Jump to content

Air Canada Gets The Flight Attendant Ratio Adjustment It Sought


dagger

Recommended Posts

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/flash-mob-held-toronto-protect-air-passenger-safety-after-transport-canada-granted-exemption-1928314.htm

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwired - July 9, 2014) - Less than 24 hours after Transport Canada granted an exemption to Air Canada to operate with fewer flight attendants, close to a hundred people took a stand against federal government and airline industry plans to weaken passenger safety, holding a flash mob outside Transport Canada's Toronto offices on Yonge Street this afternoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Once you 'flip the switch' it is done. No seat blocking or pax restrictions for reduced crew occurrences.

Once AC advises that it intends to staff based on 1:50 seats it cannot on a regular or ad hoc basis revert to 1:40 pax even due to IRROPS or crew unavailability.

So min FA staffing will be 2 on the E190, 3 on the 319/320, and 4 on the 321 (4 on the 320 if they are operated at Rouge in a single class config). B737MAX8/9 will also be 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee...what a surprise!!! Was there really any doubt that TC would oppose this request. Especially since the union was excluded from the process.

It wouldn't have mattered. Others already had the exemption. Air Canada wasn't going to be treated differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe the others shouldn't have been granted the exception in the first place. Hopefully no one will have to find that out the hard way.

How long does it take for fuel to ignite after a crash anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe the others shouldn't have been granted the exception in the first place. Hopefully no one will have to find that out the hard way.

How long does it take for fuel to ignite after a crash anyway?

Why shouldn't it have been granted in the first place? What supporting evidence or facts do you have that might suggest it's any less safe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it one of Air Canada's unions that brought the 40:1 it in to place as part of their negotiations in the first place when Air Canada was a crown corp. Subsequently changed into law? Maybe I'm wrong... Usually am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it one of Air Canada's unions that brought the 40:1 it in to place as part of their negotiations in the first place when Air Canada was a crown corp. Subsequently changed into law? Maybe I'm wrong... Usually am.

It was a long time ago... don't suppose anyone here remembers the details. :ph34r: The regulatory proposal contains the following history:

"The original flight attendant ratio in Canada was developed following lengthy discussions at a May 14th, 1968 meeting. The original draft Air Navigation Order (ANO) Series VII, No. 2, proposed that cabin attendant requirements be based on “seats fitted”, namely one cabin attendant for up to 44 passenger seats fitted, two for 45-100 passenger seats fitted, and an additional cabin attendant for each unit of 50 passenger seats, or part thereof fitted above 100 passenger seats. This was identical to the United States requirements that were introduced in 1962. However, at the 1968 meeting, the airline industry made a counter proposal based upon the number of “passengers carried”, which was adopted in the ANO as one cabin attendant for every 40 passengers carried."

Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) - Flight Attendant Requirements (Subparts 604 & 705 of the CARs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What supporting evidence or facts do you have that might suggest it's any less safe?

Do you mean - beyond what we all learned in childhood about helping hands and two heads/hands being better than one, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you know... it's all just "risk management", and in my experience, safety always takes a back seat to economics when nothing has gone wrong for a while... Why stop at 1:50? Why not 1:75 then? 1:100? I'd personally prefer to see 1:25 (Rich would surely get his drink quicker then! ;)), but I don't write the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1:50 in the rest of the world. Canada is just catching up. And the rule still does not apply to WB aircraft.

'Full service' carriers such as AC mainline (with Executive and Premium Economy inventory) will have to exceed the TC staffing minimums just in order to meet service requirements.

This is hardly earth shattering news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Full service' carriers such as AC mainline (with Executive and Premium Economy inventory) will have to exceed the TC staffing minimums just in order to meet service requirements.

Why? AC staffs its wide bodied aircraft at TC minimums on most flights, and has told us that it intends to begin staffing at the new TC minimums on narrow bodied aircraft later this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that it can be difficult to set aside our emotions but unfortunately for the proponents of 1:40, there are many examples of successful evacuations directed by 1:50 ratio crews. This suggests that the procedures and technology currently in place are doing the job and it's pretty powerful evidence to support the change, especially when there's no evidence to suggest that the 1:50 ratio has resulted in injuries or fatalities in other cases. Most of us remember the days when FEs / SOs were engineered out of the flight deck. Our emotions said it was crazy, yet there were more human error accidents per 1000 flights in the three crew days than there are today when almost all flight decks have two pilots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1:50 was approved on the smaller aircraft in Canada over 12 years ago. Where was the big Yonge Street protest then? Oh, that's right - it did not affect CUPE represented FA's.

Wake up. This fight was lost a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1:50 was approved on the smaller aircraft in Canada over 12 years ago. Where was the big Yonge Street protest then? Oh, that's right - it did not affect CUPE represented FA's.

Actually, it did affect CUPE represented FAs on AC's CRJ fleet.

Where do you get your info? Much of what you post is inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a challenge to use previous evacuations as evidence one way or another. If you research most of the evacuations that have taken place, while the regulatory minimum was typically1:50 seats, the actual number of cabin crew carried often exceeded the minimum. This has been particularly true for larger aircraft.

AF358 has been a common example used by both sides in the debate. Minimum regulated crew on that aircraft was 6 cabin crew (based on 1:50 seats). However, there were actually 9 cabin crew and 1 supplemental cabin crew member for a total of 10 that day. So, was that successful evacuation proof that a 1:50 seat ratio is effective or proof that a 1:30 passenger ratio works?

CSRTG Aircraft Accident Database

With respect to how long the debate has been going on in Canada, it did start with an exemption for the CL65 in the mid-90's. CUPE recently republished a video made in 1995 when the exemptions for single flight attendant aeroplanes were being considered:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CD, is there a ratio limit on the number of wheelchair passengers per flight?

No, there is no ratio associated with wheelchair or special assistance passengers.

There are requirements under the CTA to ensure that all modes of transportation are accessible to all persons, particularly those with disabilities. This has the effect that airlines must remove barriers to mobility and not restrict the carriage of passengers with disabilities. There are also specific services that must be provided to these passengers, including while on board the aircraft, which are described in the Air Transportation Regulations.

The Canadian Aviation Regualtions do require that each air operator shall, for each type and model of aircraft that it operates, assign to each flight attendant the duties to be performed in an emergency, including an emergency evacuation, and shall show that the performance of those duties adequately meets any emergency that may be reasonably anticipated, including the possible incapacitation of another flight attendant.

So, it would appear that the company should consider the demographics of their passenger load, including passengers with disabilities, when establishing their emergency procedures and minimum crew requirements.

What was the FA ratio on the Air France flight that crashed at YYZ?

AF358 had 297 passengers and 10 cabin crew members. See also post #19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

CUPE files Federal Court challenge on Air Canada exemption from safety regulation

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwired - Aug. 8, 2014) - CUPE is challenging a Transport Canada decision to exempt Air Canada from maintaining the current ratio of one flight attendant for every 40 passenger seats on the airlines flights. CUPE, the union representing over 7,000 flight attendants at Air Canada, says the exemption is illegal, and has filed a legal challenge with the Federal Court to have the exemption quashed.

"This exemption is clearly not in the best safety and security interests of Canadian passengers and it must be overturned," said Michel Cournoyer, president of CUPE's Airline Division. "Fewer flight attendants means more risks for passengers. We're confident the courts will see this simple fact."

CUPE has asked the Federal Court for a judicial review of Transport Canada's decision to grant the exemption to Air Canada. CUPE will argue that the exemption is illegal because the criteria set out in the Aeronautics Act for granting such an exemption were ignored by Transport Canada.

"In any emergency situation, like an evacuation, fire, cabin decompression, a disruptive passenger or a terrorist attack, flight attendants are the first line of defence when things go wrong on an aircraft," said Cournoyer. "Reducing the number of flight attendants on board by increasing the ratio to one flight attendant for every 50 passenger seats, as Transport Canada intends, is a threat to passenger safety and security."

Since 1999, CUPE has successfully argued to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport and to Transport ministers that regulatory changes to the ratio of one flight attendant for every 40 passenger seats would reduce the current levels of safety and security and is not in the public interest. The exemption granted to Air Canada is an improper way of circumventing the regulatory process to avoid public scrutiny on this important safety issue.

"Bending to airline industry pressures to reduce the number of flight attendants for the sake of increasing profits is inexcusable," said Cournoyer. "The threat this exemption poses is undeniable, and when the Federal Court recognizes this, the Conservative government should do the right thing and keep one flight attendant for every 40 passenger seats as the standard ratio for all Canadian airlines."

CUPE represents more than 10,000 flight attendants employed by Air Canada, Air Transat, Calm Air, Canadian North, Canjet, Cathay Pacific, First Air and Sun Wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer

CUPE is claiming that they represent the FAs at Cathay Pacific and giving the impression that they represent all of them but of course their representation is only those based in YYZ and YVR. I wonder how many that is? Also of course The exemption allowing one flight attendant to 50 passenger seats has been in effect on Sunwing’s flights since December 1, 2013. CUPE is disputing that ratio.

Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union (CPAFAU) is the trade union of the cabin crew employed by Cathay Pacific Airways Limited or any airline company in which Cathay Pacific Airways Limited has 30% or more shareholding. The Union represents over 5,800* cabin crew in Cathay Pacific Airways.

CPAFAU is affiliated with Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Flight Attendants Association (KAFAA), core member of Hong Kong Flight Attendants Alliance (HKFAA), member of Hong Kong Confederation of Unions (HKCTU), and member of International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF).

http://www.cpafau.org.hk/eng/aboutfau/index.php?id=1

And just south of us:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.391

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CUPE files Federal Court challenge on Air Canada exemption from safety regulation

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwired - Aug. 8, 2014) - CUPE is challenging a Transport Canada decision to exempt Air Canada from maintaining the current ratio of one flight attendant for every 40 passenger seats on the airlines flights. CUPE, the union representing over 7,000 flight attendants at Air Canada, says the exemption is illegal, and has filed a legal challenge with the Federal Court to have the exemption quashed.

"This exemption is clearly not in the best safety and security interests of Canadian passengers and it must be overturned," said Michel Cournoyer, president of CUPE's Airline Division. "Fewer flight attendants means more risks for passengers. We're confident the courts will see this simple fact."

CUPE has asked the Federal Court for a judicial review of Transport Canada's decision to grant the exemption to Air Canada. CUPE will argue that the exemption is illegal because the criteria set out in the Aeronautics Act for granting such an exemption were ignored by Transport Canada.

"In any emergency situation, like an evacuation, fire, cabin decompression, a disruptive passenger or a terrorist attack, flight attendants are the first line of defence when things go wrong on an aircraft," said Cournoyer. "Reducing the number of flight attendants on board by increasing the ratio to one flight attendant for every 50 passenger seats, as Transport Canada intends, is a threat to passenger safety and security."

Since 1999, CUPE has successfully argued to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport and to Transport ministers that regulatory changes to the ratio of one flight attendant for every 40 passenger seats would reduce the current levels of safety and security and is not in the public interest. The exemption granted to Air Canada is an improper way of circumventing the regulatory process to avoid public scrutiny on this important safety issue.

"Bending to airline industry pressures to reduce the number of flight attendants for the sake of increasing profits is inexcusable," said Cournoyer. "The threat this exemption poses is undeniable, and when the Federal Court recognizes this, the Conservative government should do the right thing and keep one flight attendant for every 40 passenger seats as the standard ratio for all Canadian airlines."

CUPE represents more than 10,000 flight attendants employed by Air Canada, Air Transat, Calm Air, Canadian North, Canjet, Cathay Pacific, First Air and Sun Wing.

There we go, throwing snowballs in August.

Yes, I can see a court making a subjective judgment that contravenes the objective decision making process of a federal regulator, and more over, has made on be half of multiple airlines now.

Talk about blowing smoke in the eyes of its own members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...