Are infants passengers?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Are infants passengers?
On occasion, I've had a "debate" with non-flying staff about the designation (or NON designation) of infants as passengers.
In many carriers today, airlines - in their attempt to cut costs - are working on providing the absolute MINIMUM number of Flight Attendants required, this number being determined by the number of passengers carried - 1 F/A per 50 pax.
But to reduce this number even further, infants are NOT included in the passenger count................except on ALL company documentation, eg. Weight & Balance (as given to the cockpit crew), pax inventory..PPI. PSL, PIL...whatever name you want to call it....given to the Purser, or Chief, and the number of infants is included with the total pax count as advised to the cockpit crew by the C/A's.
IMO, the life of an infant is NO different to anyone else - but I guess to an airline they are not occupying (nor purchasing) a seat - although in most cases the parents will still have to pay to have them carried.
So WHY is the total number of F/A's - responsible for the Safety of ALL passengers in the aircraft - not determined by the TOTAL number of lives on board at the time?
It's rubbish, imo, to say that the person who carried them onboard will carry them off in an emergency. for many and vaired reasons.
Can ANYONE please provide me with a plausable reason as to WHY infants are excluded from the total pax count determining the legal number of F/A's required?
In many carriers today, airlines - in their attempt to cut costs - are working on providing the absolute MINIMUM number of Flight Attendants required, this number being determined by the number of passengers carried - 1 F/A per 50 pax.
But to reduce this number even further, infants are NOT included in the passenger count................except on ALL company documentation, eg. Weight & Balance (as given to the cockpit crew), pax inventory..PPI. PSL, PIL...whatever name you want to call it....given to the Purser, or Chief, and the number of infants is included with the total pax count as advised to the cockpit crew by the C/A's.
IMO, the life of an infant is NO different to anyone else - but I guess to an airline they are not occupying (nor purchasing) a seat - although in most cases the parents will still have to pay to have them carried.
So WHY is the total number of F/A's - responsible for the Safety of ALL passengers in the aircraft - not determined by the TOTAL number of lives on board at the time?
It's rubbish, imo, to say that the person who carried them onboard will carry them off in an emergency. for many and vaired reasons.
Can ANYONE please provide me with a plausable reason as to WHY infants are excluded from the total pax count determining the legal number of F/A's required?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you would like to think Infants would be included in the F/A pax ratio, as in the event of an emergency, the infant would require more attention not only from its parent(s) but also from the F/A's to ensure its safety.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Thanks tipsy - I've posted this here as well to get some "Oz exposure" and comments.
Your reply on the other forum indicated in essence, "a limit on the number of infants per flight".
Your reply on the other forum indicated in essence, "a limit on the number of infants per flight".
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be wrong on this, but I was always under the impression that the number of F/A's was based on the number of passenger SEATS... not the number of pax carried.
Else, there would have to be stanby F/A's on call in case a Metro or B1900 had a full ship plus an infant.
Also, I think that they ARE classified as passengers. They ARE on the pax manifest, they ARE issued a boarding pass, they ARE included in the trim and for all intents and purposes are assigned to a seat.
Else, there would have to be stanby F/A's on call in case a Metro or B1900 had a full ship plus an infant.
Also, I think that they ARE classified as passengers. They ARE on the pax manifest, they ARE issued a boarding pass, they ARE included in the trim and for all intents and purposes are assigned to a seat.
Kap,
I think the practical problem is this- The number of seats fitted is obviously a fixed value, and therefore can be planned for. Under JAR, for example, an aircraft with 149 seats requires 3 flight attendents. How are airlines supposed to plan their crew requirements if they have to take into account an indefinate number of passengers? In the above example, for instance, if we have 149pax+3 infants=152, we suddenly need 4 FAs. Is the airline now expected to "Find" an FA they would not normally need for this flight?
I know of no empirical data as to just what is a "Safe" ratio of Pax to FAs. There are simply certification and regulatory minimums, which vary from state to state, (For example, is your Japanese operation less safe with 1 to 50 than an Australian operation with 1 to 36?) and which are meant to allow an acceptable level of safety for the operation. In other words, 'dems da rools, and they are supposed to cover all eventuallities.
As an aside, I always thought the fact that there was no limit on the number of unaccompanied minors was a greater problem. Infants at least had an adult to look after them. I remember flying an F50 out of Ballina at the start of the school holidays with something like 17 UMs. Now THAT would have been an interesting evacuation!
I think the practical problem is this- The number of seats fitted is obviously a fixed value, and therefore can be planned for. Under JAR, for example, an aircraft with 149 seats requires 3 flight attendents. How are airlines supposed to plan their crew requirements if they have to take into account an indefinate number of passengers? In the above example, for instance, if we have 149pax+3 infants=152, we suddenly need 4 FAs. Is the airline now expected to "Find" an FA they would not normally need for this flight?
I know of no empirical data as to just what is a "Safe" ratio of Pax to FAs. There are simply certification and regulatory minimums, which vary from state to state, (For example, is your Japanese operation less safe with 1 to 50 than an Australian operation with 1 to 36?) and which are meant to allow an acceptable level of safety for the operation. In other words, 'dems da rools, and they are supposed to cover all eventuallities.
As an aside, I always thought the fact that there was no limit on the number of unaccompanied minors was a greater problem. Infants at least had an adult to look after them. I remember flying an F50 out of Ballina at the start of the school holidays with something like 17 UMs. Now THAT would have been an interesting evacuation!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez. For supposedly PROFESSIONAL pilots you lot seem incapable of getting off your collective bums and actually looking up the applicable regulation. 
Have a peek at CAO 20.16.3
Some of the relevant bits are: (Cutting and pasting)
An infant is a passenger who has not reached his third birthday.
A child is a passenger who has reached his third but not his thirteenth birthday.
6.1 Aircraft engaged in charter or regular public transport operations shall carry cabin attendants appropriate to their passenger complement as follows –
<snip... blah blah about numbers required. Refers to passengers onboard, not seats.>
6.2 When cabin attendants must be carried in accordance with paragraph 6.1, the number of cabin attendants need not be increased when infants or children are carried and the total number of passengers exceeds that permitted by the number of cabin attendants provided that:
(a) the number of excess passengers does not exceed five percent (to the next highest whole number); and
(b) the excess passengers are infants or children.
13.2 (3) When an infant is carried in the arms or on the lap of a passenger in accordance with subparagraph 13.2 (1) on an aircraft engaged in charter or regular public transport operations, the name of the infant shall be bracketed on the passenger list with the name of the person carrying or nursing the infant.
Hope this helps with the discussion. Some good points are being raised.
DD
Have a peek at CAO 20.16.3
Some of the relevant bits are: (Cutting and pasting)
An infant is a passenger who has not reached his third birthday.
A child is a passenger who has reached his third but not his thirteenth birthday.
6.1 Aircraft engaged in charter or regular public transport operations shall carry cabin attendants appropriate to their passenger complement as follows –
<snip... blah blah about numbers required. Refers to passengers onboard, not seats.>
6.2 When cabin attendants must be carried in accordance with paragraph 6.1, the number of cabin attendants need not be increased when infants or children are carried and the total number of passengers exceeds that permitted by the number of cabin attendants provided that:
(a) the number of excess passengers does not exceed five percent (to the next highest whole number); and
(b) the excess passengers are infants or children.
13.2 (3) When an infant is carried in the arms or on the lap of a passenger in accordance with subparagraph 13.2 (1) on an aircraft engaged in charter or regular public transport operations, the name of the infant shall be bracketed on the passenger list with the name of the person carrying or nursing the infant.
Hope this helps with the discussion. Some good points are being raised.
DD
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin - as I understood it the ratio was 1 F/A per 36 passengers with a cap of 4 rugrats - so 1 for 40 SOB.
We used to run into problems on the F28-4000 series 72 seaters with infants that had not been listed by agents on a regular basis.
Best regards
EWL
We used to run into problems on the F28-4000 series 72 seaters with infants that had not been listed by agents on a regular basis.
Best regards
EWL
Jeez. For supposedly PROFESSIONAL pilots you lot seem incapable of getting off your collective bums and actually looking up the applicable regulation.
I fly in England, subject to the European JARs. Kap flies in Japan subject to the JCAB. The world doesn't end at Darwin, and we know our respective regulation just fine thanks awfully!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Thanks for the input so far.
I believe that this is a Safety issue where many carriers are erring on the UN-safe side, by allocating the very minimum number of F/A's carried.
As Wizofoz has indicated, Desert D, I currently fly in Japan.
Here, they confuse the issue, by stating the minimum number of F/A's to be carried based on the number of seats, but then nominate how to determine this number based on actual passengers???!!!
I contend that as infants appear in ALL company documentation as "pax/passengers", that the companies must comply with the determination of F/A's according to the rules THEY have stated!
Why "an infant carried in the arms or on the lap of a passenger" is NOT counted, whereas one who is in say a crib, as provided by almost all airlines, IS counted beggars belief.
This law implies that the infant must be seated in the parent's/guardian's lap for the ENTIRE flight, if the airline companies are going to apply this rule.
To further muddy the waters in Australia, para 6.2(b) of CAO 20.16.3 (as provided by DD), states "the excess passengers are infants or children.", but the definition of a child is, "A child is a passenger who has reached his third but not his thirteenth birthday." There are some pretty BIG 9-12 year olds around these days, but they are still going to require assistance and guidance during an evacuation.
You state and ask, Wiz,"Under JAR, for example, an aircraft with 149 seats requires 3 flight attendents. How are airlines supposed to plan their crew requirements if they have to take into account an indefinate number of passengers? "
In fact 3 is the VERY minimum number of F/A's that that aircraft is REQUIRED to carry - I would like to see that minimum increased to 4 (in that particular example) to provide for the occasions - and I am guessing that they are quite frequent with LCC's - when the total number of PASSENGERS exceeds 150 because of infants.
There is NO guarantee that in any unplanned evacuation, the person who carried the child on board is going to be able to carry the child off!
I believe this is one prime example of where penny pinching IS reflected as a DEGRADATION of Safety.
I believe that this is a Safety issue where many carriers are erring on the UN-safe side, by allocating the very minimum number of F/A's carried.
As Wizofoz has indicated, Desert D, I currently fly in Japan.
Here, they confuse the issue, by stating the minimum number of F/A's to be carried based on the number of seats, but then nominate how to determine this number based on actual passengers???!!!
I contend that as infants appear in ALL company documentation as "pax/passengers", that the companies must comply with the determination of F/A's according to the rules THEY have stated!
Why "an infant carried in the arms or on the lap of a passenger" is NOT counted, whereas one who is in say a crib, as provided by almost all airlines, IS counted beggars belief.
This law implies that the infant must be seated in the parent's/guardian's lap for the ENTIRE flight, if the airline companies are going to apply this rule.
To further muddy the waters in Australia, para 6.2(b) of CAO 20.16.3 (as provided by DD), states "the excess passengers are infants or children.", but the definition of a child is, "A child is a passenger who has reached his third but not his thirteenth birthday." There are some pretty BIG 9-12 year olds around these days, but they are still going to require assistance and guidance during an evacuation.
You state and ask, Wiz,"Under JAR, for example, an aircraft with 149 seats requires 3 flight attendents. How are airlines supposed to plan their crew requirements if they have to take into account an indefinate number of passengers? "
In fact 3 is the VERY minimum number of F/A's that that aircraft is REQUIRED to carry - I would like to see that minimum increased to 4 (in that particular example) to provide for the occasions - and I am guessing that they are quite frequent with LCC's - when the total number of PASSENGERS exceeds 150 because of infants.
There is NO guarantee that in any unplanned evacuation, the person who carried the child on board is going to be able to carry the child off!
I believe this is one prime example of where penny pinching IS reflected as a DEGRADATION of Safety.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Wiz.
I guess interpreting the smilie was a bit too hard for you today.
Now if I really wanted someone to bite my head off ..... ?
Kaptin M seems to be on the right track in exposing the inconsistencies of the various regulations.
It strikes me as the same forces that are at work in other areas: cut everything down to the minimum legal requirements to save money. If a disaster actually occurs, never mind - the passenger loads will get back to normal in a short time, and think of the money saved in the meantime.
It is not about safety - it is all about money.
I guess interpreting the smilie was a bit too hard for you today.
Now if I really wanted someone to bite my head off ..... ?
Kaptin M seems to be on the right track in exposing the inconsistencies of the various regulations.
It strikes me as the same forces that are at work in other areas: cut everything down to the minimum legal requirements to save money. If a disaster actually occurs, never mind - the passenger loads will get back to normal in a short time, and think of the money saved in the meantime.
It is not about safety - it is all about money.
I have never known ANY airline to voluntarily carry more FA's than they had to because of safety.
Yes we used to carry 5 (later reduced to 4) 0n a 737-300 in 115 seat config, but that was so we could get two bar services and a hot meal down them between Sydney and Melbourne.
No carrier is going to carry more FA's than they need to, so it is up to the regulatory authorities to mandate the minimums. As to how many are safe? Well, give me a definitive definition of "Safe" and I'll get back to you.
Yes we used to carry 5 (later reduced to 4) 0n a 737-300 in 115 seat config, but that was so we could get two bar services and a hot meal down them between Sydney and Melbourne.
No carrier is going to carry more FA's than they need to, so it is up to the regulatory authorities to mandate the minimums. As to how many are safe? Well, give me a definitive definition of "Safe" and I'll get back to you.
Evertonian
Are infants passengers?
Depends. If they were born in 89, then they're just "cry babies"!!!
(nyuk, nyuk,nyuk! ) Lookout! Here it comes!
(nyuk, nyuk,nyuk!
) Lookout! Here it comes!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(wilfully ignoring the '89 wars...)
Have tried several times to get an infant reserved as accompanying a QF FF redemption pax - apparently impossible in the QF res system (not unique to QF, by the way).
I guess the SOB counts may be out occasionally... (or are they hand-luggage)
Have tried several times to get an infant reserved as accompanying a QF FF redemption pax - apparently impossible in the QF res system (not unique to QF, by the way).
I guess the SOB counts may be out occasionally... (or are they hand-luggage)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groaner - as far as I am aware, the listing of an INF in Amadeus should be no harder than loading a 4OSI QF 1INF 1SCROTUM/BERTRAM MSTR 1YR into the PNR.
Every other system I have ever worked simply required the OSI (Other Service Information) element to make the airline aware on domestic PNRs.
International may well be a problem depending on if the INF has to be loaded as an I/1SCROTE etc if the frantic flapper redemption psgr has to be booked as a P/ or an M/. The infant may well need to be booked in a second PNR in this case and this can be circumvented by booking it as on open segment or non passive info segment to allow ticketing, and load the PI01 or Amadeus equivalent into the ticketing drive line.
Problem is that most airline systems operate on a "quickres" pull down box front end these days, so the staff driving the system have little or no knowledge on how what they do impacts the system.
There is a solve for this and other similar problems. Ask for a grown upif you do not get the right answer.They will remember how to go into the "black hole" and override the kiddy car system.
Best all
EWL
Every other system I have ever worked simply required the OSI (Other Service Information) element to make the airline aware on domestic PNRs.
International may well be a problem depending on if the INF has to be loaded as an I/1SCROTE etc if the frantic flapper redemption psgr has to be booked as a P/ or an M/. The infant may well need to be booked in a second PNR in this case and this can be circumvented by booking it as on open segment or non passive info segment to allow ticketing, and load the PI01 or Amadeus equivalent into the ticketing drive line.
Problem is that most airline systems operate on a "quickres" pull down box front end these days, so the staff driving the system have little or no knowledge on how what they do impacts the system.
There is a solve for this and other similar problems. Ask for a grown upif you do not get the right answer.They will remember how to go into the "black hole" and override the kiddy car system.
Best all
EWL
