SQ Pilots may have to rest in Economy Seats instead of Business Seats
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ Pilots may have to rest in Economy Seats instead of Business Seats
Reported in The Straits Times on June 26, 2002 : "It's not business as usual for SIA Pilots".
It was reported that SQ Pilots are unhappy of the management's decision to ask pilots to take rest breaks in economy class, if no other seats are available, instead of business class. This was stemmed due to SIA's installation of new Spacebeds for passengers.
Also, the Air Line Pilots Association Singapore (Alpa-S) called SIA's action "a violation of the collective agreement".
The Alpa-S informed its members that last week, its executive council "walked out of the meeting in protest" after presenting their statement to the SIA management.
BTW, B747 business class seats will be cut to 50 from 58.
Any comments from fellow Ppruners?
It was reported that SQ Pilots are unhappy of the management's decision to ask pilots to take rest breaks in economy class, if no other seats are available, instead of business class. This was stemmed due to SIA's installation of new Spacebeds for passengers.
Also, the Air Line Pilots Association Singapore (Alpa-S) called SIA's action "a violation of the collective agreement".
The Alpa-S informed its members that last week, its executive council "walked out of the meeting in protest" after presenting their statement to the SIA management.
BTW, B747 business class seats will be cut to 50 from 58.
Any comments from fellow Ppruners?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't look as though the SIA management cares much about the Collective "Agreement" does it?
This is just the thin end of the wedge, your J class seats to-day,
hotels etc. etc. tomorrow.
Hope you got all your pay cut back, backdated, they didn't just give it to the shareholders did they?
This is just the thin end of the wedge, your J class seats to-day,
hotels etc. etc. tomorrow.
Hope you got all your pay cut back, backdated, they didn't just give it to the shareholders did they?
Go Slow
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somehow the idea of rest and economy seats dont go together!!! Someone has to remember that crews ARENT allowed to leave the cockpit to rest unless the crew is augmented or doubled, in this case, rest is a necessity and not a luxury.
And somebody wants them to rest in ECONOMY..........
Mutt.
And somebody wants them to rest in ECONOMY..........
Mutt.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if rest is legal, they do still have the bunks on the B744, which this thread relates to as far as I can tell.
However, not everybody wants to spend six hours in a bunk, especially on a long day flight etc.
Marketing and Commercial depts. rule the roost in SIA, always have, always will and they don't like pilots much either!
However, not everybody wants to spend six hours in a bunk, especially on a long day flight etc.
Marketing and Commercial depts. rule the roost in SIA, always have, always will and they don't like pilots much either!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't complain about where you take your rest. Soon SQ is going to make you pay for your uniform and bring your own food when you go to work. Next, you have to share the hotel room with the chief steward.
Oh no, someone may read this and get a good idea. Save money lah.
Oh no, someone may read this and get a good idea. Save money lah.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Gladiator, please provide us with the source of your FACTUAL statement,
It is reliable isn't it?
Or are SQ going to have your @ss on this one??!
"Soon SQ is going to make you pay for your uniform and bring your own food when you go to work. Next, you have to share the hotel room with the chief steward"
Or are SQ going to have your @ss on this one??!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the entire news story as it appeared in The Straits Times (remember, if it is in the Straits Times, it MUST be true):
============================================================ ================================
JUNE 26, 2002
It's not business as usual for SIA pilots
They may have to rest in economy-class seats instead of business-class ones, due to the installation of new SpaceBeds
By Nicholas Fang
TRANSPORT REPORTER
SINGAPORE Airlines' (SIA's) new SpaceBed seats, which transform into beds to offer passengers a more restful flight, have sparked an angry dispute between the airline and its pilots.
The pilots are unhappy that pressure on cabin space caused by the installation of these seats has prompted management to ask them to take rest breaks in economy class, if no other seats are available, instead of business class.
They argue that this breaches an earlier deal with the pilots' association.
The Air Line Pilots Association Singapore (Alpa-S), which represents some 90 per cent of SIA's 1,600 pilots, said in a statement to its members last week that SIA's action was 'a violation of the collective agreement'.
It added that 'the company's unilateral action demonstrates a lack of good faith' and that it had 'no option but to withdraw all forms of goodwill and co-operation it has extended to the company'.
In the report to members, Alpa-S said that after presenting SIA's management with this statement at a meeting last week, its executive council 'walked out of the meeting in protest'.
The Straits Times understands that under a collective agreement dating back to the late 1980s, pilots on long-haul flights are entitled to one or two business-class seats to rest in during a flight.
The number of seats depends on whether there are augmented crews with two captains and one first officer, or double crews with two captains and two first officers. For the former, one seat would be blocked off, while in the latter, two seats would be allocated.
These seats are provided in addition to crew rest bunks which are available for horizontal rest.
SIA argues that the change is needed for commercial reasons.
In a statement obtained by The Straits Times, SIA senior vice-president for flight operations Raymund Ng told pilots late last month that the cut in business-class seat capacity would cause a 'strong commercial imperative to optimise revenue from the sale of, and increased passenger demand for, these enhanced seats'.
SIA's management had sought the support of Alpa-S in February for the additional pilot or pilots in augmented or double crews to be allocated economy-class seats, he said.
'We believe such an alternative arrangement falls within the provision of the pilots' collective agreement.
'Crew rest seats are intended for the pilots to relax or eat their meals outside the flight deck. Crew rest bunks are for horizontal rest. Hence, the lie-flat SpaceBed feature is not a requirement with respect to fulfilling in-flight rest for pilots,' he said in the statement.
When contacted yesterday, SIA said: 'We are having talks with Alpa-S about the utilisation of SpaceBeds and hope there will be a quick resolution to the issue.'
The new seats - to become standard features in SIA's business-class-equivalent Raffles Class cabins on long-haul flights - take up extra space, causing a reduction in the number of seats.
In a Boeing 747, business-class seats will be cut to 50 from 58.
SIA had suggested earlier that if pilots were allocated economy-class seats, these would have ample legroom and more than one seat would be blocked off for each pilot.
Pilots will also be given business-class seats depending on availability ahead of passenger and other staff upgrades. And if the business-class section is full after the aircraft doors are closed, unoccupied first-class seats would then become available for use by the pilots.
Copyright @ 2002 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
============================================================ ================================
One thing is for sure, don't expect any semblance of democracy even from the pilot's association.
Many will remember how at the association meetings regarding the last pay rise, votes were called by asking for a show of hands. This meant that anyone who had a shadow of doubt about the motion would be identified if he did not put up his hand. In other words, a good proportion of those who put their hands up to "vote" yes to a motion were actually cowed into doing so.
Same thing happened again during the meetings on the "voluntary" contribution to the fund to defend the SQ006 pilots. Voting by show of hands as to whether to proceed with this "contribution". It was extortion, nothing less.
I can predict the same routine yet again. Make threats about a "go slow", but when it comes to the vote, all talk and no show. And then proclaim that "it is the wish of the membership" as shown from the "votes".
Bully tactics from management and bully tactics from the association. What a scam.
============================================================ ================================
JUNE 26, 2002
It's not business as usual for SIA pilots
They may have to rest in economy-class seats instead of business-class ones, due to the installation of new SpaceBeds
By Nicholas Fang
TRANSPORT REPORTER
SINGAPORE Airlines' (SIA's) new SpaceBed seats, which transform into beds to offer passengers a more restful flight, have sparked an angry dispute between the airline and its pilots.
The pilots are unhappy that pressure on cabin space caused by the installation of these seats has prompted management to ask them to take rest breaks in economy class, if no other seats are available, instead of business class.
They argue that this breaches an earlier deal with the pilots' association.
The Air Line Pilots Association Singapore (Alpa-S), which represents some 90 per cent of SIA's 1,600 pilots, said in a statement to its members last week that SIA's action was 'a violation of the collective agreement'.
It added that 'the company's unilateral action demonstrates a lack of good faith' and that it had 'no option but to withdraw all forms of goodwill and co-operation it has extended to the company'.
In the report to members, Alpa-S said that after presenting SIA's management with this statement at a meeting last week, its executive council 'walked out of the meeting in protest'.
The Straits Times understands that under a collective agreement dating back to the late 1980s, pilots on long-haul flights are entitled to one or two business-class seats to rest in during a flight.
The number of seats depends on whether there are augmented crews with two captains and one first officer, or double crews with two captains and two first officers. For the former, one seat would be blocked off, while in the latter, two seats would be allocated.
These seats are provided in addition to crew rest bunks which are available for horizontal rest.
SIA argues that the change is needed for commercial reasons.
In a statement obtained by The Straits Times, SIA senior vice-president for flight operations Raymund Ng told pilots late last month that the cut in business-class seat capacity would cause a 'strong commercial imperative to optimise revenue from the sale of, and increased passenger demand for, these enhanced seats'.
SIA's management had sought the support of Alpa-S in February for the additional pilot or pilots in augmented or double crews to be allocated economy-class seats, he said.
'We believe such an alternative arrangement falls within the provision of the pilots' collective agreement.
'Crew rest seats are intended for the pilots to relax or eat their meals outside the flight deck. Crew rest bunks are for horizontal rest. Hence, the lie-flat SpaceBed feature is not a requirement with respect to fulfilling in-flight rest for pilots,' he said in the statement.
When contacted yesterday, SIA said: 'We are having talks with Alpa-S about the utilisation of SpaceBeds and hope there will be a quick resolution to the issue.'
The new seats - to become standard features in SIA's business-class-equivalent Raffles Class cabins on long-haul flights - take up extra space, causing a reduction in the number of seats.
In a Boeing 747, business-class seats will be cut to 50 from 58.
SIA had suggested earlier that if pilots were allocated economy-class seats, these would have ample legroom and more than one seat would be blocked off for each pilot.
Pilots will also be given business-class seats depending on availability ahead of passenger and other staff upgrades. And if the business-class section is full after the aircraft doors are closed, unoccupied first-class seats would then become available for use by the pilots.
Copyright @ 2002 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
============================================================ ================================
One thing is for sure, don't expect any semblance of democracy even from the pilot's association.
Many will remember how at the association meetings regarding the last pay rise, votes were called by asking for a show of hands. This meant that anyone who had a shadow of doubt about the motion would be identified if he did not put up his hand. In other words, a good proportion of those who put their hands up to "vote" yes to a motion were actually cowed into doing so.
Same thing happened again during the meetings on the "voluntary" contribution to the fund to defend the SQ006 pilots. Voting by show of hands as to whether to proceed with this "contribution". It was extortion, nothing less.
I can predict the same routine yet again. Make threats about a "go slow", but when it comes to the vote, all talk and no show. And then proclaim that "it is the wish of the membership" as shown from the "votes".
Bully tactics from management and bully tactics from the association. What a scam.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Here and There
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a 744 driver (not for SIA) I ask myself, what is wrong using the bunks, why additional TWO seats in the cabin ?? Maybe one should be enough.
I understand, that this arrangement is a part of a long-standing agreement and that this should not be unilaterally broken by management...fine...understand the principals.. no objections here.
However, I've personally hardly used a seat in the rear cabin, except for meals for a few minutes. Timing of meals can be arranged easily with the other crew-members, so that other seat could be used to generate probably decent revenue.
I would NOT however, go to the economy class........for many reasons.....one of them being that I'm not interested to explain the once-a-year-flying-on-holliday-public, how the airplane is able to fly by itself, while I'm eating.......
Cheers
I understand, that this arrangement is a part of a long-standing agreement and that this should not be unilaterally broken by management...fine...understand the principals.. no objections here.
However, I've personally hardly used a seat in the rear cabin, except for meals for a few minutes. Timing of meals can be arranged easily with the other crew-members, so that other seat could be used to generate probably decent revenue.
I would NOT however, go to the economy class........for many reasons.....one of them being that I'm not interested to explain the once-a-year-flying-on-holliday-public, how the airplane is able to fly by itself, while I'm eating.......
Cheers
Last edited by Avius; 5th Jul 2002 at 03:55.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avius:
>>As a 744 driver (not for SIA) I ask myself, what is wrong using the bunks, why additional TWO seats in the cabin ?? Maybe one should be enough.
Perhaps the Straits Times article does not state clearly the cabin seating arrangements. Let me present it more clearly.
The existing (since day one when more than one set of crew was needed) deal is:
a. with a regular set of crew (one captain, one first officer) - no cabin seats needed
b. with a 3-pilot crew (defined as one captain and 2 F/Os) - no cabin seats needed
c. with an augmented crew (defined as 2 captains and 1 F/O) - 1 cabin seat needed
d. with a double crew (defined as 2 captains and 2 F/Os) - 2 cabin seats needed.
The reasoning for not having a cabin seat for a 3-pilot crew situation was never made known to us in general. It implies that captains deserve a cabin seat while F/Os do not. You may read this as pure and simple contempt towards the contribution of the F/O and his physiological needs (which ought to be no diffrent from that of the captain).
Now I hope that you can see that we do not always need 2 seats in the cabin.
Not stated in the Straits Times report are other instructions to us:
We may not sit in any vacant first class or business class or economy seat when the seat next to it is occupied, unless that seat is already blocked off as a crew rest seat. So, while management may claim that we can choose other vacant seats in business or first class, if someone is seated next to this vacant seat, then we may not sit there.
>>However, I've personally hardly used a seat in the rear cabin, except for meals for a few minutes. Timing of meals can be arranged easily with the other crew-members, so that other seat could be used to generate probably decent revenue.
That is your choice. We are also entitled to ours, to use the 2 seats as and when we like. But if management tries to weasel out of a deal, then we don't even have that choice.
Having 2 business class seats next to each other for our use when we have a double crew is the least they can do for us. We usually eat, in the cabin, when the rest of the passengers are eating, to minimise inconvenience to the cabin crew and also because the meals are usually served at logical times. Only one observer seat in the cockpit has a table, if you eat in the other observer seat then the meal tray is on your lap. Not exactly the most comfortable way to eat. So, it is more practical to eat in the cabin, together with a meal partner and try to enjoy your rest period rather than eat alone if there were only 1 seat as you suggest.
Other times we may need the cabin seat to read, to watch a movie, to listen to music, whatever (the timing of the rest period is not always convenient for immediate horizontal rest). It cannot be an all or nothing rest arrangement (ie if you don't want to use the bunk that we have so graciously provided then you do not deserve to rest) as management seems to think. There is nothing wrong in using the bunk, as you ask yourself. But can you say that every time it has your turn to rest, that you were always ready to sleep at once? Have there not been times when you preferred to do something else (like read, eat, stare out the windows)? The reality is that we are not robots or zoo animals running according to a schedule determined by management. However, they think so.
>>I would NOT however, go to the economy class........for many reasons.....one of them being that I'm not interested to explain the once-a-year-flying-on-holliday-public, how the airplane is able to fly by itself, while I'm eating.......
Thank you for sharing our stand on this point.
Happy landings.....
>>As a 744 driver (not for SIA) I ask myself, what is wrong using the bunks, why additional TWO seats in the cabin ?? Maybe one should be enough.
Perhaps the Straits Times article does not state clearly the cabin seating arrangements. Let me present it more clearly.
The existing (since day one when more than one set of crew was needed) deal is:
a. with a regular set of crew (one captain, one first officer) - no cabin seats needed
b. with a 3-pilot crew (defined as one captain and 2 F/Os) - no cabin seats needed
c. with an augmented crew (defined as 2 captains and 1 F/O) - 1 cabin seat needed
d. with a double crew (defined as 2 captains and 2 F/Os) - 2 cabin seats needed.
The reasoning for not having a cabin seat for a 3-pilot crew situation was never made known to us in general. It implies that captains deserve a cabin seat while F/Os do not. You may read this as pure and simple contempt towards the contribution of the F/O and his physiological needs (which ought to be no diffrent from that of the captain).
Now I hope that you can see that we do not always need 2 seats in the cabin.
Not stated in the Straits Times report are other instructions to us:
We may not sit in any vacant first class or business class or economy seat when the seat next to it is occupied, unless that seat is already blocked off as a crew rest seat. So, while management may claim that we can choose other vacant seats in business or first class, if someone is seated next to this vacant seat, then we may not sit there.
>>However, I've personally hardly used a seat in the rear cabin, except for meals for a few minutes. Timing of meals can be arranged easily with the other crew-members, so that other seat could be used to generate probably decent revenue.
That is your choice. We are also entitled to ours, to use the 2 seats as and when we like. But if management tries to weasel out of a deal, then we don't even have that choice.
Having 2 business class seats next to each other for our use when we have a double crew is the least they can do for us. We usually eat, in the cabin, when the rest of the passengers are eating, to minimise inconvenience to the cabin crew and also because the meals are usually served at logical times. Only one observer seat in the cockpit has a table, if you eat in the other observer seat then the meal tray is on your lap. Not exactly the most comfortable way to eat. So, it is more practical to eat in the cabin, together with a meal partner and try to enjoy your rest period rather than eat alone if there were only 1 seat as you suggest.
Other times we may need the cabin seat to read, to watch a movie, to listen to music, whatever (the timing of the rest period is not always convenient for immediate horizontal rest). It cannot be an all or nothing rest arrangement (ie if you don't want to use the bunk that we have so graciously provided then you do not deserve to rest) as management seems to think. There is nothing wrong in using the bunk, as you ask yourself. But can you say that every time it has your turn to rest, that you were always ready to sleep at once? Have there not been times when you preferred to do something else (like read, eat, stare out the windows)? The reality is that we are not robots or zoo animals running according to a schedule determined by management. However, they think so.
>>I would NOT however, go to the economy class........for many reasons.....one of them being that I'm not interested to explain the once-a-year-flying-on-holliday-public, how the airplane is able to fly by itself, while I'm eating.......
Thank you for sharing our stand on this point.
Happy landings.....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lithgow - The reason for not providing a cabin seat for a three pilot crew has got nothing at all to do with your deemed worth as a F/O compared to a captain so I suggest you get that very silly chip off your shoulder immediately.
The reason is that on a three pilot, (1 capt, 2 F/O), crew your are all expected to be on the flight deck ALL THE TIME except when using the toilets, you are not even allowed to use the bunks on a three pilot crew, much less go back and sit in the cabin!
The idea of a three pilot crew is to extend the FDP beyond that which is maximum for two crew, nothing else.
In practice the two F/O's usually get to split the rest but that is a non SOP, private arrangement and doesnt apply to each and every crew either.
I totally agree with all the other points in your post.
The reason is that on a three pilot, (1 capt, 2 F/O), crew your are all expected to be on the flight deck ALL THE TIME except when using the toilets, you are not even allowed to use the bunks on a three pilot crew, much less go back and sit in the cabin!
The idea of a three pilot crew is to extend the FDP beyond that which is maximum for two crew, nothing else.
In practice the two F/O's usually get to split the rest but that is a non SOP, private arrangement and doesnt apply to each and every crew either.
I totally agree with all the other points in your post.
Last edited by BlueEagle; 5th Jul 2002 at 06:44.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueEagle:
>>Lithgow - The reason for not providing a cabin seat for a three pilot crew has got nothing at all to do with your deemed worth as a F/O compared to a captain so I suggest you get that very silly chip off your shoulder immediately.
You therefore assume that I am an F/O and that I have "very silly chip" on my shoulder. Tsk, tsk, jumping to conclusions? May I not sympathise with my colleagues who are F/O's? Wrong conclusion, BlueEagle. I shan't say that you must therefore be a captain to have an opposite reaction. Mine is not an "F/O vs Captain" stance, it is "crew vs management".
>>The reason is that on a three pilot, (1 capt, 2 F/O), crew your are all expected to be on the flight deck ALL THE TIME except when using the toilets, you are not even allowed to use the bunks on a three pilot crew, much less go back and sit in the cabin!
The idea of a three pilot crew is to extend the FDP beyond that which is maximum for two crew, nothing else.
In practice the two F/O's usually get to split the rest but that is a non SOP, private arrangement and doesnt apply to each and every crew either.
May I reproduce verbatim the following sections from the Flight Administration Manual:
MEALS AND REFRESHMENTS
[jump to:]
Consumption Of Meals
Crew should normally have their meals in the flight deck. However, on Augmented or Double Crew sectors where passenger seats are blocked off for such crew, crew may have their meals in these seats during their rest period.
On flights where the crew complement is 3 or more pilots and no seats are blocked off for crew in the passenger cabin, crew may have their meals in the passenger cabin provided the adjacent seats are unoccupied.
When having their meals in the passenger cabin, crew should always be mindful of the need to preserve the appropriate ambience and quiet in the cabin.
If the instructions state that: "On flights where the crew complement is 3 or more pilots and no seats are blocked off for crew in the passenger cabin, crew may have their meals in the passenger cabin provided the adjacent seats are unoccupied", then it must mean that not all 3 pilots must be in the cockpit "ALL THE TIME" (as you put it) except when in the toilet or when doing wing inspections etc.
Also:
COCKPIT SEATING
[jump to:]
Operating Crew
For takeoff and landing, the required operating crew members of the minimum crew complement shall be in their assigned seats. In all other phases of flight, both pilots' seats must be manned by the operating crew except when:-
.1 a crew member's absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the flight; or
.2 a crew member's absence is in connection with physiological needs.
When a flight is scheduled with a 3-pilot, augmented or double crew, all crew members should normally be in the cockpit for takeoff and landing to provide additional monitoring. The Commander may allow the crew additional to the minimum crew complement to occupy the seat(s) blocked for crew rest or, where such seat(s) are not provided for, unoccupied seat(s) in the cabin.
Again, the instructions do not state that in a 3-pilot operation all 3 must be in the cockpit "ALL THE TIME". The 3 pilots must be in the cockpit for takeoff and landing, but not necessarily so for other phases of flight. It even states that the extra pilots may sit in the cabin with the Commander's discretion.
So, having seen the official position, if in a 3-pilot operation, the third pilot (an F/O) may sit in the cabin (when not required), just as in an augmented operation where the third pilot (a Captain) may sit in the cabin, are you still in a position to say why the F/O does not deserve a seat blocked off?
You are otherwise correct that the official stand is that we are not to use the bunks on a 3-pilot crew.
>>I totally agree with all the other points in your post.
Thank you.
I hope I did not offend you by stating the facts. I did not mean to do so. Please feel free to produce facts to correct me.
Happy landings.
>>Lithgow - The reason for not providing a cabin seat for a three pilot crew has got nothing at all to do with your deemed worth as a F/O compared to a captain so I suggest you get that very silly chip off your shoulder immediately.
You therefore assume that I am an F/O and that I have "very silly chip" on my shoulder. Tsk, tsk, jumping to conclusions? May I not sympathise with my colleagues who are F/O's? Wrong conclusion, BlueEagle. I shan't say that you must therefore be a captain to have an opposite reaction. Mine is not an "F/O vs Captain" stance, it is "crew vs management".
>>The reason is that on a three pilot, (1 capt, 2 F/O), crew your are all expected to be on the flight deck ALL THE TIME except when using the toilets, you are not even allowed to use the bunks on a three pilot crew, much less go back and sit in the cabin!
The idea of a three pilot crew is to extend the FDP beyond that which is maximum for two crew, nothing else.
In practice the two F/O's usually get to split the rest but that is a non SOP, private arrangement and doesnt apply to each and every crew either.
May I reproduce verbatim the following sections from the Flight Administration Manual:
MEALS AND REFRESHMENTS
[jump to:]
Consumption Of Meals
Crew should normally have their meals in the flight deck. However, on Augmented or Double Crew sectors where passenger seats are blocked off for such crew, crew may have their meals in these seats during their rest period.
On flights where the crew complement is 3 or more pilots and no seats are blocked off for crew in the passenger cabin, crew may have their meals in the passenger cabin provided the adjacent seats are unoccupied.
When having their meals in the passenger cabin, crew should always be mindful of the need to preserve the appropriate ambience and quiet in the cabin.
If the instructions state that: "On flights where the crew complement is 3 or more pilots and no seats are blocked off for crew in the passenger cabin, crew may have their meals in the passenger cabin provided the adjacent seats are unoccupied", then it must mean that not all 3 pilots must be in the cockpit "ALL THE TIME" (as you put it) except when in the toilet or when doing wing inspections etc.
Also:
COCKPIT SEATING
[jump to:]
Operating Crew
For takeoff and landing, the required operating crew members of the minimum crew complement shall be in their assigned seats. In all other phases of flight, both pilots' seats must be manned by the operating crew except when:-
.1 a crew member's absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the flight; or
.2 a crew member's absence is in connection with physiological needs.
When a flight is scheduled with a 3-pilot, augmented or double crew, all crew members should normally be in the cockpit for takeoff and landing to provide additional monitoring. The Commander may allow the crew additional to the minimum crew complement to occupy the seat(s) blocked for crew rest or, where such seat(s) are not provided for, unoccupied seat(s) in the cabin.
Again, the instructions do not state that in a 3-pilot operation all 3 must be in the cockpit "ALL THE TIME". The 3 pilots must be in the cockpit for takeoff and landing, but not necessarily so for other phases of flight. It even states that the extra pilots may sit in the cabin with the Commander's discretion.
So, having seen the official position, if in a 3-pilot operation, the third pilot (an F/O) may sit in the cabin (when not required), just as in an augmented operation where the third pilot (a Captain) may sit in the cabin, are you still in a position to say why the F/O does not deserve a seat blocked off?
You are otherwise correct that the official stand is that we are not to use the bunks on a 3-pilot crew.
>>I totally agree with all the other points in your post.
Thank you.
I hope I did not offend you by stating the facts. I did not mean to do so. Please feel free to produce facts to correct me.
Happy landings.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough Lithgow, I concede, haven't seen the ops manual for over a year but I do remember a very intense interview with a certain DCP where it was spelled out to me exactly as I put it to you in my post above, no concession for the 3rd pilot if a seat was not occupied etc. Was the text you quoted me in force, say, two years ago or has it been amended since, say, November 2000?
Happy flying to you, for me, Happy Retirement!
Happy flying to you, for me, Happy Retirement!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avius:
Thank you. Sometimes The Straits Times tries too hard to pretend it is not merely mouthing instructions and directions from on high.
Cheers.
BlueEagle:
Greetings again. The FAM instructions re MEALS AND REFRESHMENTS / Consumption Of Meals was dated 15 June 2000, and re COCKPIT SEATING / Operating Crew was also dated 15 June 2000.
So yes, it was just about 2 years ago that this version of the FAM was released. Of course, how promptly we received that particular amendment is another matter.
Well, regarding that DCP's interpretation of the rules, even the DFO (MdV) had been known to get it wrong, to say nothing of the fact that he was frequently the one who had craftily stretched the letter of the Collective Agreement to its limits.
I cannot recall the FAM ever saying that the third pilot in a 1 Capt & 2 F/O crew was required to stay in the cockpit at all times. If anything, amendments to the FAM usually make the rules more restrictive rather than more relaxed, particularly so for situations foreseen but not spelt out. If they ever wished to "unofficially" allow a situation, the FAM would leave it unclear rather than expressly permit it, so as to give them room to interpret the rules to their advantage when the need arose. Or sometimes they would just do it backwards and issue an amendment so that the FAM now more clearly matched their interpretation.
So, in short, that DCP probably got it wrong.
Now the new management has gone further by simply not bothering with cunning interpretations, even as the FAM (their own document) itself specifies the seat numbers to be blocked off. Why even try to be creative? They simply declared that we will now sit in economy.
Enjoy your retirement! I envy you.
Thank you. Sometimes The Straits Times tries too hard to pretend it is not merely mouthing instructions and directions from on high.
Cheers.
BlueEagle:
Greetings again. The FAM instructions re MEALS AND REFRESHMENTS / Consumption Of Meals was dated 15 June 2000, and re COCKPIT SEATING / Operating Crew was also dated 15 June 2000.
So yes, it was just about 2 years ago that this version of the FAM was released. Of course, how promptly we received that particular amendment is another matter.
Well, regarding that DCP's interpretation of the rules, even the DFO (MdV) had been known to get it wrong, to say nothing of the fact that he was frequently the one who had craftily stretched the letter of the Collective Agreement to its limits.
I cannot recall the FAM ever saying that the third pilot in a 1 Capt & 2 F/O crew was required to stay in the cockpit at all times. If anything, amendments to the FAM usually make the rules more restrictive rather than more relaxed, particularly so for situations foreseen but not spelt out. If they ever wished to "unofficially" allow a situation, the FAM would leave it unclear rather than expressly permit it, so as to give them room to interpret the rules to their advantage when the need arose. Or sometimes they would just do it backwards and issue an amendment so that the FAM now more clearly matched their interpretation.
So, in short, that DCP probably got it wrong.
Now the new management has gone further by simply not bothering with cunning interpretations, even as the FAM (their own document) itself specifies the seat numbers to be blocked off. Why even try to be creative? They simply declared that we will now sit in economy.
Enjoy your retirement! I envy you.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Lithgow, I am really enjoying retirement!
The point I forgot to mention was that, since an F/O is no longer allowed to occupy the LHS, (in SIA), the Capt is more or less restricted to the flight deck throughout, other than trips to the toilet.
There are times when a law degree is needed to properly understand the intention of the ops. manual! (and even then the 4th floor would argue against you!).
The point I forgot to mention was that, since an F/O is no longer allowed to occupy the LHS, (in SIA), the Capt is more or less restricted to the flight deck throughout, other than trips to the toilet.
There are times when a law degree is needed to properly understand the intention of the ops. manual! (and even then the 4th floor would argue against you!).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueEagle
Gladiator will tell you that it takes more than a law degree to argue with the 4th Floor. It takes three things: guts; guts; and guts!
Cheers, btw are u really a moderator or just calling yourself one?
Gladiator will tell you that it takes more than a law degree to argue with the 4th Floor. It takes three things: guts; guts; and guts!
Cheers, btw are u really a moderator or just calling yourself one?