Jump to content

Air Canada Gets The Flight Attendant Ratio Adjustment It Sought


dagger

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There's a bit of misunderstanding going around about the 1 to 40 vs 1 to 50. The 1 to 40 was per passenger, the 1 in 50 is per actual seat.

So, on a 767 in a 211 config, in the old days, the minimum was 6. If there was only 5 FAs, the max passengers would be 200. Under the new rules, the minimum is 5. So, with 200 passengers, the minimum number of flight attendants is the same. That represents a load factor of 95% and we all know that we're operating generally below that. Yes... sometimes we have 211 passengers.. that's an extra 2 passengers per flight attendant... 5%, not 20%. If it is that close getting everyone out and flames were licking at heels, despite many flight attendants' dedication, I would suggest that the "do not put yourself in danger" rule would kick in for at least one and some of the last few passengers would be on their own anyway. Not a dis... just reality.

As a matter of fact, if there is only 150 passengers on a 767, the new rules mean that there are more flight attendants required.

The other thing that must be considered is that AC often uses more flight attendants than the minimum, just because of service levels. I'm thinking that he rule change would primarily be used in those situations where there was a shortage for some reason... not always the fault of the company... somebody doesn't show up for work... gets sick on a layover... weather... connections...

On the 767, we had 6 flight attendants even when the load was less than 200 and only 5 were required. I can count on one hand the times when we had less than 6. Yeah, the company can now plan 5, but service would suffer. Just the lost sales from BOB or booze would more than offset the savings from missing a flight attendant.

On the 787, there is 251 seats... the minimum number of flight attendants under the new rules is 6. Under the old rules, the max number of passengers was 240 with 6, so you can have 11 more passengers... less than a 5% increase per flight attendant.

On the EMJ, with 80 passengers, there is no difference. With 88 passengers, if the company only books 2 flight attendants, each flight attendant gets 4 more... a 10% increase.

I didn't work them all out, but these are some examples. I actually thought it would make a bigger difference when I picked the EMJ.

And this is all based on 100% load factor. At an 85% load factor, I would guess that the number of flight attendants would be almost the same on virtually every aircraft.

Not anti-safety or anti-flight attendant. Just saying that this is a waste of flight attendant union dues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a bit of misunderstanding going around about the 1 to 40 vs 1 to 50. The 1 to 40 was per passenger, the 1 in 50 is per actual seat.

Okay, but if it is 1 FA to 50 seats, and there are passengers in all 50 seats, how many FAs will there be?

You know as well as I do that if there's a loophole, someone will eventually find a way to exploit it, and this one's big enough to drive a truck through. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of those tests while at the manufacturer, are done with no old people, no kids, no obese and no mobility restrained people.

Have a look at the A380 evacuation testing using half the doors. Everyone is out in under a minute and a half. Again.. these sort of evacuations are dependant on many factors but they never try to recreate the equivalent population samble you would find on a A321 full of snowbirds coming back from Florida in April.... Too many wheelchairs to move...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in the CARs and we don't get paid extra to do it, at least at AC and AC rouge.

CAR 700.17

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-700.17

When it comes to voluntarily extending your duty day, everyone has their own reasons, maybe plans on the layover, wanting to get home for your kid's birthday party, or even straight pilot pay (which I'm pretty sure usually trumps flight attendant time and a half. ;) )

I agree though, it certainly appears highly manipulative the way the clause is applied with the flight attendants, but maybe the wording states that they're not entitled to the overtime pay unless they give notice that they won't extend? Maybe someone with knowledge of the contract could clarify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has reasons, but in the FA contract there is a clear monetary incentive whereas in the pilot contract there is not. That doesn't look like a union who has safety as their primary concern, but rather money. Which is fine, and has served you quite well over time. Pilots have spent bargaining time and effort- and forgone money, done the regulator's job for them, in effect- in the name of safety. Whether that has been a smart decision over time is up for debate. Perhaps ACPA will abandon their efforts on that front someday and put the regulator back in the drivers seat where they belong? I wonder how that would be perceived inside and outside the union?

How would you feel in the back if you knew that your pilots were making their fatigue self-assessment even partly on the basis that they would make time and a half or double time (for the entire pairing) if they continued? Not so great, I'd guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but if it is 1 FA to 50 seats, and there are passengers in all 50 seats, how many FAs will there be?

You know as well as I do that if there's a loophole, someone will eventually find a way to exploit it, and this one's big enough to drive a truck through. ;)

I gotta disagree, Jen. I don't see a loophole. Unless I'm missing something, it's pretty cut and dried. I don't think there is any allowance for blocked off seats or anything.

It's really straight math on every aircraft.

On the 321 with 174 passengers, the old rules required 5 flight attendants... under the new rules, it will require 4, but it's only an extra 3.5 passengers per FA over the "40 rule"... less than 10%. At an 92% load factor (160 pax), the old rules only required 4. So no change.

On the 320, with 146 pax... the old rules required 4. The new rules require 3. That one is a 20% increase. But it's the only one that is that much. But that is also at a 100% load factor. At an 82% load factor (120 pax) (almost our "record high"), both rules require 3.

Let's face it, 20% of a really small number... the risk of a situation requiring an evacuation within the absolute minimum time... is a really, really small number. Without a doubt, even walking down a set of stairs for the average person has a higher chance of death or injury.

Trying to convince Joe Public that he is at higher risk while traveling in a mode in which he perceives virtually no risk (and he's right) is not going to get a lot of legs. If flight attendants were needed to evacuate every 10th flight and their presence was the reason why everyone always got out, you might get more public support.

Assuming that this eventually gets extended to wide bodies (just noticed that it only applies to narrow bodies for now):

The A330 holds 265 people. At a full load in the old days, you needed 7 FAs with an absolute minimum of 4 even with only 100 people on. Now you need 6 with an absolute minimum of 6. At an 90% load factor in the old days (240), you needed 6. Now you need 6. 200 pax... old 5, now 6.

On the 777-300 with 349 people, you needed 9 with an absolute minimum of 6. Now you need an absolute minimum of 7. With a load of 280 (80% load factor) you need 7 in both cases. With 240 passengers you used to need only 6, now you need 7.

On long hauls, the company is going to have more than the minimum for service and in case someone gets sick on a layover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has reasons, but in the FA contract there is a clear monetary incentive whereas in the pilot contract there is not. That doesn't look like a union who has safety as their primary concern, but rather money. Which is fine, and has served you quite well over time. Pilots have spent bargaining time and effort- and forgone money, done the regulator's job for them, in effect- in the name of safety. Whether that has been a smart decision over time is up for debate. Perhaps ACPA will abandon their efforts on that front someday and put the regulator back in the drivers seat where they belong? I wonder how that would be perceived inside and outside the union?

How would you feel in the back if you knew that your pilots were making their fatigue self-assessment even partly on the basis that they would make time and a half or double time (for the entire pairing) if they continued? Not so great, I'd guess.

I see your point, and I would hope that no mature professional adult would extend beyond their own fatigue level for financial incentive, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, that seems to be what you're assuming about the flight attendant group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta disagree, Jen. I don't see a loophole. Unless I'm missing something, it's pretty cut and dried. I don't think there is any allowance for blocked off seats or anything.

It's really straight math on every aircraft.

On the 321 with 174 passengers, the old rules required 5 flight attendants... under the new rules, it will require 4, but it's only an extra 3.5 passengers per FA over the "40 rule"... less than 10%. At an 92% load factor (160 pax), the old rules only required 4. So no change.

On the 320, with 146 pax... the old rules required 4. The new rules require 3. That one is a 20% increase. But it's the only one that is that much. But that is also at a 100% load factor. At an 82% load factor (120 pax) (almost our "record high"), both rules require 3.

Let's face it, 20% of a really small number... the risk of a situation requiring an evacuation within the absolute minimum time... is a really, really small number. Without a doubt, even walking down a set of stairs for the average person has a higher chance of death or injury.

Trying to convince Joe Public that he is at higher risk while traveling in a mode in which he perceives virtually no risk (and he's right) is not going to get a lot of legs. If flight attendants were needed to evacuate every 10th flight and their presence was the reason why everyone always got out, you might get more public support.

Assuming that this eventually gets extended to wide bodies (just noticed that it only applies to narrow bodies for now):

The A330 holds 265 people. At a full load in the old days, you needed 7 FAs with an absolute minimum of 4 even with only 100 people on. Now you need 6 with an absolute minimum of 6. At an 90% load factor in the old days (240), you needed 6. Now you need 6. 200 pax... old 5, now 6.

On the 777-300 with 349 people, you needed 9 with an absolute minimum of 6. Now you need an absolute minimum of 7. With a load of 280 (80% load factor) you need 7 in both cases. With 240 passengers you used to need only 6, now you need 7.

On long hauls, the company is going to have more than the minimum for service and in case someone gets sick on a layover.

Dave, I get that there will be more effect on some flights than others, I just wanted some clarification on your statement about 1:40 passengers vs 1:50 seats. If those seats are all available to passengers, isn't that the same as 1:50 passengers?

If Transport wanted to extend your max duty day to 48 hours, but they said don't worry, it'll never effect you, would you believe them? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. But from a passenger perspective, as far as they are concerned this rule change will "never" affect them either. And they are pretty close to right.

Don't get me wrong, flight attendants are a significant piece of the safety net. A few have even had direct influence on pilots' survival following a crash. But from a percentage basis, to have to perform the most dire duties that you are trained for, about 8 out of 9 hunks of swiss cheese have to line up. And the result has to be just bad enough to be real bad, not bad enough to kill everybody, and not bad enough to disable the flight attendants. That's a lot of zeros. And for the difference between 40 pax and 50 seats to actually make any difference, there has to be a fire burning that isn't yet consuming the aircraft, wouldn't have consumed the aircraft in 90 seconds, but will consume the aircraft in 110 seconds of the aircraft coming to a stop and the hopefully-not-dead pilot announcing an evacuation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, I get that there will be more effect on some flights than others, I just wanted some clarification on your statement about 1:40 passengers vs 1:50 seats. If those seats are all available to passengers, isn't that the same as 1:50 passengers?

If Transport wanted to extend your max duty day to 48 hours, but they said don't worry, it'll never effect you, would you believe them? ;)

With 1:40 ypu can staff up or down based on the loads. With 1:50 you have to staff according to seats, not loads.

1:40 = 42/166 seats sold you only needed 2 FAs.

1:50 = 166 seats available you need 5 FAS regardless of whether there are 42 seats sold or 166.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, I get that there will be more effect on some flights than others, I just wanted some clarification on your statement about 1:40 passengers vs 1:50 seats. If those seats are all available to passengers, isn't that the same as 1:50 passengers?

If Transport wanted to extend your max duty day to 48 hours, but they said don't worry, it'll never effect you, would you believe them? ;)

With 1:40 ypu can staff up or down based on the loads. With 1:50 you have to staff according to seats, not loads.

1:40 = 42/166 seats sold you only needed 2 FAs.

1:50 = 166 seats available you need 5 FAS regardless of whether there are 42 seats sold or 166.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. But from a passenger perspective, as far as they are concerned this rule change will "never" affect them either. And they are pretty close to right.

Don't get me wrong, flight attendants are a significant piece of the safety net. A few have even had direct influence on pilots' survival following a crash. But from a percentage basis, to have to perform the most dire duties that you are trained for, about 8 out of 9 hunks of swiss cheese have to line up. And the result has to be just bad enough to be real bad, not bad enough to kill everybody, and not bad enough to disable the flight attendants. That's a lot of zeros. And for the difference between 40 pax and 50 seats to actually make any difference, there has to be a fire burning that isn't yet consuming the aircraft, wouldn't have consumed the aircraft in 90 seconds, but will consume the aircraft in 110 seconds of the aircraft coming to a stop and the hopefully-not-dead pilot announcing an evacuation.

Isn't that the whole point of safety procedures though, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1:50 seats is based on seats not pax. On the -700 (136 seats), the minimum f/a's required is 3, whereas under the old rule of 1:40 pax, the minimum is 4.

If you operate under the old system and carried 4 f/a's on the -700, then the company has a built in reserve, especially if the crew overnight at a station where a reserve is a day away. In this example, if you carried the minimum of 3 f/a's, and one called in sick, the flight is grounded till a third arrives vs the old days where the flight departs with 2 f/a's and capping at 120 pax.

Risk management. The risk of an f/a calling sick at an out station is quite low, statically speaking vs at a station where access to a reserve is easy. Funny how these things work out that way.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your suggestion then, would be to comply with the bare minimum requirements. Does that apply to all departments, or just the flight attendant group?

When pilots are trying to get duty day and augment regulations changed, are they just using the "safety" card to save jobs?

No, I do not believe the rule change takes the number to the " bare minimum"

Well I guess we know the story about duty day, I remember that from when I worked in SOC.

I may be a little cynical but some other cases of the "safety card"

Hydro Quebec change over to smart meters declared unsafe by the union

Door to door postal delivery reduction declared unsafe by the union

Augment, relief pilot, and crew rest supplement aside, I remember the noise when Flt Engineer/Second officer was removed from the flight deck. Once the new flight deck philosophy was understood, well here we are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the new rule makes planning more predictable. You know EXACTLY what crew compliment each aircraft needs even before anyone says how many seats are sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This rule only applies to narrow bodies, for now. CUPE has language protecting 5 FA's on the A321, and nothing will change on the A319. The Embraer will be a beatch to work with 2, and safety-wise, I question how we'll be able to be at the main door, overwing when fueling with pax on board, and covering the aft doors with only 2. Maybe fueling will have to wait?

As for extending our duty day, that's been there forever. The only difference now is that when we choose to go over our maximum SCHEDULED duty day (there is no max duty day), we are compensated. Before this change, we only got to keep the pairing and credits if we extended. If we choose not to, we lose the rest of the pairings and credit and so are penalized for doing so. We're not licensed and generally CARS doesn't cover us like it does pilots, so any duty day limitations are contractual. If it were unsafe for us to work past 13 hrs, it wouldn't be allowed. Period. Some days I have no problems going 12-15 hrs on duty. Some days, like yesterday, I struggle with 8 due to the time I was required to show up for work. As it stands, our duty day limitations are fairly arbitrary, it would seem.

To make it a hard rule that at 13:01 (For domestic flights. We can go to 18 hrs with onboard crew rest) you cannot work would require us to insist that the company not penalize us for doing so, and that ain't going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a press release, not a story researched by an independent media. The truth is much more logical.

So Jeff, are you saying that this is not true:

"The tests were conducted by Sunwing on November 22 and 27, 2013. In three attempts, the evacuation of the aircraft was not accomplished in the required time. Transport Canada's Inspector, Luc Mayne, then decided that a mandatory oral safety instruction during evacuations need not be given, and a fourth test was successful.

Josh Walsh, a health and safety representative for CUPE, was present during the tests. In his affidavit filed with the Federal Court, he said he shared his concerns with Inspector Mayne about the last minute modification to the standard procedure. Inspector Mayne simply replied: "I know what I'm doing"."

Not to be argumentative, but if this isn't true, then maybe you or CD can shed some light on what really happened?

There is a Federal Court order dated January 30th, 2014, that might provide some additional detail:

Docket T-2056-13: Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canada (Transport)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit to having some bias here, but having read that decision and the evidence that led to it, I must say I am disappointed at the accusations made by CUPE in their press release some 6 months later. I guess it's different when it's your own revenue that's threatened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. The could meet the criteria using their current procedures so the procedure was ammended and changed to allow for a successful evacuation of the aircraft thereby making the new procedure more efficient and SAFER.

ummmm where is the issue? Did anyone demonstrate their original procedure with 5 instead of 4 to see if they could do it in due time for comparison sake?

It seems to me that is doing this trial they discovered a fundamental flaw in the procedure and fixed it on the spot whereby making aviation SAFER. Goal achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"did anyone demonstrate their original procedure with 5 instead of 4 to see if they could do it in due time for comparison sake"

When the aircraft was originally certified they would have used five f/a's, would they not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes bu the same FAs during the same test? would it have made a difference. We don't know. We just take it for granted that the people who did the certification were correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although certification tests may attempt through limitations of one form or another to mimic an emergency evacuation, because the unknowns and aggravating factors are removed, the drill and its result becomes quite predictable for the most part, I would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you would find that 1 in 40 was never tested for timing. I can't find it in the requirements anywhere. Can't explain why, but it's not there. That will likely change now. And while we're at it, I think we should also have a standard for timing the completion of flight deck evacuation drills / checklists once the decision is made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...