Sign in to follow this  
st27

Flight Attendant Crew Complement

Recommended Posts

Does anybody have accurate up to date info on crew levels of different carriers? Most sites seem to be outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to get rid of your dupe post. Select it, then choose delete.  As far as crew levels for flight attendants, curious why your association would not be able to provide that information. Here is the goto to the ICAO mins. https://www.icao.int/safety/airnavigation/OPS/CabinSafety/Pages/Minimum-Cabin-Crew-Requirements.aspx

and here is what Transport Canada says:

16.1 Minimum Number of Flight Attendants

  • (1) In general, the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of an aircraft is one flight attendant for each unit of 50 passengers.
  • (2) However, no flight attendants are required if:
    • (a) the aeroplane has 13 to 19 passengers on board;
    • (b) the aeroplane is operated by a pilot-in-command and a second-in-command;
    • (c) the passenger cabin is readily accessible from the flight deck; and
    • (d) the flight crew members are able to exercise supervision over the passengers during flight by visual and aural means.
  • (3) As defined in subsection 101.01(1) of the CARs, a crew member, other than a flight crew member, who has been assigned duties to be performed in the interest of the passengers in a passenger carrying aircraft, is a flight attendant.
  • (4) Crew members, other than a flight crew member, assigned duties to be performed in the interest of the passengers are required to be trained and qualified in accordance with section 604.145 of the CARs.

FAA Link: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v03 tech admin/chapter 33/s_03_033_004.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Malcolm...it’s not the legal minimums, its the actual ratio of passengers to f/as that different companies crew the aircraft. Air Canada has reduced is inflt to 10 fas for 400 passengers on a 777. Management is maintaining this is an industry standard (or becoming)  and can obtain top 10 airline status with this complement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, st27 said:

Management is maintaining this is an industry standard

AC's international crew complements are at nowhere near industry standard.  I haven't looked recently, but both Cathay Pacific and Swiss used to show their crew complements on the aircraft info sections of their respective websites.  You might want to have a look there or on the sites of other airlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the standard not 1/50 from the regulator?

 

Completely missed Malcolms post above.  oops

Edited by boestar
because I missed Malcolms post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAthay = 12 / 13

BA= 11/13

EK = 12/13

AA = 11

DElta = 10

ELAl = 12/13/14

Numbers depend on class layout.  It would seem that 10 would be the bottom of the industry standard with 11 or 12 being the standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, boestar said:

CAthay = 12 / 13

BA= 11/13

EK = 12/13

AA = 11

DElta = 10

ELAl = 12/13/14

Numbers depend on class layout.  It would seem that 10 would be the bottom of the industry standard with 11 or 12 being the standard.

If Delta and El Al numbers are for the 777, they're for the 777-200 which AC crews with 8 FAs on a good day, and a max of 7 otherwise.  AC's international crewing levels are the sparsest in the industry as far as I'm aware.

Edited by FA@AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canadian regulatory minimum referred to by Malcolm above is incorrect - that information is for private operators.  The airline requirements are:

"Minimum Number of Flight Attendants

  • 705.201 (1) No air operator shall operate an aeroplane to carry passengers unless the air operator does so with the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck.

  • (2) Subject to subsections (4) to (7), the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of an aeroplane is determined in accordance with one of the following ratios that is selected by the air operator in respect of the model of that aeroplane:

Edited by CD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CD said:

The Canadian regulatory minimum referred to by Malcolm above is incorrect.  The requirements are:

"Minimum Number of Flight Attendants

  • 705.201 (1) No air operator shall operate an aeroplane to carry passengers unless the air operator does so with the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck.

  • (2) Subject to subsections (4) to (7), the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of an aeroplane is determined in accordance with one of the following ratios that is selected by the air operator in respect of the model of that aeroplane:

I quoted from the wrong section. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part7-standards-725-2173.htm

But shouldn't the association / union have the definitive requirements in their legal files and thus available to the membership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That link to the standards is also incorrect Malcolm... the regulatory requirements are in the link I provided above.

Flyertalk is also a good forum to get a sense of service levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CD said:

That link to the standards is also incorrect Malcolm... the regulatory requirements are in the link I provided above.

Flyertalk is also a good forum to get a sense of service levels.

Are you sure? One is the requirements and the other is the Standard, so both apply:D

Standard 725 - Airline Operations - Aeroplanes

Foreword

These Commercial Air Service Standards outline the requirements for complying with Subpart 705 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum flight attendant requirements are specified in the regulations and not the standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that st27 is aware of Canadian legal minimum crewing levels.  I understood him to be asking about actual crewing levels--most of which are in excess of legal minimums--at various carriers, 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

but shouldn't the FA union / association be able to provide that information. Surely they are up to date on what other carriers are doing in the same market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Malcolm said:

but shouldn't the FA union / association be able to provide that information. Surely they are up to date on what other carriers are doing in the same market?

I guess nobody should bother asking questions on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, moeman said:

I guess nobody should bother asking questions on here.

You are missing my point, one should be able to get accurate information from their association rather than relying on a forum who's information may not be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

You are missing my point, one should be able to get accurate information from their association rather than relying on a forum who's information may not be correct.

That's true of just about every question on here. There's almost always an "official" source somewhere that probably has the most accurate answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Trader said:

EK actually 14 crew standard and 16-18 for ULR on the 777.

... and a medium sized village on the A380 ULR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trader said:

EK actually 14 crew standard and 16-18 for ULR on the 777.

Just pulling from the numbers I found online.  None are official 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the senior people at AC were present 15 yrs ago during CCAA. I believe those events continue to inform a lot of the decision making and strategy. Just as those who went through the Great Depression continued to live extremely frugally decades after it was over, well into truly historic boom times, I believe the same will be true at AC while those decision makers remain. 

It makes for a conservative fiscal culture, which is admirable in many ways. But it has to be drag on the goal of entering the top 10 globally. Many of those airlines appear to spend like drunken sailors. Maybe that’s not a realistic, or even desirable goal? Hard to say but you can’t compete with elite luxury brands unless you’re willing to spend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be a balance.  Customer service is what gets you recognized.  Especially in todays world.  Reducing cabin staff to the point that customer service even begins to suffer is already going too far. Life is good when service is good and one member is able to "float and assist" as necessary.  Then you know you have it nailed.  unfortunately its the "float and assist" member that the bean counters think is a waste of money so they cut the position.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zan Vetter said:

Many of those airlines appear to spend like drunken sailors. Maybe that’s not a realistic, or even desirable goal? Hard to say but you can’t compete with elite luxury brands unless you’re willing to spend. 

AC spends very liberally, too, but not on anything that would actually improve the "experience" of the economy class customer such as industry standard staffing levels or better product.  There seems to be no limit to what they'll spend on adding useless managers (2 new levels of them at inflight), training sessions where we're taught to compliment passengers on their ties, and the list goes on.

Their fixation on the unrealistic--futile, even, given the way they're going about it--goal of becoming a top ten carrier puzzles me.  A top 10 rating from Skytrax wouldn't make any difference to the bottom line.  The U.S. carriers who don't attempt to offer the most elegant service in the sky are far more profitable than we are, and some of the top 10 carriers are perennial money losers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this