DJ: 4 crew on 737-800 next year?

[sinala1]

Originally Posted by DJTibby

Isn't there something you can do though? There must be a way to stop it

No, unfortunately not - CASA has already signed off on the exemption

The only good news is that the exemption applies specifically to the B737-800 - its NOT a change of the current Ratio of 1:36 as currently stands in Australia - although how long do we think it will take before that changes too


Management say we will be working harder, not smarter - on a 4 sector MEL-SYD day I would like to see how we are going to be able to achieve our LEGALLY entitled meal breaks (which we are rarely getting now as it is) - whats the bet that clause is written OUT of this next EBA

[flitegirl]

So if these new exemptions aren't effecting the 1:36 ratio does this mean that if there is 4 crew on a B738 the pax load will be capped? If so, this has actually been happening for years with various arlines. I was paxing on a Qantas B738 recently and the CSM mentioned to me that they were "one crew member down" due to a crewing dilemma - therefore the flight was capped. I used to work on Bae146-300s which had a max pax load of about 85 however we could operate them with 2 flight attendants if the pax load was capped at 72. 1 FA was responsible for L1 & R1 and the same for L2 & R2.

[sinala1]

FliteGirl - VB have already been doing that since we had the B738's. This is a seperate exemption that allows the -800 to be crewed with 4 crew and a full pax load (189 pax, which includes 9 infants), however the way the exemption is worded relates specifically to the B737-800 only - it makes no mention of changing the CC to Pax ratio across the board... although I am sure that won't be far off

[Flying Frypan]

Guys, if you read the info posted it clearly states that the CC to Pax ratio has been changed from 1:36 to 1:50. The reason the 737-700 will not have 3 CC is because CASA states that there must be a trained CC member for each non "self help" type exit, therefore a door exit. On VB 737-800 aircraft the 5th CC member is responsible for evacuating the overwing area, this will now be the responsibility of ABP's as this type of exit is considered to be "self help".
It won't be long before QF and JQ submit an application to CASA so they too can be assessed for the opportunity to operate with a reduced crew complement. Unfortunately VB were the first to do it.
This is going to be a fact in Australian aviation and it is only a matter of time before our friends at other airlines will be forced to follow suit.

[sinala1]

Actually, Flying Frypan, Section 2 of the Document I linked to previously (here it is again for those who missed it) states clearly:

"This instrument applies to the aircraft mentioned in Schedule 1 operated by Virgin Blue Airlines, Aviation Reference Number 567591 (the operator) and engaged in Regular Public Transport operations"

Schedule 1 states:

"Schedule 1 Aircraft

Australian registered Boeing 737-800 series with a type data certificate that provides for a maximum seating capacity of 189"

There is reference made to the 1:36 ratio and CAO 20.16.3 in the explanatory notes, but nowhere does it state that the ratio has been changed across the board - only in this "instrument", which applies only to the B737-800 aircraft configured with 189 pax or less.

This is not a good thing folks

[737opsguy]

Guys the exemption isn't as complicated as it sounds. You just need to understand how to read CASA crap.

Current rules state: Ratio of 1:36 for aircraft with a capacity under 215.
Exemption: Ignore the crew ratio, VB can crew a 737-800 with 4 crew up to a capacity of 189 passengers.

There is no change for crew in terms of safety procedures, but as Sinala has mentioned, there is a change in terms of workload for the service and the access to breaks during flight.

The other note in referencing the instrument and the explanatory note is that they have a requirement for a crew member at each floor level exit. Thus when the CAO actually changes within the next year or so, CASA could maintain this requirement and as such the -300 or -700 will still need 4 crew.

[Classic]

Originally Posted by keeperboy

In the UK as has already been pointed out the legal minimum is one crew member per 36 pax seats.

Sorry, not so.
Just to clarify for other UK crew, it's 1 per 50 pax seats in the UK too

[Bailey's Dad]

The best thing to do is.......do what you can do, so if half the pax dont get served on a flight then so be it. They can submit there complaints.
I will keep you busy with getting want I want and hopefully this insanity wont last long.

[sebby]

Bailey's Dad - im pretty sure the crew arent that concerned with the service (correct me if im wrong), more the safety aspect of operating with less crew. Im doubtful that 4 crew wont be able to complete an all Y/C service with only saleable items available.

And unfortunately if it cant be done time and time again then the solution wont be adding crew but simplifying the service instead. And the downward spiral begins....

[ditzyboy]

Originally Posted by Flying Frypan

CASA states that there must be a trained CC member for each non "self help" type exit, therefore a door exit.

What is this so-called rule that people quote? I can think of the F28, CRJ and 146 that all have floor level exits 'unmanned' in an emergency. What is the actual wording? Is there a sub-clause for smaller aircraft? How many CC were OZJet using on their low capacity 732s? I thought it was three with a goal to be two over time?

[sebby]

I actually think the wording refers to an aircraft with a standard load over 200 or something that requires one crew member for every floor level exit, so the 1:36 ratio no longer applies. During my training in australia when i worked there, this is what i was taught.

[CD]

Originally Posted by sebby

I actually think the wording refers to an aircraft with a standard load over 200 or something that requires one crew member for every floor level exit, so the 1:36 ratio no longer applies. During my training in australia when i worked there, this is what i was taught.

Basically correct. Here is the text of the requirement:

6.1(c) aircraft carrying more than 216 passengers shall carry the number of cabin attendants as prescribed by CASA which shall not be less than 1 cabin attendant for each floor level exit in any cabin with 2 aisles;

Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3

There is no similar requirement for single aisle aircraft or those with fewer than 216 passengers.

[sebby]

Thanks for that CD.

[adam_ant]

new overwing brief

Thanks Sinala1 for the Casa document. I delivered the new 'over the top' overwing brief the other day and was shocked at how detailed it was. I felt like it was in too much detail and could possibly scare nervous flyers who were listening in. Reading the CASA thing - I see now that overwing pax need to be actually briefed in gory detail on when/how to opertate the exit. It would have been nice if the company had explained the reason for the change to us. Without explanation, most crew will stick with the old brief - which will be a violation of the exemption!

The other note in the exemption as that there will be 2 abp at each overwing door - they have yet to notify us of the requirement yet either!

I think its important that all CS fill out supp payments so VB can see the effect of this is having cost wise! Lets make it more expensive in break penalty than paying an L2X!

And for you VB hopefuls - I think we may be officially overstaffed for some months to come!

Love,
Adam

Ps: Funny that VB gets this wonderful little gift from CASA who is led by former VB manager BB!

[CD]

CASA amended the requirement slightly in the following document:

Instrument number 393/06: Amendment of instrument CASA 321/06

Here is the first one, as shared by sinala1:

Instrument number 321/06: Direction - number of cabin attendants

You can keep up with these changes at this site:

2006 Archive - Legislative changes

[ditzyboy]

Originally Posted by CD

There is no similar requirement for single aisle aircraft or those with fewer than 216 passengers.

Thanks guys for the quotes. That's what I thought - there is nothing to stop a 737-700 going out with three crew if and when the ratio is changed. What about an exemption on similar lines to that of the -800? If there is no requirement for each floor level exit to be manned on 737s how is the situation different to the -800 exemption and what occurs on 146s and the like? Scary

Very interesting about the requirement there is two ABP at each exit and the new briefing. So Virgin are yet to advise you if this?

Let's hope that CS fill in meal break penalties whenever they are required. When it starts costing the company money they WILL take notice. Hopefully cabin crew stick to their guns and are not intimidated into not filling them out.

I wonder how long it will take for other airlines to follow suit?

[SkySista]

Regarding the exit briefing... just wondering what was covered in the 'old' and what you now have to add? Just that with my flying, we always had to tell the pax what they were looking for (i.e. fire, obstacles, water etc) and when to move (the "evacuate" command)... what do you mean by new 'level of detail'?

And you're right, I think it may scare the pax a little, but they dont have to sit ther eif they don't want to!! Always plenty of people willing to sit there... whether they would actually do well is a particular pet subject of mine, but that's for another thread (which has already been covered )

[Flygrl]

Im with Ditzyboy

On a 767 early am flight less than 2hrs flying time. The service in Y is,
4 crew - 204 PAX, 6 double carts serving breakfast, then tea/coffee, then collection 6 carts with 2nd tea/coffee, then 4 double carts serving snack - a choice of 3 things - savory, sweet and/or piece of fruit followed by bottled water or bottled juice and a soft/alcholic drink on request, then there is a collection serivce after that!
Ive travelled in Europe on a 2+hr sector and have had to request a drink of water, which arrived in a paper cup! And was slapped down a 'meal'- some kind of sandwich which was still frozen! Coffee, "Im sorry mam we dont have time for hot drinks on todays flight!" As for inflight entertainment, BYO!
And dont mention the fact that in QF we have blankets and pillows, Baby Meals, Special Meals and for premium pax in Y newpapers. And a free movie with free headsets for all!!!!!
So dont tell us we dont have a bloody good service! Our feet and backs pay for it at the end of the day.

Originally Posted by ditzyboy

With all due respect, you need to get your facts straight, Mate. I assume that by 'service' you mean product offering? (I believe service to be how the staff offer the product and not how much they give you.)

Iberia - Buy-Onboard (BOB)
SAS - BOB or cold snack item in Y. All-Y on domestic flights
BA - Hot breakky then cold snack all day in Y. All-Y on domestic flights
Lufthansa - Sandwich/roll in Y
Swiss - Small snack item and choice of drink
Finnair - Cold/Hot meal of varying descriptions. Though only one class service and free seating on domestic
BMI - BOB or sandwich/roll in Y (depend on route). Tiny hot meal in cardbox box in C (business) class.
Air France - Single class domestic. Small cold snack on most Euro flights.

The lowest level of offering in Y class at Qantas (tandem snack - AM Refresh, Lunch and PM Refresh - flight under 90 mins) is equivilent to what the greatest level of service offered by the vast majority of European full-service carriers.

Few european carriers service hot meal in Y on one hour sectors. Few have two classes of service of domestic and shorter European flights.

Oz domestic travel ain't what it used to be but it's completely competitive on product offering on a world scale.

Bear in mind, too, that one (737) or two (767) extra cabin crew are onboard for short dinner services as we simply cannot get the service done otherwise. Despite airfares in Australia being the cheapest they have ever been customers expect service levels to be greater. Or maybe staff through the industry should just take pay cuts so customers' level of amenity and product offering stay the same?

[737opsguy]

I am not a cabin crew member but have an interest in this area, so anyone with cabin crew experience please answer this.

The change at Virgin Blue and the impact it will have it not a safety issue but more one of workload management. Can the crew carry out the same duties but with one person less and what changes to duties (ala service) may be required. And also will the crew meet the break requirements.

Flygirl you mentioned the service standard for 204 pax with 4 crew. Not having flown on QF (I assume it's QF) for a while, what would the 'time per row' be. I mean how long would it take you to serve one row of seats. The reason I ask, is that on some full service carriers the service is the provision of a prepared meal tray that is provided to every passenger. Whereas at Virgin Blue, each passenger has a personalised order which must to catered for and then have a transaction. I'm not saying either is better, just curious over the time it takes.

What I am trying to ascertain is the time per row and thus the overall time you are in the aisle serving when doing a full service of prepared meals versus the time taken when you pay on board and order what you like.

Thanks

[737NG_Girl]

737opsguy its pretty difficult to give a "time per row" for a pay-as-you-go service, as each passengers order can vary considerably. For eg, pax orders vb & sandwich - takes 5 seconds to get from carts, open VB, hand to pax and all done - total transaction time less than a minute. Pax 2 on the other hand orders hot chocolate, sandwich, cheese & biscuits - total transaction time probably closer to 2 mins by the time the hot choccie is made up etc. Same goes for coffee - because its individual instant sachets, it takes longer to make up. Somtimes you will get 5 rows of pax who order nothing, other times you will get 144 pax ordering $10 worth of food/drink each on a 1 hour sector.

To answer your question regarding achieving breaks, its not happening now!! So I really don't see how it will be possible with 4 crew on the 738.

The problem with the service is that there is not a lot that can be done to change it - so all the hype from management about how we will be "working smarter, not harder" is a bit hard to swallow - and now they are asking for our submissions and suggestions on how to change the service flows, because they have made changes that we did not want or ask for! Why should we have to figure out changes to the service flow when we did not want the reduction of crew in the first place?

I also wonder if anyone has put any thought into the fact that now on the -800 with only 4 crew, if someone goes sick mid-duty in a port thats not a base there is no longer any redundancy there - they cant just cap the flight and go with 4 crew, now the flight will be delayed/cancelled altogether?