a reduced crew it's not more than 50 pax. Just that they're a little more spread out. Crew have the ability to rearrange the cabin as they see fit to ensure they can all see the demo. I don't think it's liberal interpretation at all. In normal ops is 50 pax per CC (regs state seats) vs. 50 pax per CC when operating with a reduced crew. No?

You'll have both of doors 2 covered by one FA each. The purser covers both door 1L and 1R. Almost exactly the same as 149 seater 737 that operate every day where two main doors are covered by one FA. So with having potentially one more pax I can't see safety being compromised in any way.

[Chesty Morgan]

No, in reduced crew ops it's still 50 seats per crew.

[DaveReidUK]

Chapter-and-verse from EZY's Ops Manual:

In extreme circumstances the standard complement may be reduced by one cabin crew member providing that:

- Authorisation is received from the duty pilot.

- The aircraft is not an A319 with seat blockers and 3 crew.

- The aircraft does not dispatch from its originating base.

- The reduction is for a single flight.

- A maximum of 50 passengers (not including infants) per cabin crew member is carried.

- All passengers are seated in a position where they can adequately view the safety demonstration.Note that the criterion is "in extreme circumstances" rather than merely "unforeseen" ones.

[EcamSurprise]

Chapter-and-verse from EZY's Ops Manual:

Note that the criterion is "in extreme circumstances" rather than merely "unforeseen" ones.

Nope.

"unforeseen circumstances" is the wording.

[Phileas Fogg]

Once upon a time I worked for a UK operator where it was written in the Ops Manual that any flight without a revenue load was a "Private Flight".

Great for getting aircraft back to base in weather that would have otherwise been below minima :)

[DaveReidUK]

Nope.

"unforeseen circumstances" is the wording.

OK, I stand corrected on that. I was quoting from some training notes that appeared to have been cut-and-pasted from EZY's OM.

Any idea how often those "unforeseen circumstances" are invoked in response to the shortage of a C/C member?

[EcamSurprise]

l

Any idea how often those "unforeseen circumstances" are invoked in response to the shortage of a C/C member?

It's rare but I've done it before.
Useful for getting home if one of the crew is injured or sick whilst out of a base.

[Peter47]

What is the situation if a section of a plane is left empty. Its a few years ago and by recollection may be hazy but I remember being on a Swiss A320 with three FAs and no one at the front of the plane in C.

Could you legally despatch a 747 with no crew for the upper deck if empty?

This is almost being pedantic but if the capacity of an aircraft with flexible seats (6 abreast in Y, 5 in C)? Presumably the higher capacity will always apply.

[Phileas Fogg]

This is the important bit ... This is my local airline :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqh8e2KYIrU