Qantas bid to jettison attendants
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bhing
I agree except that sadly you have to legislate to the lowest common denominator,i.e. the shonkiest operator going around otherwise they will run at the minimum just because they can. Look at Virgin in most aspects of their operation
I agree except that sadly you have to legislate to the lowest common denominator,i.e. the shonkiest operator going around otherwise they will run at the minimum just because they can. Look at Virgin in most aspects of their operation
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pad Thai
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is not a problem... in altering the ratio to 1:50, just remove the crew who spend the flight in the galley reading magazines and complaining about their social lives, there's always one or two. The remaining FAs will not have to do any more work than before and have the bonus of less irritation due to 'carrying' their 'work'-mates, thus leading to an overall improvement in morale.
This is, I believe, what they refer to as a Win-Win...
And less of those annoying un-planned slide deployments, too.
This is, I believe, what they refer to as a Win-Win...
And less of those annoying un-planned slide deployments, too.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Far East
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME
Careful what you suggest - it might come true. If Companies and manufacturers thaught they could get away with it they would.
And yes, there are some operators around the world how do only provide the minimum, however thankfully, not many. This is why I share the opinion that Australian Regulations should stick with the existing ratio.
Careful what you suggest - it might come true. If Companies and manufacturers thaught they could get away with it they would.
And yes, there are some operators around the world how do only provide the minimum, however thankfully, not many. This is why I share the opinion that Australian Regulations should stick with the existing ratio.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to disagree Cabinboy. There is a requirement for 2 F/A's on the DH3. This is related to the capacity of the A/C, not the number of pax on board and there is no discretion to vary the number of crew.
We have 5 DH3's and I have never seen one depart without the full legal minimum crew complement, although we have on many occasions had less than 36 PAX both ways.
I'm sure CASA would like to hear of those occasions of which you speak.
We have 5 DH3's and I have never seen one depart without the full legal minimum crew complement, although we have on many occasions had less than 36 PAX both ways.
I'm sure CASA would like to hear of those occasions of which you speak.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: ???
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh Jarse....
I have crewed a D8 300 MANY a time with only lil old me and my capped flight of 36 pax.
I have known occasions where a 146-100 has been crewed with only 1 FA when crew numbers have been desperately short.
It happens and apparentally is allowed to happen.
CAO 20.16.3 - Crew Complement
FA req. are:
15 or fewer PASSENGERS - no FA
16 - 36 PASSENGERS - 1 FA
More than 36 PASSENGERS but not more than 216 - at least 1 FA for every 36 PASSENGERS or part there of.
It does not say pax SEATS or based on capacity of the A/C
Sorry honey but you're wrong
I have crewed a D8 300 MANY a time with only lil old me and my capped flight of 36 pax.
I have known occasions where a 146-100 has been crewed with only 1 FA when crew numbers have been desperately short.
It happens and apparentally is allowed to happen.
CAO 20.16.3 - Crew Complement
FA req. are:
15 or fewer PASSENGERS - no FA
16 - 36 PASSENGERS - 1 FA
More than 36 PASSENGERS but not more than 216 - at least 1 FA for every 36 PASSENGERS or part there of.
It does not say pax SEATS or based on capacity of the A/C
Sorry honey but you're wrong
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cart-Tart
In my days at Eenie Weenie I have on several occasions worked the galley on F27 trips to MEL to help out due to an F/A going U/s overnight with a cap of 36 psgrs (including me).
It was bloody hard work with full hot food service and gave me a whole new insight.
ps: I gave great galley!!
best all
EWL
In my days at Eenie Weenie I have on several occasions worked the galley on F27 trips to MEL to help out due to an F/A going U/s overnight with a cap of 36 psgrs (including me).
It was bloody hard work with full hot food service and gave me a whole new insight.
ps: I gave great galley!!
best all
EWL
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks cart_tart - my f/a manual states the same thing.
hugh jarse - next time you read the quartely qantas group safety bulletin you will see the reports on the back page of solo f/a operations on the DH3 which get reported to QF. It is not necessary to report it to CASA as it is not breaking the rules so long as there is only 36 pax onboard.
It DOES happen though, i've seen it happen with my own eyes, it does however only happen in EXTREME circumstances.
Best Regards
Cabinboy
hugh jarse - next time you read the quartely qantas group safety bulletin you will see the reports on the back page of solo f/a operations on the DH3 which get reported to QF. It is not necessary to report it to CASA as it is not breaking the rules so long as there is only 36 pax onboard.
It DOES happen though, i've seen it happen with my own eyes, it does however only happen in EXTREME circumstances.
Best Regards
Cabinboy
Bottums Up
Re Cabin Attendant Numbers
From CAO 20.16.3 (issue 11), Section 6.1 (my bolding below)
I have seen DH8-300s and 146s operate with capped passenger numbers on the odd occasions where for whatever reason the full F/A complement was not available.
Aircraft engaged in charter or regular public transport operations shall carry cabin attendants appropriate to their passenger complement as follows -
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The operator still has to prove do CASA that it can evacuate an a/c with the lower amount of FAs doesn't it? Impulse currently cannot reduce crew a 717 as the evacuation trials were done with 4 cabin crew. Makes it nice for us when you have 50pax on longer sectors.....
CASA also set limits on board each a/c based on the exit configuration and adequate numbers of crew it believes is required. This is what I have been lead to believe.
Above 16 pax an FA is still not required where the operator can show that the FO is trained in providing the cabin safety functions of a FA. This was the case with the B1900 which had 18 or 19 seats. There might be a cap on this too (say 19 pax?).
CASA also set limits on board each a/c based on the exit configuration and adequate numbers of crew it believes is required. This is what I have been lead to believe.
Above 16 pax an FA is still not required where the operator can show that the FO is trained in providing the cabin safety functions of a FA. This was the case with the B1900 which had 18 or 19 seats. There might be a cap on this too (say 19 pax?).
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bikky chucker - Flying Tigers (cargo only airline) have the upperdeck of their 742savailable for staff travel -around 20 seats and they carry no FAs so it is feasible that any mark of aeroplane with less than 36 passengers could operate with no flight attendant.
Best
EWL
Best
EWL
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Aus
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew to passenger ratio
PFM - CASA did not change the 1 - 36 back in 1999. It is still 1 -36 for everyone. QF tried to cut back the 767 domestic flts to only 6 crew in January, but CASA intervened and 7 is the minimum no. due to the amount of seats on the a/c. There is no doubt that QF will cut the number of crew back the minute they can legally do it. Have there been any studies done, or does anybody have any information that can support maintaining the current 1 - 36 rather than allowing 1 - 50? Surely having primary exits not covered is a concern to all the travelling public??
Apparently, what is driving the request is that one of the GE B767-300's has a seating configuration that is two too many seats for 7 Flight Attendants under the 1:36 rule and, as it is not economical to add another F/A, they are currently blocking two seats off. Also, at some more remote destinations where there are no reserve crew members, the 1:50 rule would allow dispatch of a B737 if one F/A becomes ill.
Management give strong assurances that they are not planning to further decrease the number of F/A's on QF services.
Management give strong assurances that they are not planning to further decrease the number of F/A's on QF services.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Management give strong assurances that they are not planning to further decrease the number of F/A's on QF services."
In my humble opinion those "assurances" are worth as much as an HIH policy.
SG
In my humble opinion those "assurances" are worth as much as an HIH policy.
SG
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite ironic how I have been saying on this forum that I have seen the DH3's go out with one flightie on it, then on monday night it happened to me ! They capped the a/c at 36pax however spread them out over all rows from 1-13. Even though it was 36 pax it was very hard work and I would hate to be placed in a situation like that again. If QF did ever go ahead with the 1:50 compliment on the Dash I can tell you now that I'll be doing my best to jump ship.
CB
CB
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabinboy
Unfortunately load and trim requirements would have required the load to be spread right the length of the aeroplane.
I have worked an F27-500 galley on a duty trip to MEL with hot food and full (free) champagne and bar service when an F/A went U/S and it was not funny. The poor girl would have had to try and cope alone with 36 if I hadnt offered. (I was on yet another training course for East West).
I trimmed the thing, and even though the F27-500 was in EW config a fairly neutral beast with lockers both ends, the load had to be spread end to end to allow for C of G and passenger groupings.
Just imagine 2 F/As on a DH4 with 70 bumholes. That must be a nightmare to work.
Best regards
EWL
Unfortunately load and trim requirements would have required the load to be spread right the length of the aeroplane.
I have worked an F27-500 galley on a duty trip to MEL with hot food and full (free) champagne and bar service when an F/A went U/S and it was not funny. The poor girl would have had to try and cope alone with 36 if I hadnt offered. (I was on yet another training course for East West).
I trimmed the thing, and even though the F27-500 was in EW config a fairly neutral beast with lockers both ends, the load had to be spread end to end to allow for C of G and passenger groupings.
Just imagine 2 F/As on a DH4 with 70 bumholes. That must be a nightmare to work.
Best regards
EWL
