Qantas bid to jettison attendants
 

Mon "The Australian" 2/9/02

Qantas bid to jettison attendants
By Steve Creedy
September 02, 2002

QANTAS wants a reduction in the number of flight attendants it is required to have on flights.

The airline will lodge a submission to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, asking that the Australian minimum of one flight attendant per 36 passengers be changed to one attendant per 50 passengers.

While Qantas says it has no immediate plans to cut the numbers of cabin crew, it wants the flexibility to do so in response to competition from no-frills carriers.

CASA's review of air safety regulations has proposed keeping the current level but Qantas argues the ratio is unique to Australia and was designed for 1950s aircraft.

Competitors such as Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Thai Airways, Emirates, United Airlines and Virgin Atlantic all operate under the 1:50 ratio, as does Qantas alliance partner British Airways.

"Across the Tasman, Air New Zealand has the competitive advantage of regulations with a similar ratio," said Qantas executive general manager operations David Forsyth.

Mr Forsyth said Qantas believed it would be another 10 years before the regulations were reviewed again and the country could not afford to lock in the 1:36 ratio. He said the biggest threat came from proposals for Australia and New Zealand to recognise each other's regulatory regimes.

This could allow a New Zealand company to operate domestic and trans-Tasman services on the 1:50 ratio while Qantas was "significantly disadvantaged" on the 1:36 ratio.

Mr Forsyth said Qantas and international airlines wanting to give reasonable service operated with ratios of between 1:20 and 1:30.

"It's really only when you get down to the bare bones, low-cost operators like the Ryanairs and the EasyJets that they're really operating on the minimums," he said. "But that's the way the rest of the world's going and it will eventually happen here."

The latest push comes as a CASA proposal to allow pilots to perform routine visual checks now carried out by licensed engineers has raised fears that serious faults could go undetected.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association said the proposal was cost-driven and would reduce standards.

Evcacuation Trials?
 

I can cast my mind back to Tamworth when we were proving that we could successfully evacuate a DH8-315 in the time required with TWO F/A's.

I wonder if:

1. This would once again have to be proven with ONE F/A;

2. If implemented, whether DH8-315 services on the network would be designated "no cabin service" on certain short sectors?

Perhaps the YSCB passengers can grab a doggie bag as they pass through the gate at the terminal, because it would certainly be impossible to provide cabin service otherwise! :D

SIA may have 1 : 50 rule for legislation purposes but they actually carry either 16 or 17 F/As on a B744.

I'll be interested to see if the FAs get more support on this forum than the Engineers appear to be getting!

I am an endorsed Dash 8 f/a. There is NO way in hell that I could serve 50 people on my own as well as look after everything else on the Dash8-300 as a solo f/a. No doubt they will still want to pay us regional folk peanuts to do it as well.

Stuff "no frills ", what about safety ?

Cabinboy
From the beancounters perspective 'Stuff safety. What about the cost?' Why do you think they're trying to get rid of transit inspection requirements?

I suspect that this submission from QF is being driven by their plans for Australian Airlines. In their initial AOC submission they planned only 6 flight attendants on their all economy B767-300's but this was rejected as it did not meet the 1:36 ratio. They are doing everything possible to keep the Aust Airlines Direct Operating Costs (DOC) down.

To compare crew numbers with other international carriers in the region does not assist QF in their argument as SQ and JAL carry approx 22 flight attendants on their B747's as compared to between 13 & 16 (depending on configuration) at Qantas.

The "joke" - and it`s NO joke - is the 1:50 is based on SEAT number capacity of the aircraft and not ACTUAL passenger number.

The company I work for (which uses a strict 1:50, and NEVER more) OFTEN runs full seats PLUS infants!! eg B737-400 (150 seats) operating 150 PLUS 15 INFANTS and still only 3 F/A`s.

UNSAFE! Stop Australia from being dragged DOWN in Safety. It is quite simply greedy managements` way of trying to add MORE to their bonus!
Read" QANTAS management...pigs at the trough". :mad:

I find anything less than one cabin crew per door VERY scary!!!

Say there is a B737-300/700 that is involved in an accident. Following the 1:50 rule this means that there are only 3 F/A's on board. The impact of the aircraft seriously injures one of the F/A's leaving the other two to evacuate the whole aircraft......

Like I said before-- VERY SCARY!!!!

Agreed people, not happy about it, the repurcussions on safety and cabin morale will mean QF 'jettison' customers as well...

However, i think the ground work has already been done on this one... CASA approved 1:50 for Ansett, and its regionals, the cause was fought and won by Kendells (RIP), because they saw the cost benefit, but never implemented it on the CRJ. It had implications for YT and AN mainline. So it will be approved. Their arguement was that JAA (the Europeans) had opperated 1 in 50 for years, and there was no documented proof that it slowed down an evacuation. It is myunderstanding that CASA covered their @rse by stipulating that 1:50 was approved, but each emergency exit must be armed. Can anyone confirm this???:confused:

AAP

No cut in cabin crews: Qantas
September 02, 2002

QANTAS was not planning to cut flight attendant numbers despite seeking a reduction in the minimum number of cabin crew in its aircraft, the airline has said.

The airline confirmed it would urge the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to allow it to roster one flight attendant for every 50 passengers, compared to the present requirement of one to 36.

But the airline said the push was to bring Australian regulations in line with the rest of the world, and to give it the ability to compete with any future no-frills airline.

The Flight Attendants' Association of Australia (FAAA) criticised the move, saying it would reduce in-flight safety.

"We have the safest aviation industry in the world. Why would Qantas want to downgrade that system?" FAAA national secretary Johanna Brem said.

"Until we see evidence showing there is no safety risk in reducing cabin crews, our members will remain opposed to this proposal."

Ms Brem said young, elderly and disabled passengers would be vulnerable if cabin crews were cut.

But Qantas executive general manager of operations David Forsyth said most Qantas flights operated on a one-to-25 ratio and this would not change.

Mr Forsyth said the company was merely seeking the ability to change its ratios if such a move became necessary.

"We are not saying we will reduce the number of flight attendants," he said.

"We are not intending to reduce our level of service at all."

Mr Forsyth said emergency evacuation testing had shown that a staff ratio of one to every 50 passengers was adequate.

But more staff was needed to provide services such as in-flight meals and passenger assistance.

Qantas also wanted to be able to compete on a level playing field if a future competitor entered the Australian market with a no-frills service.

Other main airlines, including Cathay Pacific, Malaysia Airlines, Singapore Airlines, British Airways and Air New Zealand, operate under the 1:50 ratio.

AAP
============================================

ABC News Online

Airline denies cabin crew cut will hit safety

Qantas denies that passenger safety will be compromised if it is successful in reducing the ratio of flight attendants to passengers.

The airline has applied to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to reduce the cabin crew ratio from one in 36 passengers to one in 50.

Qantas spokesman David Forsyth says a change in ratio would not affect emergency evacuations from planes.

"Passenger safety is influenced by a whole range of things," Mr Forsyth said.

"In the event of an emergency, the things that have been shown to be necessary to get a safe and speedy evaucation from the cabin have been things like the assertiveness of flight attendants and how well they're trained, rather than the numbers."

============================================

Ah, just in time - the vehement denials which PROVE the reduction in numbers is probably closer than anyone even suspects. Praise the Lord that in some ways, management are so pathetically transparent.:D

PFM, I'm yet to see a single "armed" exit on a DH8-315. It would be interesting to see if an evacuation could be achieved with a solo F/A in the required 90 sec or whatever.

Even on A/C with slides, are ABP's suitably qualified to decide whether it's safe to open an exit in the event of a REAL emergency?

Agreed Hugh, on the Dash 8 100/200 there is only 1 FA - yet four exits for cabin evacuation. In the event of an emergency, it would basically be up to the ABP's to assess whether it is safe to open the exit, since the FA can only open one exit at a time!

As for the 300, carrying 50 passengers and currently two FA's (though in theory this could potentially reduce to one) same deal applies, four exits, two FA's... yet fifty passengers (plus up to five infants). I highly doubt that one FA could do it alone, especially if s/he is incapacitated.

In terms of service, if QF want to reduce crew numbers to a 1:50 ratio then that's all fine and dandy but they can't expect the same level of service to be presented to pax. No way in hell can one FA deliver 50 pax a meal (or "chuck a bun" as another PPruner so eloquently put it) as well as coffee/tea on a 30 minute CBR. Service levels will have to be reduced, and if management don't recognise this then they have their heads in the clouds.

I wonder whether they have ever considered 'variable crewing' where crew numbers are in direct proportion to numbers of pax. If there are only 20 pax on a Dash8-300 then sure fly around with only one FA, but as soon as it pax numbers reach 37 then another FA is required.

SG

:)

Variable crewing levels? He he, sorry Sydgirl you need to spend some time in the rostering/crewing office...

Lets imagine we have a SYD-HBA flight with 36 booked each way. Aircraft departs SYD and 5 more pax book for the return flight. Are you going to teleport the extra crew into HBA or just tell the pax to P*?? off somewhere else?

No, I know - we'll just have 70 crew on standby in each and every port every day - just in case. The FAAA will be right behind that one dearie.

Cutting crew
 

Qantas have tried to change the ratio before. They desperately want to cut back the crew complements regardless of safety and service. All domestic aircraft now operate on the minumum legal number. With talk of all economy 767 a/c for "leisure destinations" of course they want it changed to only 6 crew for 250 -299 y/c pax. The pax now don't know the overwing exits on all 737-300/400's are unmanned, so I guess having a door exit without crew is not an issue!:mad:

Sydgirl,
Variable crewing was looked at several years ago. Too complex for QF to manage. Their option was just to remove the crew off the a/c type permanently.

Yes "dearie".. oops sorry I mean Theo Racle.. I know variable crewing is no easy task but I was just trying to think of other options.

Seems there are no viable alternatives so why not just get rid of the crew and if there's a crash we'll deal with the consequences then.

SG
:p

The sad fact of the matter is - at the moment with 7 crew on the 767, short international sectors, the service sometimes doesnt even get finished. If there is a medical, the service has to stop completely. With 8 crew there was always the galley operator to take care of medicals/ out-of-the-ordinary stuff. But now the whole plane suffers when something out of the blue happens.

I would hate to think what would happen when it goes down to 6, and I have no doubt it will. Both VB and QF will pressure CASA into this.

BA may have the 1:50 ratio as law - but they still operate 9 or 10 cabin crew on the 767 (depending on sector time).

And as for safety, it goes further than just evacuating. Unruely pax? less crew = less response. Less crew means less monitoring of pax, for example alcohol consumption etc. It's already showing with the current crew reductions to CASA mins.

It really is a joke. :rolleyes:

SYDGIRL,

I like your idea completey and regardless of what other ppruners may say I have seen first hand this already take place many times. I have seen DH3's go out with 36 pax on and 1 f/a and return the same, if other people try to book on it then tough luck - it can only go out with 36 pax. It does currently happen " occasionaly ".

I had a pax put his hand in my face the other day when I asked him if he was happy to remain seated in the exit row...the response was " listen....mate.....I fly on these aircraft twice a week ".........I then asked the pax to close his eyes and tell me how to open the emergency exit, do you think he knew what to do ? Nope.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you can't trust ABP's all the time ( even the ones who "think" they know what they are doing).......god help 50 pax on a DH3 when the solo f/a becomes incapacitated and the pax have to rely on themselves to initiate and evacuation.

Cabinboy

Competition if intense as I believe it is between Qantas and Virgin then management will be looking for every $$$$. Mind you my airline or should I say the airline I work for operates under the 1:50 requirement. However, none of the fleet ever do. The average ratio is 1:23 across the 4 types. Like many other operators who also have the 1:50 requirement, not many actually do it. A good example is CAL, I don't know what the ratio is but you should see the number of F/A's that file off their jumbo's after a flight. The ratio would be better than 1:20. The 1:36 ratio has worked in Australia for a long time and I believe it should be kept if possible after all most of the operations in Australia operate with a better ratio than that anyway.