When the 400 was operated with more cabin crew than it has now, surely that must have been dangerous also. If you hit turbulence then, there was one less jumpseat available given you had one more crewmember occupying one of those seats.

PPrune really is a dead horse now given the standard of debate going on. While Rome burns and QF mainline employees face an uncertain future, so much angst is directed towards something that should be of benefit for us all, but which is despised by those who feel they should have control of it.

Even with the CC rest seats, the Captain still has final say. The CC can vote to let someone specific sit there, but the Captain can still deny access to the seats. FWIW i find the relationship/co-operation between TC and CC regarding getting family on is always far greater than what is witnessed in the above arguments. :ok:

What is it with you lot?

You can obfuscate this issue as much as you like by ranting about family, past wrongs and the saintliness of our Captains but at the end of the day the issue remains the same.

Those arguing against the policy don't think [for a myriad of reasons] that non operational crew should occupy cabin jump seats.

I'l list a few reasons-

1. Dropped down jump seats in pitch black aircraft are a trip hazard for anyone around them as they cannot be seen.
2. The need to ask someone to move to access safety and medical equipment.
3. Reduction in the number of seats available for crew, who may need them in a hurry, during turbulence.
4. Increased difficulty "managing passengers" out of them when they can plainly see them occupied elsewhere by non crew.
5. Increased congestion around toilets and galleys which makes what we do on oversold aircraft more difficult.
6. Occupied jumpseats flies in the face of the new policy where we sell exit row seats for a premium.
7. It's going to look shabby and unprofessional which I believe isn't the image the company tries to leverage it's premium fares off.

You can argue all you want DH...the policy is in, thats the way it is. It may change in the future who knows. Until it does, deal with it.

PS - when i said the relationship/cooperation between TC and CC was good, i meant it goes both ways, ie i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member.

Quote-

"i havent yet witnessed a time when the CC wouldn't give up their rest seats to help out a TC family member."

_________

Neither have I.

Ditch - you are hard to please, but after some careful thought, I have a solution for your points.

Carry night vision goggles. As an added bonus you can perv from your hotel window in slip ports.

Carry your own personal physicians kit on your belt. Then you can be a travelling paramedic on board.

Carry your own personal camping chair. That way you can sit anywhere you like. Daytime or nighttime

Ban all passengers. Face it cabin crew don't like them anyway!

We can ask the Captain to sell the extra jumpseats to the beneficiaries at a premium. That way nobody is discriminated against. Everyone is ripped off equally. (As an added benefit the captain can use the money to buy crew beers later)

Whats the problem with this - its where we seem to be headed anyway?

Interesting how the passengers and crew down the back rely 100% on the pilot's to get them safely from A to B.

But to then say the pilots have no concept of Unexpected Turbulence!

You either get on the plane and trust the guys & girls up front to do their job, or you stay at home and say, "I don't trust these people. I'm not going to work".

You can't have it both way guys!

Flying is a dangerous business. You may takeoff and never be seen again!

Let's not get too precious about it.

The original discussion was about a vacant seat wasn't it?

Blueloo,

you wrote- "

I think its a good idea given the current limitations we have due DOTARS."

______________

Kudos to you for the admission that your support of the policy is entirely self serving.

.....really it wouldnt have mattered what my reply was. You would say this anyway. You have said this to virtually anyone who has replied here.

You have ignored my logic (which is fine), and everyone else's reasoning.

Its like the one bloke in the platoon who is marching out of time - yet he reckons he is in time.

It seems as though this(self interest theme) is the only thing you are interested in, and really all your points about safety etc are purely a smokescreen about some other deep and dark issue you have. Not sure why you have this issue, but I reckon it has nothing to do with your concerns about safety.

But it was your reply and I admire you for it.

Now. If one of you lot would kindly list a number of reasons for the policy perhaps I and others reading might be persuaded on the merit of said policy.

I'll start you off-

1. Captain's wife gets to travel. [Valid reason and not a piss take]
2...............?

ditch handle,Don't worry about this as you'll never win with a group that yet again wants something at someone else's expense.
They sit up there strapped in and can't understand the concerns of others.

The first rule of yours is the main one and that is the drivers are upset that they can't take their wife on the flight deck anymore so they expect us to wear it.

'I'm alright jack':ugh::ugh::ugh:

out of morbid curiosity* i persist, i guess:


Well its taken many pages of drivel, outright crap that there is some underlying safety consideration, but here we finally have it summed up in Jungles last post
It really comes down to petty jealousy. (Which we really all knew anyway)

You can sugar coat it all you like - this is all it is.

What amazes me still, despite it being said countless times before, and you are still completely oblivious to it, is that this provision may very well be used to save your bacon one day by helping your travel beneficiary out

Now this may be a false assumption, but given your outright hatred of a group getting a new entitlement (esp tech crew having final say) , I suspect you may be the type of person who other crew members - be they cabin crew or tech, are unlikely to go out of their way to help you.

So my suggestion (free of course), is cheer up, and instead of being so negative, petty, and jealous, look at is as a positive.





*Liar Liar Jim Cary

Could not agree more....
Some here can't handle the truth* and that is as JJ said is all about the techies wanting somewhere to put their wives now that they can't use the flight deck.

I note that not one of the techies has admitted what was asked and that is do the techies have their seat belts on when they are at work on the flight deck....

Blue Loo this is not about hatred, simply because I do not know of one cabin crew or tech crew who hate the other group...

This is as I said before the techies trying to get around the ban on using the flight deck for their wives and the jealousy from some here on Pprune that cabin crew have the temerity to question this.....because of your attitude to cabin crew in general.

If I am wrong answer the question on whether or not you have your seat belts on when you are at work?

Like just about everything that happens with the company it will be a fait accompli and it is a waste of energy to even try and put a point of view forward....

* Apologies to Jack Nicholson

It's guys like ditch and jungle that would be the first to ask the Captain for the flight deck jump seat when they need it. Please Mr Captain, thankyou Mr Captain!

Try and get them to help out by releasing an assist jumpseat; it's no way, it's a safety issue, it'll disturb other pax, you'll disturb me reading my New Idea. Any excuse will do because it impinges upon their little empire.

You know the best thing, it's out of their hands anyway. It's now policy and it's up to the CAPTAIN, not them.

Blueloo,

you wrote-

"What amazes me still, despite it being said countless times before, and you are still completely oblivious to it, is that this provision may very well be used to save your bacon one day by helping your travel beneficiary out"

_____________

Are you really so obtuse that you can't [won't] see that those arguing against the merit of this policy are doing so, BEYOND ISSUES OF SELF INTEREST !!!

Now.

I'm waiting for point two on my list of "fors".

Again this fixation of Pontius Pilate ...sorry Funbags with the flight deck....

This thread is about the use of the spare jump seat in the cabin.....NOT THE FLIGHT DECK

Still no real pilot answers the question about seat belts because it throws their argument out the window....

I agree with JJ about funbags though...
Funbags go back to the office and leave this issue to real crew

Keep Them Dawgies Movin'
 

While the dogs(Ditch and JJ)bark the wagons roll on

Sorry did you say something lobey.

It's this sentence that really aggravates you, but it's true; You know the best thing, it's out of their hands anyway. It's now policy and it's up to the CAPTAIN, not them.

Retire gracefully. Let the current workers battle it out here, because your opinion means very little now!

I would have thought 930 on a Saturday morning was Bingo time anyway!! :D

NO. It's because they don't have to. This IS Qantas policy. Move on.

my goodness things are very tribal these days!
When will some of the wayward children realise that we're all on the same side!!!

So to put this whole thing back on track:

1. Use of CC Jumpseats by a non operating crew or pax require amendment to the Ops Manual (not negotiable)
2. Said Ops Manual change must be notified to regulator
3. Said regulator will probably (almost g'teed to) want to impose conditions (quite rightly so considering we are talking about the primary escape exit for pax)
4. Conditions would most likely to be similar to occupant of overwing exit row with the addition that the occupant has had some form of type relevant EP training and adequete briefing
5. Item 4 above requires consultation and subsequent approval of regulator and said regulator probably would want physical evidence of briefing, compliance etc as they did with Type III exits.
6. In rare instances the non operating person being placed on the CC assist jumpseat may affect the crew ratio
7. Note that item 6 above is calc'd on total PAX seating capacity and forms part of AOC -
[8. Former policy of F/Deck jumpseat did require an ASIC]

So when commonsense, the regs and due process finally catches up with this little routine the likely outcome is that depending on the extent of the regulator's specs for item 4.....................................many of our partners/family members may not get the CC jumpseat anyway!

Let's face it the whole thing has quickly arisen largely due to an inarticulate out of date staff travel system and a brain farted decision to save a bit of petty cash by only using under-rated (9g) crew rest seats on the 380 ....all of this resulted in what was deemed to be a "one-off" quick fix by one well intentioned Capt. who was supporting his crew.

Unless I'm bugging out of a third world war zone, I really don't want to ask my CSM & CC to play nanny to George from Catering's Aunty on the jump seat. I also don't want George's Aunty in the way if we have to shove a few hundred people out the door in an emergency.

Plus I really don't want to see the perception of CC as safety professionals eroded by having someone in jeans, t-shirt and thongs sitting in a CC jumpseat. It's certainly not the look of a premium airline.

The sensible fix is to give accompanied crew's PRIMARY benficaries priority uplift.

Note to inhabitants of QCC:
(a) the sensible fix is a whole lot cheaper than addressing items 1 through 7 above.
(b) in the event of sensible resolutions not being part of management SOPs suggest re: items 1 & 2 - that it might be a very wise idea to put these at the top of Monday's To Do list