QF Staff Travel. FA jump seat use
Nunc est bibendum
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.
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.
Last edited by Keg; 29th Jul 2009 at 13:51.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading this response from twiggs about the use of cabin crew jump seats.
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.
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.
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.
The seats are a means to giving people travelling with crew somewhere to sit to get on the aircraft.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Originally Posted by ditch handle
There is a difference between tech crew, crew rest seat and jump seat which I believe is the point Peg747 was making.
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.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 29th Jul 2009 at 23:01.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
It's about the destinations
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
I reckon despite the FSO that the fat lady hasn't sung yet.......
Self interest aside of course
I reckon despite the FSO that the fat lady hasn't sung yet.......
Last edited by ditch handle; 30th Jul 2009 at 07:47. Reason: ass about syntax
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me put it to you this way
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.