I'll never fly a LCC because...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the Sky...
Age: 36
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum Crew
Tiger already operate at minimum crew with a dispensation from CASA to operate at 4 crew (as there are 4 doors on the A320, and more than 36 pac per crew) and this is the case as well with JQ/DJ with their aircraft.
Losing a crew member would mean only 3 crew, and they do not have dispensation to operate the 320 with only 3 crew at a reduced load. (Unlike DJ who operate E-Jets with 3 crew, and have such dispensation).
QF operate 5 crew on similar size 738, but have the dispensation as well with 4 crew (at reduced pax loads) in the case that a crew member goes sick and cannot be replaced.
Normal rule is that all doors/exits must be manned (with the exception of some o/w exits), and the only time a crew member may not occupy a door is when a crew member is incapacitated during flight, when such a suitable person (paxing crew member/ABP) shall be assigned to guard the door.
But in the end, you get what u pay for.
Losing a crew member would mean only 3 crew, and they do not have dispensation to operate the 320 with only 3 crew at a reduced load. (Unlike DJ who operate E-Jets with 3 crew, and have such dispensation).
QF operate 5 crew on similar size 738, but have the dispensation as well with 4 crew (at reduced pax loads) in the case that a crew member goes sick and cannot be replaced.
Normal rule is that all doors/exits must be manned (with the exception of some o/w exits), and the only time a crew member may not occupy a door is when a crew member is incapacitated during flight, when such a suitable person (paxing crew member/ABP) shall be assigned to guard the door.
But in the end, you get what u pay for.
Gender Faculty Specialist
I can't remember the wording verbatim but in the UK it's a minimum of one cabin crew per fifty passenger seats, whether those seats are empty or not.
Is it not the same down there?
Is it not the same down there?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the Sky...
Age: 36
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EWL
I am not sure what the CASA rules are on the Dash 100/200...
But i speak generally.. not saying its a rule.
Dash 8-100/200 have pax at the o/w exits (like pax @ o/w on 737/320), and I would assume operators have some sort of dispensation to operate with only 1 crew as they are within the pax:crew ratio...
But don't quote me, I am not familiar with any SOP's to do with that A/C
But i speak generally.. not saying its a rule.
Dash 8-100/200 have pax at the o/w exits (like pax @ o/w on 737/320), and I would assume operators have some sort of dispensation to operate with only 1 crew as they are within the pax:crew ratio...
But don't quote me, I am not familiar with any SOP's to do with that A/C
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody yet (that I can see) has answered my question, why is it this flight (or any similar one) could not have operated safely with a reduced, even if necessary massively reduced pax load???
Not sure about Tiger, but I was in the Industry for decades, and many times including on a couple of International flights we had a problem with an emergency exit or its slide bottle, not having spares on hand, in each case the aircraft operated okay after declaring that emergency exit unusable, locking it off and roping off the appropriate number of seats for that exit, and of course seats nearest to that exit, then the flight operated with the reduced number of pax as per ''available'' seats.
And YES, before someone asks, Australian registered aircraft under CASA regs.
Surely it should equally be okay, in fact MUCH LESS of a drama, to have a fully usable serviceable aircraft carry less pax with less flight attendants???
Tiger already operate at minimum crew with a dispensation from CASA to operate at 4 crew (as there are 4 doors on the A320, and more than 36 pac per crew) and this is the case as well with JQ/DJ with their aircraft.
Losing a crew member would mean only 3 crew, and they do not have dispensation to operate the 320 with only 3 crew at a reduced load.
Losing a crew member would mean only 3 crew, and they do not have dispensation to operate the 320 with only 3 crew at a reduced load.
And YES, before someone asks, Australian registered aircraft under CASA regs.
Surely it should equally be okay, in fact MUCH LESS of a drama, to have a fully usable serviceable aircraft carry less pax with less flight attendants???
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsupport,
As stated above MIN crew for a 320 is 4, because of the 4 Primary Exits, Doors. The over-wings are separate.
When starting with 4 crew, if you lose one, then that's it. Not even a reduced pax load is allowed. If you operate to the min, then thats the price you pay.
Personally, getting approval to operate to a min of 4 is there for when you lose a crew at an out station and you can now get home, ie start the shift with 5, lose 1, 4 can get you home.
However, it is seen as "we can operate with 4, lets do it with 4 from the start"
It's all about risk management, not safety, and the consequence of going out of service in an out station versus the likelihood of losing an FA.
Its run by bean counters, not brain counters. Thats the difference!
As stated above MIN crew for a 320 is 4, because of the 4 Primary Exits, Doors. The over-wings are separate.
When starting with 4 crew, if you lose one, then that's it. Not even a reduced pax load is allowed. If you operate to the min, then thats the price you pay.
Personally, getting approval to operate to a min of 4 is there for when you lose a crew at an out station and you can now get home, ie start the shift with 5, lose 1, 4 can get you home.
However, it is seen as "we can operate with 4, lets do it with 4 from the start"
It's all about risk management, not safety, and the consequence of going out of service in an out station versus the likelihood of losing an FA.
Its run by bean counters, not brain counters. Thats the difference!
So did the aircraft depart anyway empty on a ferry to meet schedule further down the line or did they all sit there overnight. Company perspective to cancel only one flight if they can. Also at our 'non-company' ports, some ground staff are trained as FA's to cover this exact situation. Doesn't tiger do this? Not really good management, is it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsupport,
As stated above MIN crew for a 320 is 4, because of the 4 Primary Exits, Doors. The over-wings are separate.
When starting with 4 crew, if you lose one, then that's it. Not even a reduced pax load is allowed. If you operate to the min, then thats the price you pay.
Personally, getting approval to operate to a min of 4 is there for when you lose a crew at an out station and you can now get home, ie start the shift with 5, lose 1, 4 can get you home.
However, it is seen as "we can operate with 4, lets do it with 4 from the start"
It's all about risk management, not safety, and the consequence of going out of service in an out station versus the likelihood of losing an FA.
Its run by bean counters, not brain counters. Thats the difference!
As stated above MIN crew for a 320 is 4, because of the 4 Primary Exits, Doors. The over-wings are separate.
When starting with 4 crew, if you lose one, then that's it. Not even a reduced pax load is allowed. If you operate to the min, then thats the price you pay.
Personally, getting approval to operate to a min of 4 is there for when you lose a crew at an out station and you can now get home, ie start the shift with 5, lose 1, 4 can get you home.
However, it is seen as "we can operate with 4, lets do it with 4 from the start"
It's all about risk management, not safety, and the consequence of going out of service in an out station versus the likelihood of losing an FA.
Its run by bean counters, not brain counters. Thats the difference!
In your scenario, it is okay to go with a full load of pax (not sure what Tigers carry) and aircraft fully serviceable and 4 flight attendants.
WHY then cannot the same aircraft go with 3 flight attendants in unusual cases like this, everything servicable but with 75% of the pax, or even 50% of the normal pax load, with appropriate announcements concerning reduced emergency exits manned????
Just common sense.
WHY then cannot the same aircraft go with 3 flight attendants in unusual cases like this, everything servicable but with 75% of the pax, or even 50% of the normal pax load, with appropriate announcements concerning reduced emergency exits manned????
The Australian CAO's require a minimum of 1 F/A per 36 seats but some Oz airlines now have an exemption to a new limit of 1 F/A per 50 pax (commercial pressure from the airlines and also to bring us in-line with our neighbours on the other side of the "ditch") but you can't go below the minimum number of F/A's that CASA has stipulated because of the number of "Primary" exits. I don't know how Jetstar got an exemption to operate the A321 which has 8 doors (6 of them "Primary" exits) with only 5 F/A's. It sounds like an unsafe operation to me and I hope that they never have an incident where this is put to the test.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Airsupport,
Chill, don't shoot the messenger!
The Answer to your question is that it is the min CASA authorised crew. That's it. I dont disagree with logic but that is not the point here. Ask CASA to explain, they set the minima!
It is a primary versus secondary exit thing. Doors 2 & 3 on the 321 aren't primary, hence no requirements.
I dont make the rules!
Chill, don't shoot the messenger!
The Answer to your question is that it is the min CASA authorised crew. That's it. I dont disagree with logic but that is not the point here. Ask CASA to explain, they set the minima!
It is a primary versus secondary exit thing. Doors 2 & 3 on the 321 aren't primary, hence no requirements.
I dont make the rules!
During the days of the QF/AN duopoly, occcurances such as this would undoubtedly been better handled but the fares were much higher. I remember flying Ansett BNE-SYD ticket purchased at the last minute $350, QF BNE-TVL $400.
With air travel, as most other things, you get what you pay for. Anyone expect to buy a good used car with a full service history and low kms for $3000 ? If you want all the frills and good back up if things go wrong then fly QF and pay their prices.
Want to save money and are prepared to give up the frills and accept less back up then fly Tiger.
Most of the time things go as planned and the passengers enjoy the savings, every now and then something like this happens and plans are disrupted but what do you expect for this price.
BTW Anyone fancy Sydney - Gold coast for $39 one way ? Tiger start the route in December. Buy travel insurance for a few dollars (available on their website) and smile if things go wrong.
With air travel, as most other things, you get what you pay for. Anyone expect to buy a good used car with a full service history and low kms for $3000 ? If you want all the frills and good back up if things go wrong then fly QF and pay their prices.
Want to save money and are prepared to give up the frills and accept less back up then fly Tiger.
Most of the time things go as planned and the passengers enjoy the savings, every now and then something like this happens and plans are disrupted but what do you expect for this price.
BTW Anyone fancy Sydney - Gold coast for $39 one way ? Tiger start the route in December. Buy travel insurance for a few dollars (available on their website) and smile if things go wrong.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agony,
I am NOT shooting anyone.
I think you will find CASA and other Authorities set a minimum number of Flight Attendants for X number of Passengers, a MINIMUM, and it is also usually an agreement between the Company and the Flight Attendant's Union as to the minimum they will use.
Are you seriously telling me that with this same Tiger aircraft as an example, one of the 4 Flight Attendants goes sick, still 3 on board, and there are ONLY 3 paying pax on board, the flight can NOT go because of CASA.
I am NOT shooting anyone.
I think you will find CASA and other Authorities set a minimum number of Flight Attendants for X number of Passengers, a MINIMUM, and it is also usually an agreement between the Company and the Flight Attendant's Union as to the minimum they will use.
Are you seriously telling me that with this same Tiger aircraft as an example, one of the 4 Flight Attendants goes sick, still 3 on board, and there are ONLY 3 paying pax on board, the flight can NOT go because of CASA.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the Sky...
Age: 36
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsupport
"Are you seriously telling me that with this same Tiger aircraft as an example, one of the 4 Flight Attendants goes sick, still 3 on board, and there are ONLY 3 paying pax on board, the flight can NOT go because of CASA."
Yeah. Even if one pax was on board, that would still be the case. It's not just about the Pax:Crew Ratio... It is as mentioned before to do with the primary exits as well which have to be manned for take-off and landing whether there is 1 or 100 pax.
But then again, it all comes down to the CASA approved SOP's for each airline.
It may defy your logic, but that is the way it is. I do understand where ur coming from though
Yeah. Even if one pax was on board, that would still be the case. It's not just about the Pax:Crew Ratio... It is as mentioned before to do with the primary exits as well which have to be manned for take-off and landing whether there is 1 or 100 pax.
But then again, it all comes down to the CASA approved SOP's for each airline.
It may defy your logic, but that is the way it is. I do understand where ur coming from though
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In NZ it is a FA:Seats ratio that are:
0-19 Seats = 0 FA
20-50 Seats = 1 FA
51-100 seats = 2 FA
101-150 = 3 FA and so on
The no. of FA required does not change dependant on Pax load carried. i.e the B733's require 3 FA even with 10 pax...
The Air Nelson D8-Q300's are designed for 56 seats but have only 50 installed so that only 1 FA is required. The jumpseat cannot be used by staff travel if the machine is full cos that would make it 51 pax and require an additional hostie.
S2K
0-19 Seats = 0 FA
20-50 Seats = 1 FA
51-100 seats = 2 FA
101-150 = 3 FA and so on
The no. of FA required does not change dependant on Pax load carried. i.e the B733's require 3 FA even with 10 pax...
The Air Nelson D8-Q300's are designed for 56 seats but have only 50 installed so that only 1 FA is required. The jumpseat cannot be used by staff travel if the machine is full cos that would make it 51 pax and require an additional hostie.
S2K
Agony
Doors 2 & 3 on the 321 aren't primary
Well Sweets - a Dash 8 100-200 has 4 exits and one flight attendant.
Give me the logic here.
Give me the logic here.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going Boeing
It sounds like an unsafe operation to me and I hope that they never have an incident where this is put to the test.
It may interest you to know that the 321 can be operated with four cabin crew in some parts of the world, with one FA per pair of doors. At Jetstar the Cabin Manager operates BOTH L1 and R1, with the crew members stationed at Doors 2, Doors 3 and L4 and R4. This is similar to AN where the Cabin Manager on AN 146-200s operated L1 and R1. The Embraer jets also have pairs of 'primary' doors operated by a single crew member.
NWA 330s can operate with a flight attendant operating certain pairs of doors at minimum crew and this a widebody!
The overwing exits on the 346 (floor level and similar to Doors 2 and 3 on the 321 in size) are purely pax operated at most airlines and there is no crew member seated in the vicinity.
airsupport
Are you seriously telling me that with this same Tiger aircraft as an example, one of the 4 Flight Attendants goes sick, still 3 on board, and there are ONLY 3 paying pax on board, the flight can NOT go because of CASA.
It doesn't sound like a case isolated to Tiger though. Obviously it would better to send out an extra F/A and be done with it; maybe they've got that figured out by now.
I once met the NJS flight attendant that solo-crewed a 146 from AYQ to ASP, after a CASA dispensation in 2000-2001. Strange that something similar could not have been sorted in this instance?
Last edited by ditzyboy; 27th Oct 2009 at 03:51.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the days of the QF/AN duopoly, occcurances such as this would undoubtedly been better handled
Not necessarily, one of the most disgusting things I have ever witnessed in my more than 40 years in the Industry, and also very sad for all of us that tried to find a way around it, was back in the 1980s with AN Airline.
We had a B767 transitting BNE, had a fresh crew boarding to operate BNE-SYD-MEL-SYD-BNE and one flight attendant rang in sick at the last mnute, and they had no spares available.
It was a full flight ex BNE of paying pax, many with International connections in SYD, plus many others with needs apart from the high fares they had paid.
The remaining 9 f/a's refused to man the flight.
The Captain was very good, tried to placate them, he said he only needed 8 by regulations and was quite happy to go with 9, or even 8, with a full load of pax.
They still refused to go.
What really upset all of us other employees, not to mention the pax, was we were ordered to despatch this B767 to SYD with the 3 flight crew and 9 f/a's on board, but NO pax.
The B767 ferried to SYD with 9 f/a's on board.