Jump Seats
 

Am I correct in assuming that in accordance with the latest missive from MH jump seats in and out of the mentioned ports are no longer available to anyone
Does this take effect immediately or from the amendment to part A?

That's how I read it too.
Just in time for Christmas!

It's going to be a major factor for commuters and everyone trying to get their kids to and from school,in the UK,

But it still isn't clear. is it effective immediately or from the date of the new amendment ? . What about J/S already approved . Are they to be revoked .?

It's aggravating when managers make these pronouncements without thinking them through or clarifying the situation

So assuming it's a State regulation now, why do we wait for CX (a private airline) to put the requirement in OMPA before compliance is necessary?

Not in OP's A.
No NTC.
Therefore no new procedure.
Simple really.

Whether it is not in OMPA or an NTC would be irrelevant if, repeating if, it is already State law. The tense used in the missive from the illustrious manager seemed to indicate that.

A Captain allowing jump seat passengers on these flights could be exposing himself to prosecution. CX needs to clarify this pronto. Oh wait...it's the weekend.

joblow
 

How is it a factor for commuters?

Because commuters who rely on ever-needed jump seats from these countries will no longer be allowed to occupy them, due to not being operating crew.

This will be quite a blow for a good number of commuters; though, in fairness, this isn't the fault of CX - but rules of the regulators of these countries.

McNugget
 

Ok, now I am really confused.
The rules of jump seats are quite clear regarding FAA rules. If the flight is full, you sit in the jumpseat. In our case, we are authorised to sit in the crew rest area (pending you are qualified). MH didn't mention that we cannot still use this seat - that's why I ask, how is this a factor?

Because that assumes the CN will allow you to use the OFCR.

Most do, particularly when half the crew are based (and the seats less likely to be occupied), but some do not offer it - as is their prerogative. There is no denying that this is a loss.

It'll also effect plenty of people trying to transport their wives/kids to and from HK, too, as they may not use the OFCR.

Why CX don't offer a "door qualifying" course for spouses is beyond me.

They have the facilities, the staff and (I'm sure) a massive list of possible participants, even if we had to pay. Just think beancounters - another "profit centre" for you! "Door qualified" spouses would allow use of the OFCR.

That would resolve this issue - if not completely, then substantially.

It would also go a long way to improving morale...

Ah, silly me. Why would they do anything half sensible or motivating?

Being such a caring employer, Cathay will only introduce anything if it has no cost to them ( don't forget an extra jump seat passenger increases the AUW of the aircraft and burns more fuel). When you cleverly buy very expensive fuel, you have to think of these things!
"Profit is our Number One priority"

Discussing Jumpseats on a public forum. Do you people have a single brain cell between you?

"New training Captains are wasting their time requesting a JS from me."

Along with newly promoted STCs and BTCs. You are NOT exempt just "because you are in the system already".

ohgodherewegoagain

I still cant believe we let them charge us for riding that piece of plywood all over the world. It should be free or just taxes not the price of a real seat.

Thats a reeeally good point! Lets not charge us for a JS. Hurrah - off to the Pub!

Oh hang on we're in reality. Let us know how you get on with the plan - you have one right?:ugh:

Silver Fox;

As I read it, it is NOT upon Ops A amendment, it is STATE law. Compliance required now. As GMO states....until Ops A amended he EXPECTS Commanders to uphold the sytem.
Basically means only those qualified to sit in OFCR can have j/s to/from these countries.
Just another kick in the.....

Do we have to read between the lines again?