SC No, in your case you should put the radiators on because it wouldn't make that much difference, apparently.

Blinds, how much difference?
 

SC:

Okay, so if 22deg is a comfortable target then, using your figures, the blinds will be 20% of the answer. :ok:

And there in lies the problem

Legally the company should carry-out or already have a risk assesement.
It is up to the safety comitee to agree or disageee with that. In the event of a disagreement they shoul be prepared to offer an alternative.


(though after 20 years of filling in risk assesements and beng a safety rep. I can't for the life of me find any risk in that activity)

In an attempt to answer Mr Safety Concerns.

A sealed aluminum tube without any insulation in the sun, blinds up or blinds down would make little difference.

However, a sealed alluminium tube with insulation makes a huge difference. For the sake of simplicity..imagine a thermos flask in the sun, the outside would get hot but this heat to a huge extent would not be transfered to the inside..ie inside stays cool. with me so far?

Now put windows into the thermos flask and the heat has a route into the thermos flask warming up the contents. putting a blind over the window creates a small area of insulation, the air between the blind and the glass acts as insulation..not as efficiently as double glazing or triple glazing ect..but it does work.
Now i have no doubt whatsoever that you knew this all along but decided to play dumb just to create an argument or hope someone may say something you could pick up on and crow with delight at their mistake. A pathetic and obvious ploy.

As for your scenario of nightime temperatures. if the stated temperature was the temperature inside the property then closing blinds/curtains whatever will not help..as it is insulating the property not allowing the hot air inside to escape. similar principle as a house i winter..close the curtains to reduce the amount of heat escaping.

Safety Concerns:
 

Amazingly, most of Southern Europe (and presumably the old inhabitants of desert areas like Dubai) learned eons ago, that in sunny climes pre-air conditioning, you keep an interior "comfortable" by opening windows and blinds at night, and closing the windows and blinds during the day. I believe that trad arabic designs actually have little or no window openings on the sunny side, the openings being confined to shady courtyards.

Also, traditional architecture in these places tends to be painted white (a bit like most aircraft fuselages) to reflect rather than absorp the heat of the sun. Your flashy modern edifice will have a design forgetting these previously learned realities.

In the aircraft context substitute air-con on for night time, and air-con off whilst on the ground for day time.

Whilst it’s an amusing distraction I really don’t believe that you need to hold a degree in thermodynamics to know that pulling the shades down helps “a bit”. The precise unit measure to which “a bit” refers doesn’t really matter now does it.

What perhaps matters more is knowing that this is the sort of thing that’s occupying the minds at BASSA, it goes a way to explaining why my partners recorded delivery letters to them go unanswered and they continue to have her listed as a member despite her resigning same back in February.

How much else is going unaddressed whilst they ponder blinds V.2 I wonder?

It is not just a matter of temperature difference. The important issue is thermal energy entering the cabin.
Cabins are designed to minimise conduction - they have to cope with greater than 80K temperature differential. Windows allow thermal radiation.

Insolation is typically in excess of 1000w/m² on the earth's surface (assuming 30° sun elevation) - up to double that on a sloping aircraft window. With an area of 0.1m² per window that can be over 10kw for 50 windows.

10kw is not an insubstantial amount of extra energy to remove (cool).

Closing the blinds will not reflect all the heat but a high proportion.

And because the silliness must continue:

From Unite:

Quote:

---

British Airways bulletins

July 2009 update

Unite, together with the GMB, has been in talks with British Airways about its plans to cut costs across the airline. These talks are critical and will determine the future size and shape of Britain's national carrier - and that means Unite members' jobs.

Unite fully understands that the recession has hit aviation hard, and that BA is not immune from the economic downturn. But while we are striving to work constructively with the company on a way through these financially troubled times, we are clear that what must be agreed are short-term solutions to a short-term problem.

---

BA bulletins

SC makes valid observations as to the problem in Dubai and if the external temperature is in excess of 30C, but the problem that is trying to be addressed is the typical UK summer day at LHR. The problem is that an aircraft will come in from a longhaul flight and will be at a reasonable temperature. IF it remains on stand AND pre-conditioned air is put onto the aircraft immediately and remains on for the duration of the turnaround then the temp will rise a little, but it is essentially not a major issue. However, if the same aircraft is not immediately attached to the PCA which then stays on for the duration then the aircraft will start to heat up. It will heat up to well in excess of the ambient temp.

Closing the blinds, and turning off unnecessary electrical equipment such as the IFE etc will slow down this temperature rise. PCA and indeed the APU struggle on a summers day to cool an aircraft, but can cope at maintaining a temperature. However, BAA will not allow the APU to be run for protracted periods of time - even if it were allowed it would require an engineers prescence all the time it was running. The PCA often does not get attached or is not available on the stand in use or the aircraft will be moved to another stand prior to the next departure.

So while closing the blinds is not a cure for the sun heating up the aircraft, it can help to minimise the temperature rise, at no cost to the company. It produces no noise pollution and emits no CO2, it burns no expensive fuel. It is certainly not a panacea, but it is far better than doing nothing and then having to do more to reduce the temp in the cabin. If nothing else it makes the cabin temp less unpleasant for your colleagues when they board in preparation for the next service.

It is a perfectly reasonable order from an aircraft captain to his crew to close the blinds prior to disembarkation. It is perfectly reasonable for the company to take measures to reduce its costs by doing this. There is no risk in closing the blinds, if there were a risk then passengers would not be allowed to do this unsupervised. Refusal to do this could expose the crew to disciplinary action from the company, and over what? nothing of any import.

This has not been done as a deliberate act to provoke militants, although I do believe that BASSA are hypersensitive about everything at the moment and will, like a spurned partner, find it hard to look at anything the company do objectively.

I am with Safety Concerns here. Look at my handle. Every now and then I change those heat generating lighting sources. Guess what, they get very hot and there are lots of them in the cabin.

As to the shade and sloping windows, I am reasonably sure that you will struggle to see any sloping pax cabin windows and it does not go pitch black when you are in the shade. Now, in the morning and evening, you may get direct sunlight through the cabin windows, but other than that, you are in the shade of a big metal tube. You will see this in action, if you turn the cabin lighting off; the cabin takes on the appearance of shade. Maybe that is the solution, cabin lights off and blinds open, then everyone is happy?

As to whether it is antagonistic, I doubt it, unless you make it. There are fights and there is closing a dozen blinds each, no matter how pointless the exercise is.

BillS:

I just spoke with hubby and his explanation as to why SC was in obvious error sounded much like yours, though I understand little of what either of you said. Engineers have their own language it seems.

His closing comment on the subject was that Safety Concerns seemed to be looking at it from a "small difference that won't matter" approach when ANY reduction above around 4 to 5% represents a serious benefit. Extrapolate those benefits across a fleet and it is a logical action.

He also mentioned the obvious points that Juan Tugoh observed, i.e., simple manual action, no design change required, etc., etc..

I do believe that we will be hearing a few individuals trying to justify BASSA's message (which has nothing to do with costs savings and everything to do with BASSA wanting control of the aircraft) with some rather interesting posts.

As someone who's had the pleasure of sitting on the tarmac in Bahrain, Doha, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Muscat many a time while they offload and board transiting passengers, I must admit I don't have to ask the cabin crew to put the blind down for me if I'm sat on the sunny side of the aircraft. The sun is a lot hotter in this part of the world and it's an automatic response.

So if the airline requests it of their employees when aircraft are sat in the sun empty for a while, only the bitchiness and foot-stomping BASSA diehards would think it's anything that merits more than following a simple instruction given by your employer.

They really are making themselves look like a bunch of puerile brats.

I look forward to this one being reported by the Daily Mail and others as militant squealing. I also look forward to the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star trying to spin it as mine owners sending their employees down the shaft without a canary.

:yuk:

(Thinking of it, would there be anything wrong in the Captain asking passengers to do it as a courtesy before leaving the plane? I'd be perfectly happy doing it myself.

It isn't that difficult to someone with a modicum of education and common sense).

Totally agree, although they started many months ago with almost 100% success rate. In fact, it is about the only thing they have succeeded at.

Right back again. Lets get this sorted. I'll take Juan's comments because he is obviously an insider and apart from the odd bias here and there, his posts are normally factual.

The technical answer to that is really quite simple.

a)lf this is genuinely a safety related, passenger and crew comfort issue, you have no choice, packs on. Blinds will assist a little but in most cases you have not got a chance in hell of getting it down to your "safety level"

And if it is a safety issue, why should crew risk their safety when there are packs on board to do exactly that job?

So is it a safety issue or isn't it?
And I remind you, blinds up or down at night makes no difference whatsoever.

Now if it isn't a safety issue but a cost cutting exercise then Captains should be aware of that and they should also be aware that the temp saving is minimal, pax wouldn't notice the difference, but cost savings are to be had.

But then again we are talking about saving the fuel required to run the apu. That is tax free aviation fuel which actually costs a few pence a litre. In reality we are squabbling over approximately 100-300 quid to keep a 747 cool during a turnaround.

Peanuts in comparison to ticket sales and a cool cabin that an appreciative customer may well take into account when making their next booking.

SC Yes I'm with you on that one. I only ever switch the heating on when I've opened the windows a little bit in my house. I know I could keep them closed but I don't mind burning fossil fuel unnecessarily and the missus pays the heating bills. So why bother?

How would 4-5% seem as a reduction in pay?
Even using SC's figures, how would "approximately 100-300 quid" per sector seem if removed from CC payments?
Peanuts?

Surely it must be obvious even to BASSA that closing a few blinds each is not an issue - if they have any desire to help BA reduce costs.
So why do they feel a need to make it an issue?

If it assists a little, if it helps, and it reduces costs, then why not do it?

Look after the pennies, and the pounds will follow.

Welcome back Safety Concerns:ok:

I think the BASSA forum term is "bump" or I agree for those who have not been on it.

I came back from the States last month, where the policy on the airline was no APU air on the turn round. We were delayed due to weather (big banging clouds and no sun, so the dilemma of window blind for cooling vs view was a non issue), and it was very hot for all 400 of us. It is probably going to take a medical incident for this no air con policy to be reversed, or some gold card holders having a hissy fit.

Perhaps I should have said it is a health related issue. The health of our passengers specifically, but to a lesser extent that of our crews as well. As SC said, if required due to extreme heat, i.e. >30C for pax boarding, it will have to be APU on and Packs running at max, but if we can avoid the necessity of this, then surely we should do it.

It is ironic that a union should be attempting to block a measure that may make the working environment of it's members less unpleasant. A forward thinking union would be encouraging it's members to do this sort of thing - it costs nothing and makes their members lives less unpleasant. I think BASSA is being a little oversensitive here, though that is perhaps understandable, but it does not reflect well upon their reps that they cannot rise above the emotion and promote this as a good idea.

This is aimed at being a preventative measure and as I explained in a previous post is not really going to do a great deal in the Gulf in the middle of summer. It will make a difference on a sunny 25C day at LHR and a great deal of other places around the roue network. Acting to prevent the temperature rising and avoiding the requirement to unnecessarily cool an aircraft is just good sense. Making this an SOP will not make a difference on many turn rounds but on many others it will, sometimes at the end of a long sector it is easier to just do these things rather than make a judgement call which others may disagree with.

If as SC suggests this is only a matter of 100-300 quid to cool an aircraft, lets just look at that for a moment. Lets make a few conservative assumptions. BA have 50 747s some of which are in engineering lets say 40 are flying the line. Lets further assume that this is only an issue for 4 months of the year and that there is only 1 turn around per aircraft per day. So the cost involved is 40x120x100 at the lower end or x300 at the higher end. So that is between £480,000 and £1,440,000 per year to be saved - Just on the jumbo fleet alone. We now often shut down engines while taxying in which saves just a few minutes of fuel burn but it all adds up over many sectors and many aircraft. Now that is not a great deal of money in airline terms but it is a significant saving to be gained at no cost to anyone. It is also a carbon efficient way of doing business, which in modern times is important.

I can understand BASSA being prickly over any initiative from the company at the moment but this one does border on the silly.

Welcome back SC, I may not agree with everything you say but you bring a welcome contrary view and argue your point well.

I have been lurking on this thread for a while and have not commented as the BA strike is of little consquence to me.

Having read the latest 'window blindgate' development, I do wonder if some posters are being a little harsh, although the BASSA message does not really read very well in style.

1) If employees allow management to add extra tasks to the day, minutes can sometimes add up into hours over the working week - to impose this on an ad hoc basis without some form of consultation does not seem fair to me - if it is good practice, it should be codified formally

2) Can an aircraft captain instruct cabin crew to perform a task that is not in their industrial agreement, when the aircraft is at the gate and the pax have got off?

Sadly, in the unpleasant environment of an industrial dispute sensible cooperation is not going to be as easy to find as otherwise.

So whilst BASSA may have made some questionable moves in the past, I do have some sympathy for this message, although the safety angle is pretty pathetic.

I see this as being somewhat different from the 'hot towel' issue, as that was a formal BA initiative.