1:50 Rule NPRM Australia
 

There is currently a CASA NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) that seeks to change the current 1:36 rule to 1:50.

Comments on the proposal close in early April 2010.

Silence on the topic from cabin crew, the media and the politicians has been deafening.

Those that started in the industry after the CASA regulatory review in the 1990's may not be aware that there was a successful campaign to retain the 1:36 ratio. Many of the individuals involved have since left flying and are unable to resume the battle.

The issue has safety and work condition implications.

Lets hope there is a will to carry on the good work that was done by so many volunteers over so many years to make our workplace safer and healthier.

The 1:50 rule has already been approved for a number of airlines in Australia on narrow-body aircraft. For example, Alliance has approval to operate on a 1:50 ratio

I have no issue with the ratio, most operators around the world work with this. The only downside I see is for the customer. In flight services will have to be amended to allow a full service carrier to still continue to provide a premium service but thats for them to look at. As crew we can only do what we can do. Look at SYD-MEL dinner services, we carry 1 or 2 extra crew (depending on AC type) anyway to get the service done in time. Inflight service will be amended to be do-able safely and timely so from my point of view it's no problem.

Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean that like sheep all must follow.

What are the projected job losses from moving to the 1:50 rule?

An errosion on saftey rules, is reducing a saftey margin.

1:39 must have been implemented for a good reason, it would be interested to compare results for 1:39 and 1:50.

The discussion of cabin crew ratios is often an interesting one, with many opinions being shared... ;)

For those that haven't had an opportunity to review the CASA proposal, here is a link to the NPRM:

Cabin Crew Ratios - Proposed Amendment to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) Section 20.16.3

The proposal contains more changes than just those related to the ratio and makes for an interesting read.

As 338C indicates, this isn't the first time that a change to the Australian ratio has been proposed. However, this time it is likely to be adopted as CASA has already been permitting the practice through special authorizations. If the Australian ratio does change, it would leave Canada as the only large CAA with a ratio based on the number of passengers carried rather than the number of configured passenger seats. A similar proposal here that would have permitted the option of operating to the existing 1:40 passenger ratio or the proposed 1:50 seat ratio was stopped by the Transport Minister in 2006 following a public campaign opposing the change. An archived version of the website opposing the change can be seen here:

Airline Passenger Safety - Feb 02, 2006
Airline Passenger Safety - Sep 19, 2007

Previous discussions containing some interesting views related to proposed changes to cabin crew ratios in Australia can be found at the following links as well:

PPRuNe Qantas bid to jettison attendants - 2002
PPRuNe Australian F/A's please read - 2005
PPRuNe Australian CC Ratio under threat - 2009
PPRuNe (Virgin) Cabin Attendants reduction - Evacuation Time - 2009

Copied form another thread
 

airtag said "The Unions or anyone else for that matter did not 'really' oppose* the reductions - not even on the jungle jets with one person being responsible for 2 doors ..(WTF!!!! and with the skewiffslide at R2 how the hell did anyone prove the evac efficiency!!!!)... Apart from a few whining lines recently in the SMH and a puff piece in crikey, the CC world has generally been out to lunch. However precedent now exists and you can't retro legislate".

This is a very accurate description of the facts. I had to go and speak to the guys involved at the time before making any comments here.

tightslot: there were some very good research available at the time from Cranbroock University. now time has move on and it appears everything is going towards a risk based outcome. it always depends who (and what area of CASA and Airlines the so called experts come from)is involved in that approach. the unions don't seem to grasp the idea of providing experts to drive their interests( needless to say they could learn a lot from AIPA).

The FAAA (domestic & international) certainly has not been at its best when it comes to any lobbying,attending meetings, driving issues in CASA and the repective airlines. one almost certainly can make a case of potential (total) incompetence when it comes to issues with CASA & Government relations.
The FAAA international side is to focused on promoting themselves lately. (if i get another email or 4 page glossy self promoting magazine:yuk:) The new nickname for the "donothingunion" upline says it all. I give them credit for some of the flexibility in the last year to save jobs but you can't run all your defences or excuses for not doing much or not paying attention to issues important to CC alone on that issue.:ugh:

1:50 The Economic Case
 

Cabin crew cost an airline less much less than $120,000 a year;
Cabin crew cost much less than $10,000 a month;
Cabin crew work 20 days a month;
Cabin crew cost the airline less than $500 a day;
Cabin crew fly 4 sectors a day;
Cabin crew cost the airline $125 a sector;
A narrow bodied jet carries 100 pax per leg when 70% full;
Cabin crew cost $1.25 per passenger per sector, maximum;

The cost of the NPRM is at least 1 safety person per aircraft
The cost of the NPRM is at least one floor level door unmanned
The cost to the passenger is 1/3 reduction in safety assistance
The benefit to the passenger IF the WHOLE saving is passed on?
$1.25 per sector;

Qantaslink to reduce CC numbers on B717
 

I heard a rumour today that Qantaslink are planning to trial a reduced number of CC on thier B717 services. Bloody hell, with four of them they are going flat out to feed and water the great unwashed on the Pilbara routes now so how will it be with less? Unless of course you cut out all cabin service completely.:yuk:

Qantaslink is certainly trying to reduce the crew, but they have to have casa approval so a succesful evacution of 3 crew procedure will have to be demonstrated to casa. And is in the pipeline. They can go with 3 crew in a capped sitiuation at moment of 108 pax.
The Faaa have just sent out details of situation and urge all cc to comment on the proposed changes. All cc should check out the rule changes.
This is open for comment until the 6th April 2010.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Documents open for comment

YPJT

Our protest as cabin crew must be from a safety and security perspective, not whether or not we can complete a service in time.

Cabin Crew Ratios-The Kuwait Experience
 

The following is an extract from the Kuwait CAA web site

"For example, the number of cabin crew members necessary on any particular flight is normally related to the number of passengers – such are the international safety standards. But Kuwait DGCA policy requires there be at least one cabin crew member per main exit door. So, in the unlikely event of an emergency there is always someone to guide and assist passengers to the safest and nearest exits."

It makes you wonder if CASA has forgotten that it is funded by the public and is not an arm of IATA the airline trade body.

Suggest to those that you care about that they make a submission to the NPRM asking CASA:
How do the proposed changes to the legislation provide an equivalent level of safety?
How has CASA demonstrated that they can ensure that 1:50 has an equivalent level of safety?

Suggest they tell CASA the retain the current 1:36 ratio and to cancel all the dispensations.

Minimum cabin crew ratio
 

From my reading, the proposal is for a minimum cabin crew ratio (not a maximum). This means that if the airline wants to have the service complete and cabin secured before landing, it will need to provide the necessary (extra) cabin crew to get the job done or to plan the service (if any) in advance. Cabin crew can only do what they can do in the time made available to do the job. (Thats the law folks). If the trays are still out on descent keep the Captain informed. A fuel bill for a "go around" to the inflight department and well worded safety report will soon wake them up. (Yes this actually happened in a past life and it worked a treat). :ok:

Ha Ha Ha. Will have to give that a go on one of the 1hr 20 flts. Probably wont even have to give it a go it will probably happen anyway.

1:50
 

I have no dobt this is a safe ratio, i have worked it on the ground for too many years before electing to go back to freight.

It was 1:50 fitted seats.

If an Exit u/s a 157 seat aircraft may be reduced to 100 pax by the MEL, still 4 cabin crew reqired, Purser or Cabin Manager mandatory.

Any reference to service is null and void, 'Purser' can cancel on the grounds of flight safety. CC are there to operate as Crew.


To the person quoting Saudia, i think it was, I worked for a ME 'Large' Airline who could not cope, expansion above training! Minimum 'Legal Crew' + c10 Service crew, all in the sme uniform! GCAA governed. What is more dangerous?



Bored

This is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the requirements for all CAAs. For example, the MEL relief may or may not be available for a single-aisle aeroplanes as there are CAAs that only permit relief for twin-aisle aeroplanes, not single-aisle. As well, some CAAs specify that the "Purser or Cabin Manager" is a member of the minimum cabin crew required not an additional crew member -- so in your example, just to clarify, it would still be four.

It should also be noted that there are some CAAs that permit a ratio of 1:50 passengers, although the CASA proposal is based on the number of configured seats.

There really is no "international standard" to speak of as ICAO hasn't specified one. Chapter 12 of Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation relates to the requirements for Cabin Crew. Section 12.1 addresses the Standard for the assignment of emergency duties as follows:

Is CASA Competent to Make an Objective 1:50 Decision?
 

Any proposal is required to provide an equivalent level of safety for the public.

Following are some questions that CASA has not answered nor provided information to the public to make a more informed decision on the NPRM.

In the absence of such data is it worth gambling on CASA's integrity given its previous performance? How long ago was it necessary to hold the Lockhart River inquiry into CASA's ability to safeguard the public interest?

How has CASA demonstrated it posses the skills to determine an equivalent level of safety? It has not.

What processes does CASA use to determine an equivalent level of safety?

How has CASA determined the processes and proven them to be valid?

Within Australian operators what is the expertise of the individuals who have conducted the risk assessments and developed the safety cases to justify the approvals already granted to reduce the ratio from 1:36 to 1:50?

What is the experience level within management of Australian air operators who are conducting "risk assessments" and formulating the safety case?

The really competent cabin safety people argued successfully to retain the 1:36 in the 2000 Regulatory Review.
Most have since retired and their expertise not replaced.

What is the basis for these safety cases? Is it scientific and/or evidence based or subjective?
On the basis of the increased risk in the air since 9/11 and the need for both the rear doors to be manned in a ditching is the safety case presented really an economic case?

The CASA CEO that signs off on the 1:50 NPRM and the other world lowest standards is setting the Authority down the path of another inquiry.
Perhaps it can be held in conjunction with the inevitable "Norfolk Island" ditching inquiry.

have to agree
 

with your assessment 338C.
"The really competent cabin safety people argued successfully to retain the 1:36 in the 2000 Regulatory Review.
Most have since retired and their expertise not replaced."

The real reason i have been told is that the current FAAA does not see any value in lobbying/challenging CASA, the government or the airlines on this and other issues.
sad times indeed.:{

Casa Claims 1.50 Worlds Best Practice Cabin Crew To Passenger Ratio
 

CASA CLAIMS 1.50 WORLDS BEST PRACTICE CABIN CREW TO PASSENGER RATIO

Australia has 1.36 (actual worlds best practice) Canada 1.40 USA 1.50 and
Just a few UK examples from the web:;

REGIONAL;
British European
BAE146-300
110 Pax/4 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:28)
BAE146-200
100 Pax/3 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:33)
CRJ-200/Dash 8Q-300
50 Pax/2 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:25)
Dash 8Q-200
37 Pax/1 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:37)

SCHEDULED;
British Airways
A319-100
105-126 Pax/4 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:26/1:32)
A320-200
126-149 Pax/6 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:21/1:25)
B757-200
159-180 Pax/4-7 Cabin Crew
B767-300
213-252 Pax/11 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:19/1:23)

CHARTER;
Air 2000
A320-200
180 Pax/5 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:36)
A321-200
214 Pax/7 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:31)
B757-200
233 Pax/7 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:33)
B767-300
312 Pax/9 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:35)

LOW FARE;
EasyJet
B737-700/-300
149 Pax/3 Cabin Crew (Ratio 1:50)

QUESTION

Why do airlines put on more crew for service duties, but don't want to do the same for the safety of the passengers?

Those crew rations seem out of date by quote a few years- Flybe (british european) dont even operate any of those flights and I am sure BA also operate the A319 at LGW with 3 crew.

As for Air 2000 they dont even exist anymore.

They seem like pre 9/11 figures even.