Is there a maximum number of passengers per cabin crew

[Duralumin]

On a recent Easyjet flight I noticed there were 180 passengers but only three cabin crew. This seems rather a large ratio and is not even enough to have one cabin crew at each main door for evacuation. Is there any CAA or other guidance on the ratio or absolute number of cabin crew ?

[HeartyMeatballs]

One crew member per 50 seats (occupied or not) are usually required and what is always planned on. There's no requirement for one FA to guard one or more doors (no different to doors 2 or 3 on a 321).

It's a CAA approved procedure that under certain circumstances reduced cabin crew may be carried due to a crew member going sick 'down route' as it were down a maximum of 50 pax (not seats) per operating crew member. It is extremely rare and I've never seen it done 7 years.

Flights can not and are never planned to operate with less than minimum crew. However you cannot depart certain airports with reduced crew. What route was this on and at what time?

[easyflyer83]

The above procedure described by heartymeatballs would never happened with 180 passengers. The passenger figure would have been no more than 150.

[Herod]

easyflyer83. As mentioned in post 2, the requirement is (or was) 1 cabin crew per 50 seats, not per 50 pax. Years ago I departed base with a 98 seat aircraft and 2 cabin crew. We had a tech problem and returned. The replacement aircraft (same type, same number of pax) was a 110 seater. We had to delay while another cabin member was called in off standby.

[easyflyer83]

No, reduced crew on a 180 seat aircraft has to have the passenger figure restricted to 150.

[Rwy in Sight]

Since we come to Easyjet and their crew what is the point of having 156 seats on an A320 thus for just 6 more passengers a fourth crew member is required which is good for the crew numbers. The question is why the airline did not op for 150 pax and 3 crew?

[Duralumin]

EZY6158 from Geneva to Bristol on the 2nd Oct, I believe that was a 180 seat plane and if there was a spare seat I didn't see it. There is a chance there was a 4th crew member who stayed at the back but only three names where announced and only 3 ever walked forward of the midpoint.

FYI a nice interior with the new seats and the crew I saw where doing a very good job.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Rwy in Sight

Since we come to Easyjet and their crew what is the point of having 156 seats on an A320 thus for just 6 more passengers a fourth crew member is required which is good for the crew numbers. The question is why the airline did not op for 150 pax and 3 crew?

Presumably because the incremental revenue from the 6 extra seats on the A319 at EasyJet's average load factor more than pays for the cost of the 4th crew member.

[Phileas Fogg]

Since we come to Easyjet and their crew what is the point of having 156 seats on an A320 thus for just 6 more passengers a fourth crew member is required which is good for the crew numbers. The question is why the airline did not op for 150 pax and 3 crew?

It is correct, it is one cabin crew per 50 fitted seats, not one cabin crew per 50 bums on seats.

Alas the aircraft designers, bearing in mind that so many different operators have different seating configs, do not make airliners in multiples of 50 seats to optimize cabin crew utilisation.

Should any 156 seat operator choose to reduce staff costs then they have the option to remove 6 seats, on the other hand the beancounters have probably had their abaci out and reckoned that those 6 seats earn more revenue than the p1ss poor salary that additional cabin crew member may be paid.

[EcamSurprise]

EZY6158 from Geneva to Bristol on the 2nd Oct,

4 CC were on board.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Phileas Fogg

Should any 156 seat operator choose to reduce staff costs then they have the option to remove 6 seats, on the other hand the beancounters have probably had their abaci out and reckoned that those 6 seats earn more revenue than the p1ss poor salary that additional cabin crew member may be paid.

Wot I said.

Presumably the extra revenue also pays for whatever dosh Airbus were able to extract from EasyJet (and Germanwings, Air Berlin, etc) for the privilege of having the second overwing emergency exit that's required on the A319 if it has over 150 seats.

[Duralumin]

Thanks, my bad.

[Phileas Fogg]

And, in many an airline, it is the inflight sales that pay for the cabin crew salaries so, within reason, the more cabin crew then the more opportunity to flog drinks, sandwiches, duty frees and whatever other cr@p they may have on board any particular flight.

[Rwy in Sight]

So if my math is correct it seems Easy Jet gets quite often load factors higher than (151/156)96,8% regularly to make the carrying those six additional pax along with the revenues generated by them in flight.

Regarding the second emergency exit ISTR from a conversation with an Airbus person in the 2002 Farnborough that the part of the fuselage containing the two pairs of the emergency exits was transferred from an A320 making it somewhat cheap (if there is such a notion in aviation). And just a thought regarding that deal, why Easy jet did not ask for exclusivity on the 4 emergency exits on the A319 (even maybe by paying a premium) obliging the other low cost to go to the larger and maybe more expensive to fill A320? Kindly take it easy with that answer since I only have a very very general idea of revenue but I think the smaller aircraft may protect the yield better (all things being equal less seats higher fare).

Thanks in advance

[Phileas Fogg]

RIS,

I think this has headed for a thread drift already, correct, in theory, that more seats per aircraft then the cheaper operating costs per seat but then one needs to fill those seats to justify the additional operating costs.

Ryanair didn't make mega profits operating the likes of BAC1-11's and B737-200's but since they went for an entire fleet of stretched B737's it would seems they've gone from strength to strength.

Easyjet, from the outset, have gone for the mid sized B737/Airbus, it is their business model and it seems to work for them.

On the other hand there was Buzz operating BAe146's, they didn't last too long, BMIBaby operating, I recall BMI cast offs, even B737-500's ... The rest is history.

Down where I am there is Cebu Air (Cebu Pacific Air) operating, short/medium haul, a mixed fleet of A319's, A320's, some A321's on order, and ATR72's ... A mixed fleet and it works for them, dependent upon the often restrictive lengths of runways in these parts they can chop and change aircraft types to accommodate more or less passengers on any given day.

[ExXB]

WestJet has moved from just B737s to a mixed 737-600 (one of the very few operators of this variat) 700/800, Dash-8 and B767s.

Even Southwest, which 'invented' this LCC model has operated aircraft other than 737s, for example after their merger with AirTran.

[PAXboy]

This seems like natural progresion, as LCCs mature into the new mainline carriers. We also see (I think) that legacy carriers are simplifying their fleets?

I sit to be corrected.

[EcamSurprise]

Slowly but surely EJ is reducing their A319 fleet and increasing the A320 fleet.
All future deliveries are planned to be 320s (or bigger?)

[Phileas Fogg]

This seems like natural progresion, as LCCs mature into the new mainline carriers

So, as an example, if I want to fly from BHX to HKG am I likely to utilise such 'mainline' carriers as RYR or EZY or more likely to utilise one of those old fashioned carriers such as Swiss?

[Tall Bird]

I was on Air Transat YYZ to LGW on 1/9 when we were delayed for 25 minutes or so during which one CC left the flight. Her section colleague told us the MAN flight, leaving 45 minutes later, was two CC down and would not be able to take off unless there was a move over. Thus, two flights left each one CC short but still compliant apparently.