VB 737-900s

[t_cas]

you can still buy fuel at spot prices, hedged fuel only needs to be used before contract expires. Hence the strategy of hedging a percentage of your fuel, this averages the highs and lows, but more so protects against massive blowouts.

[Howard Hughes]

Airlines offering premium service require the pax to use only the forward door so that caterers can access the rear galley to resupply the aircraft in a reasonable timeframe.

I beg to differ, I have catered QF aircraft (737's) with both front & rear doors active for disembarkation! Normally we would use one truck to do both front and rear galleys, but if a flight was running late we would use two, in most cases the aircraft would be fully catered before the last passenger had disembarked.

The number of doors used has more to do with the facilities available rather than the level of service!

[MyAngle]

Embraer 170/190

How many flight attendants does VB have on the Embraer 170/190 ?
Please..

[F111]

Both the 170 and 190 carry 3 FAs.

[On Guard]

If rumour is correct my guess would be PB will use some of these are on APW and DPS flightd as these are restricted to 140pax currently.

How many VB F/O's do you think will take command? Will many be interested in the NZ conditions?

[slice]

None I hope. Blatant and ham-fisted attempt by management to undercut conditions and try to prop up failing recruitment at PB. If they don't have any upgradable FOs there, then either bring T & C s up to VB level or roll everything into VB crewing. It is of really no issue to pilots what call sign or paint scheme is used.

I hope the F/Os see this for what it is and keep their powder dry so to speak. PB are the brand for international expansion regionally but due to poor terms & conditions relative to other regional operators they have retention problems - ALL OF THEIR OWN MAKING.

[Going Boeing]

I beg to differ, I have catered QF aircraft (737's) with both front & rear doors active for disembarkation! Normally we would use one truck to do both front and rear galleys, but if a flight was running late we would use two, in most cases the aircraft would be fully catered before the last passenger had disembarked.

Fair enough Howard, but I know that QF looked at the B737-900ERs and decided against ordering them because of the excessive transit times.

The "ditching" scenario on the -900 would be interesting in that the rear doors are unusable (because the tail sits too low in the water (like the -800)) and therefore there is a very large number of people from the rear section scrambling forward to the overwing exits. Could become very chaotic.

[Kranky]

Getting 900's makes perfect sense. Wave goodbye to the 700's.
Load factors on some sectors are consistantly high, higher than the poor 800's can take.
So many pax want to fly and it seems QF and JQ are not the airline of choice.
The 900's may fly over water or domestically it doesn't matter, though I'd watch for an increase in PB destinations.

[greenslopes]

Ditching

The ditching evacuation of all 737 series precludes the use of the rear doors as they are underwater. Not an issue, it's been certified as it meets the required evac rqmts.

[c100driver]

Greenslopes said

The ditching evacuation of all 737 series precludes the use of the rear doors as they are underwater. Not an issue, it's been certified as it meets the required evac rqmts.

No it does not for all the B737 series, the front and rear doors are still the primary exits for the 300 in a ditching.

[airtags]

I would not worry about the ditching discussion as VB sees it unecessary to carry liferafts despite the expiry of the CASA dispensation which rolls on by consent - [refer also CC manuals with overprinted notation]

As for catering both doors before/while pax are disembarking 'when an a/c is running late' .................... all I can say is that is the single most absurd and arrogant and unecessary risk if the a/c had to evac'd. [have a look at the China Air 737 fire - BTW they had six CC]

To 'recater' a 737 takes minimal time - there is no justifiable reason to reduce primary door exits by 50% just to preserve the B.S. obession with 20 minute turnarounds.

This is the sort of arrogant nonsense that only proves that the self governing regulatory environment is both ineffective and myopic and the operator has a demonstrated ineffectual understanding of risk process.

Any crew that allows this kind of breech needs their collective ar*ses kicked -

[Little_Red_Hat]

no justifiable reason to reduce primary door exits by 50%

forgive me but I thought in addition to unforseen occurences, this was the reason evac procedures are required to demonstrate 90 sec or less full evac of all pax with 50% exits rendered unusable.

Whether that is because of fire, or smoke, or obstruction (said obstruction could reasonably be, a catering truck, or the fact a fuel truck or baggage tug is parked where the slide would land.)

Just a thought. I don't like to see it myself (catering via both fwd & rear doors that is) but as crew that is what we are taught to do, take into account those things, I know I've stood many a time thinking, okay, if the crap hits the fan right now we send them out the other side, or get the overwings done, or tell the truck to get the heck away asap... i assume it's in their procedures as well if they see slides coming, get the eff away!!

Sorry I digress but just wanted to point out even with 50% of exits gone it should be able to be done anyway.... and yes, i know that 50% of those half could be unusable anyway.... let's not go there, just asking for it!!
We don't live in an ideal world, as much as many of us would like to.

[wirgin blew]

As for catering both doors before/while pax are disembarking 'when an a/c is running late'

Airtags not sure where you've gotten that from. VB catering comes up the rear stairs (L2 door) when the pax have disembarked. If the scissor truck (R2 door) is used then it is done after the pax have disembarked and is all over before boarding has commenced.
Never have used or will use catering at both doors because it just ain't the way its done at VB.

The Air China example is a pretty long bow as well.

Are all the VB bashers in here just QF marketing people with nothing better to do?

[Howard Hughes]

To 'recater' a 737 takes minimal time - there is no justifiable reason to reduce primary door exits by 50% just to preserve the B.S. obession with 20 minute turnarounds.

Normally 31 minute turnarounds actually, 16 minutes for catering (single truck) and not a LCC either!

Any crew that allows this kind of breech needs their collective ar*ses kicked -

Never once questioned in 2 years by any crew!

PS: As a contractor, two trucks were requested by the customer airline!

[another superlame]

Just a comment on the ditching

I think it is all a load of crap, until a large aircraft(737 or above) can prove that it can ditch as designed I think they should nt worry about rafts and lifejackets etc.

I don't know of any successful ditching but I am open to be proven wrong.
As far as I am aware the manufactures all say that you can ditch and the aircraft will float but I want then to prove it.

Maybe get a mothballed airliner and remote control it for a ditching.

[airtags]

thanks for the intell wirgen - glad to hear
I was picking up on Howard's earlier posts re catering access while pax disembark - and a few of the posts in relation to the thread topic re VB's lease options on the 9's.

On record I actually support VB as an LCC and am a semi-regular occupant of those last minute seats down the back -however like with my own and other airlines, a few of the SOP's, attitudes and cultures are a worry. (Please don't feel its a VB hunt as Q has more than its share of questionable ones)

On topic however, I personally think the 9's are a commercially wise decision - provided they are adequetly crewed and equipped and operated under Australian standards. My position is that with any new a/c type acquisition, we all should not allow the regulatory or safety environments to be diluted (or in the case of some FAOC's) bypassed without protest.

Realities suggest that all operators will look to a new a/c as an opportunity to start messing about with T&C's - cutting corners (such as making a CC member operate two doors) and time/cost rationalisation. Let's hope that this will not be the case with 9's.

[murdoch_disliker]

There have been a few successful ditchings of jet aircraft, one off Cuba many years ago, the raft eneded up being deployed in the front vestibule of the a/c causing many problems. Also the hijack ditching that was recorded on handicam; an Ethiopian B767 from memory, would have been a good ditching except the hijacker started throttling the pilot as he was landing; most survived. Re the B737; rear doors remain closed in a ditching and evacuate through overwing and fwd doors.

[Little_Red_Hat]

the B737; rear doors remain closed in a ditching and evacuate through overwing and fwd doors.

As said previously, not on all variants. Earlier models were shorter and therefore it was tested that the rear doors were not under water level. -300 and -400 models use fwd & rear doors in a ditch. Later ones such as the - 700 and -800 do not use rear doors. Guessing the same with - 900s as they are longer still.

I noticed in photos that not all - 900s have the extra exit rear of the wing. Is this an optional thing, and is there a crew member seated there, or is it a 'pax briefed/operated' exit, like the o/wings??

[another superlame]

Murdoch I know there have been unsuccessful ditchings, but the picture on the safety card shows a nicely floating jetliner in calm seas. In reality it has never happened so all the airlines should stop peddling this pipe dream.

I will hop off my soap box now. Sorry for the thread drift

[chookcooker]

The extra doors you see are on the -900ER. the plain -900 is limited to around 185 pax due lack of exits ( all my un-educated understanding) hence its no good for single class configs (unless its in a super premium economy )
Hence the extra door. As to the layout at that door, I have no idea.
Talks about it on wikipedia..