DJ: 4 crew on 737-800 next year?
 

A MEL CS just showed me a memo that states VB and CASA have reached an agreement that Virgin can have 4 crew operate an 800 - with full guest loads! Why would CASA give VB such an exemption, but not Qantas? A bit of a worry. Meant to start being 'phased in' next year. YIKES.

anyone heard anything else about this?

With the amount of service that we do in Qantas on a 50min Mel-Syd dinner flight we couldnt physically do it with only 4 crew. Our configs are 12/156 on our 737-800's.
Whats the full pax load on a VB 737-800?

That doesnt mean that QF won't try it though.....

who are theses guests? doesnt guest imply they are there by invitation and not paying?

I hate corporate babble.

DJ are suffering profit losses since the inception of JQ. Once the cocky airline on the block, they are now thinking smarter at ways to keep themselves competitive.

They need to lower their costs - one idea is cut manpower on a/c which is why they have been in talks with CASA.

Every airline is doing it. The honeymoon period is over at DJ. New roster systems and new costcutting ideas will have those galleys thriving with gossip.

Hang in there.

This is not new news. The Mutual recognition bill was placed before parliment last year. It has been passed in the senate so it is only a matter of time before parts of this are implemented. The biggest thing to effect cabin crew is the new CC to pax ratio of 1:50. (currently 1:36) So this means that we can have 4 CC on an 737-800 that holds 180 pax. It could potentially mean 3 on the 737-700, but at this time CASA have said that there will still need to be 4 crew on the 700 - 1 for each door. VB are doing the warm fuzzy by attempting to get our opinion on how this will impact our crew, but the truth is that this will be implemented regardless. It will only be a matter of time until QF follow suit.
BTW this memo wasn't supposed to go out. It was a mistake by the MEL admin staff. A whole explaination and stuff was supposed to come out first.

I will go nuts if this is the case... I know other parts of the world operate this way, but thats no reason for us to start doing so. As a nation, we have one of the best safety records in the world - lets not start eroding at the pieces of the puzzle that make up this record :=

Time for the FAAA to show its worth and stop this legislation from going through - give me reason to want to re-signup as a member!!! (I left after someone from the union was employed by one of the airlines the union was supposed to represent)

It was only a matter of time before this gem was released into the Australian domestic scene. I am sure that DJ have been sitting back letting QF do all the talking to the PM about how this will help there bottom line. Meanwhile back in Spring Hill the DJ board is probably rubbing there hands with glee thinking of the savings they can make by reducing the number of CC. Starts to make sense why more CC are leaving than being hired and why we are all working max hours plus getting called out for availables and drafts.
I suppose our pay rises have to come from somewhere and the easiest way would be to divide the pie 4 ways instead of 5.

From my experience of QF domestic service, you could do the work with less than four. The pax get very poor service on Oz domestics in comparison to European full service carriers. You're better than US carriers, but then again that's nothing to be compared to.

In the UK, 1:50 is the standard ratio. I would suggest that it is just about OZ catching up with the rest of the world.

I am working for a lost cost airline in the uk we also operate 737-800 carrying 189 pax have only 4 crew. Over here the law states 1 crew member per 50 pax so in theory if was flying a bigger a/c for example carrying 199 pax could operate with just the four crew.

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?

Well done ditzy boy.

I flew on European airlines a few months ago and i compare them to US carriers with regards to inflight service - or lack thereof.

On a SYD-MEL sector at dinner time we offer a hot meal in economy and a free bar of wine/beer and soft drinks plus you can purchase spirits.

In Business we offer a choice of meals, a bar service and a coffee and tea service. And you have to look after 2 Tech crew who both have hot meals as well.

All on a 1hr sector (make that 48mins on the return leg).

And you reckon we can do it with less crew???
:yuk:

Thank you eidah for that information. In Aus. we are well aware of the 1:50 ratio used by the rest of the world. Australian operators are probably the safest in the world and as crew we would like to keep it that way. We are horrified at the thought of our legislators allowing us to go down the road of profits before safety!

New Zealand operates with a 1:50 ratio and also has an impeccable safety record.

Today, I served the flight deck and also did tea and coffee for 126 pax while my csm operated on the cart with L2 position crewmember.

We offered a hot sandwhich, saleable bar and as i mentioned tea and coffee or water, this was on a 40 minute AKL - WLG sector.

In a 3 crew operation I dont believe the cabin is any less secure than with 4, or the passengers are at any huge risk of not being able to evacuate quickly.

Our overwing pax are briefed, I (as R2) know my responsibilites and L1, L2 are aware of their door responsibilities.

I believe 1:50 is sufficient, when we did full service we operated with 4. (this is on 733/4).

Accross the tasman we operate the 300 with 4 and the 400 with 4 up to a certain number of pax and 5 when the pax goes over 11/100 as an assist.

Be interesting to see when this is implemeneted. . .

One Mr T.J- now with Q.F , who was known at Ansett as a desk thumping megalomaniac, pushed extrememley hard to get the ratio changed fron 1:36 to 1:50. It just happened to coincide with the introduction of 100 seat CRJ jet for Kendall Airlines. It was his cost saving dream to operate these aircraft with 2 cabin crew instead of 3.

Probably because he is widely known as a total W@#nker his pleas to CASA were thankfully denied.

No doubt this will be tried again in the future , particularly with the widespread development of the one class, low service model in Australia.

If I am not mistaken the 1:36 ratio has already been discussed, handshaken on, passed through the Senate and will be put in place as soon as the standard government paperwork is stamped and popped in a dusty storage facility.

It doesn't matter if you are full cost or low cost it is all about cost and driving the cost of the marketplace down.

It will mean that Jetconnect (Jetstar and Qantas) and the Virgin Blue equivilent will be able to do a couple of AUST domestic sectors before popping home to NZ.... Why ? because the cost is cheaper and they can do longer hours than the AUST based crew.

It's got nothing to do with how many tea and coffee services a 3 or 4 person crew can do or who has the better service or how many business class pax get a choice of how many hot meals...Our airline managers will operate us at the lowest possible cost.....

Levels or service are all down to the individual. We all know what impeccible service is and we all know what,"this is my 8th day in a row and I have been up since 4am and that man in 12F was the 18th man to abuse me today", service is..... Doesn't how many people are there... Makes our work load a bit easier thats all....

The biggests loser will be AUST Crew Wannabies who will find it harder to find a job based in Australia....

This is not all galley rumours either, the FAAA Domestic having been fighting to stop the 1:36 ration and the above has been their biggest fear.....

Oh well.....:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Just a few thougths.....with 4 crew (even 5 on occasion) on 73's, if all crew are out serving the pax, it can be quite hard to contact the cabin crew in critical (but not emergency) phases of flight. Sometimes we need timely communication with the cabin crew, without needing to go for all the bells and whistles.

If there is a passenger disruption, it can take all cabin crew to deal with the situation, in the meantime the flight deck door can be exposed to additional security issues.

So whilst sebby can do a fantastic service on a short sector, serving sambos with only 3 crew, I think there are further considerations which need to be accounted for.

After all pax service, whilst important, is really only a secondary priority to pax/crew safety.

Just because we have less crew on board that does not mean we are less safer then if we had more. I have found that when we do have extra crew they are just in the way.

Errmmm...just being devils advocate here. ;)

But with all this harping on about 'thats why we have such a great safety record' stuff in oz/nz. I just don't really seem how it can be linked to cabin crew ratios if the safety record over there is so good that crashes never really happen. I'd say that might be down more to the pilots/maitenence/ATC. And perhaps the fact (that in Air NZ case anyway) the fleet size is very small on a worldwide scale and flying into/through less congested airspace than the average euro/US airline.

And surely operating rotations like LAX/JFK/LAX (per QF) is more of a safety hazard from a cabin crew perspective than a 1:50 ratio?

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

At BA we rarely operate to the legal minimum. Tho the times they are a changin (especially for the poor buggers on s/haul). This however is totally service driven and got nothing to do with safety.

On short-haul (A319/320/321/757/767) the crew ratio is dependent on the Club (Business Class) loads.

On L/H our crew compliments are fixed. 8 on the 767 (also legal minimum - but only 181 seats on it). 12 or 13 on the 777 (route/config dependant). 15 or 16 on the 747 (route/config dependant).

In regards to service levels.....when I came home to OZ a few months ago and flew QF from SYD to MEL to see my sis couldn't believe what you guys offer on the aircraft on such a short flight. Was impressed!!!

Its not like there is a shortage of the population that is affecting this decision. It is purely a bottom line decision by the airline boards across OZ.
In response to Just because you are used to working with 3 crew doesnt mean that it is the right thing to be doing. The media and general population will be the first to cry if something goes wrong and an extra door at the front could have gotten the other half of the pax off.

I never thought of 3 on the 700! How does one CC open 2 doors in an evacuation with 144 paniced passengers rushing at her?, "Would you all be so kind as wait here as I open the other door?" Any tips from our Euro-Cousins?

can't you guys who work at DJ protest and/or strike? There has to be something you can do. Please don't let this happen in OZ!!!:{

Has anyone heard of an ABP? Guess who picks up the slack when a 700 operates with only 3 crew.....:}

Im always scoping the cabin for ABPs!! :} :} :}

thats Fantastic Jetstar FA - we can all look for ABP, and in prepared cases we can brief them on how to operate exits etc - i think a good example of this was the UA 747 HNL-SYD which had its fwd cargo door ripped off.

Unfortunately where this falls apart is in unprepared senarios - i think an example here was a BA737 which had an engine blow apart whilst taxiing, rupturing the fuel tanks - fire - unfortunately exits were opened by pax near the fire, which let the fire/smoke into the cabin, killing a fair few.

I think in all unsupervised exits (which we have currently regardless of pax ratios) there is potential for serious injuries.

I hasten to add if my memory serves me correctly, the FA interviewed after the UA incident, said that her ABPs almost tried taking over the situation. So ABPs arent always that fantastic.

Oh come on! As a nation, Australia is tiny (pop 20-22million). Why should it be a special case? Large parts of the world operate on the 1:50 rule, but australian aviation is in someway too precious to do the same? Applying the logic of the safety question, safety would be enhanced by operating with 8 crew on this type, and even more so with 16.

This is busines - you adapt to survive. If australian aviation puts itself at a competitive disadvantage by requiring more crew per aircraft than other countries, then large numbers of you will be spending alot more time at home reading pprune and looking for work.

1:50 ratio is fine! Reducing the DJ 737-800 crew compliment from 5 to 4 simply means one less bulging bag of lip gloss and bronzer for the male crew to trip up over:cool:

Blueloo - I don't know if you fly or not BUT in a prepared cabin emergency one of the briefs we give to the 2 ABP's who will take over my main deck door or an overwing exit in an emergency if I (as flight attendant) am incapacitated. We tell them to throw me out and take control to evacuate the aircraft....

Blueloo - I am more than happy to operate on a 1:36 ratio but can also operate on a 1:50 ratio..... easy done... 14 more people.

The UA flight from HNL -SYD via AKL is an example of chaos.... nothing to do with ABP's trying to save the world and "take over".
In all my years of flying there are some cabin crew in an emergency situation who should jump down the slide and let an ABP take over.. I assume that with your research you also found that a lot of ABP's actually helped the situation as well

British Airtours B737 in Manchester with an engine fire. Yes exits were opened and people passed away....as well as people who were nowhere near the exits that would have gone into shock and remained in their seat and a pax sitting next to them survived..... Nothing to do with ABPS.....

AN ABP is not necessarily Mr Joe Belowaverage and his wife...An ABP can be paxing crew (any airline worldwide) , military, police, etc)

It is not my idea to operate the 1:50 ration, but if an Air France A340 operating on a 1:50 ration can get all pax of a burning plane at the end of a runway then I can get them off and A320 177 / 4 is 44.25. I can get 44.25 people of a burning plane....

Thats my job:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Air france in Canada was no where near a Crew/Pax ratio of 1:50. There were
297 Pax onboard and 9 or 10 Cabin crew.


10 crew = 1:29
9 crew = 1:33

Would 6 Cabin crew have got all of the Pax out in time ?- not sure. But I know most pax would prefer a crew member for each door and a ratio of 1:36

I think the point was that if the aircraft was full the ratio would have been 1:50... lets remember its only 1:50 with full loads.

In NZ law the aircraft can be crewed by 2 cabin crew if the pax number falls below 100 (ie a 135 seat aircraft only has 86 pax), this i think is awful... the laws are the laws and the unions only have so much power to stop this. If it is of real concern then the tech crew should step in and say something, people usually listen to them.

The union in aus would have to be one of the strongest in the world and is probably the best avenue to voice thses concerns!

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

"One Mr T.J- now with Q.F , who was known at Ansett as a desk thumping megalomaniac, pushed extrememley hard to get the ratio changed fron 1:36 to 1:50. It just happened to coincide with the introduction of 100 seat CRJ jet for Kendall Airlines. It was his cost saving dream to operate these aircraft with 2 cabin crew instead of 3".


The CRJ only has 50 seats. I get the point though.

Why would anyone want to agree to reducing the ratio? Just because other parts of the world do it, that does not necessarily make it worlds best practice - just a cheaper way of doing things. The more crew on board, the better - more chance of timely, efficient cabin service; more crew to deal with obnoxious/rowdy/threatening pax; more crew to help out in an onboard emergency inflight - medical or otherwise; and of course more crew to help out in an evac - plus on the DJ B738 at least with 5 crew on a 4 sector day, we are able to get 4 out of the 5 crew having their LEGALLY entitled meal break - something that does not happen on the -700 on your standard 4 sector day (which is more common than not these days)

If these next EBA's (pilots and crew) get through at DJ, they stand to make SUBSTANTIAL savings in crew efficiency, hotel and transport costs, and of course reduced number of overnight payments - so don't talk to us about adaptability to survive, we already know and understand...

This needs to be fought people - otherwise I think it will be the straw that breaks the camels back for a large number of crew :{ :ugh: :=

Here, Here Sinala1! Couldn't agree more. Just because the rest of the world does something, doesn't mean its right! Its like that old saying, 'if everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you?"

I dread working a 4 sector day on a 700 as you haven't got time to break - even for the toilet!

I guess when service suffers and complaints go up, VB may realise it wasn't such a good idea. Not to mention the increase to supplemental pay claims!

I rang the FAAA, they said that the government looks at this change nearly every year and they are constantly lobbying against it. Unfortuneatley I think that our poor union is no match for the might of DJ and QF united. Apparently there is a lot of pressure from NZ as well as reduced crew ration allows air NZ (and I imagine PB as well!) to operate domestic in aussie airspace. Once again money is more important than safety

In the words of C-3PO : 'we are doomed'.

Four on the floor
 

Sinala1, I contacted the people at the FAAA and a lovely young lady was quite helpfull with info! She was i noticed very careful to point out that though they are facing the fight of the 1:50 ratio it appears that our 700's are not under threat as the requirement for min 1 per "Door" will remain. Still with something like 26 800's with say four full crew's per operating day that is a saving of 104 crew per day on the fleet. Funny how that could provide the 2 crew required to operate a Embraer 175.
It's going to make working an 800 to Per fully loaded a bastard, sup forms for 4 hour flights what a joke hey matey?

:mad:

Senate Report 1:50 Ratio
 

http://www.faaadomestic.org.au/links.htm

The bottom of this pages has links to the Senate Report - Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005

Its been with the Senate for the past year and is fully supported by Virgin Blue, Jetstar and Qantas..... They will save big bucks doing this.:8

:} :}

Henry,

Happy to stand corrected.The CRJ was in fact a 50 seater. It was a long time ago. T.J wanted to get the ratio changed to 1:50 so they could be operated with 1 cabin crew, as per the SAAB.

Actually I have worked on this aircraft 737-800 for the last four years in europe. One crew member per door only takes one crew member to open the door as we are actually trained to open the door on our own. Then two cabin crew at each end of the aircraft directing passengers of the aircraft once all passengers are off you checked your assigned area what exactly does the 5th member do.

Jetstar FA, actually in the UAL 801 incident, in a taped interview one of the FAs mentioned above admitted having to physically stop the ABP's from taking over as they were so gung-ho they wanted to command the evac even though she was ok...

true ABPs can be handy but I'm sure you will agree, not as handy as someone who is trained and familiar with the operation of the doors. I mean, who wants to be opening a door for the first time when you've got 50-100 of your fellow pax screaming at you, smoke, dire, confusion etc, if you've never done it before?

At least an FA (even if an extra or paxing) has the backup of 'routine' experience with the door to be quicker than the average joe during an evac... also, no matter how much you brief your ABP's in the say, 20mins you might have, it's probably not long enough for them to truly understand the impoartance of not using an unusable exit - someone who doesn't know 'why' is likely to do as happened with the Manchester incident and open a door into smoke/flame/fumes... and kill a lot of pax...

An ABP is not substitute for an FA!! They're just a backup for 'worst case'!! Thinking otherwise is like saying a guy with a PPL will do as well as the tech crew 'as a backup'... let's not kid ourselves.. .as Sinala said, just because the rest of the world does it this way doesn't mean we should too!!

Skysista - Valid points

BUT

Quote:I mean, who wants to be opening a door for the first time when you've got 50-100 of your fellow pax screaming at you, smoke, dire, confusion etc, if you've never done it before?

I have never opened a door in an emergency and I can bet that probably 90% of crew haven't opened a door in an emergency..... Jetstar Crew don't even open a door in normal operating mode..... I have NEVER opened a door on an A320 (once a year on aan OLD Ansett mock up for EP's total of 3 times.). So who's to say that myself or any other crew can complete the task.

Quote:An ABP is not substitute for an FA!! They're just a backup for 'worst case'!!

At JQ only 4 crew are responsible for a door (4 doors) and we have 5 crew,,, the 5th crew member supervises an overwing exit removal (if they can get there).

We have provisions in our manual to operate on reduced crew......

I used to operate with 3 crew on a 737-300 quite successfully..... Person at the back was responsible for the opening of the 2 back doors......

In the 10 years I have flown as crew and a further 25 I have flown as a pax I have never even had a blood nose.....

Unfortunately I have said Time and Time AGAIN AND AGAIN... Jetstar, Qantas, Virgin and any other airline don't care about safety UNTIL the proverbial hits the fan...... Until we have an incident (heaven forbid) the airlines of the world and especially the ones we all work for will cut corners to save dollars and cents..... FACT.... tell me I am wrong.... I won't believe that anyone in my airline or friends who work in other airlines can stride to work and not see the wrong doings of our managers and say with conviction that they feel safe....

I don't need a fact lesson on a UAL flight or flights where an ABP opens doors... All too aware of these facts and have been hearing about them and been taught them in Grounds Schools for the past 10 years...:= := := :ugh:

FACT - 1:50 will go ahead..... Get used to it :D :D