Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TC May Ease F/a Per Pax Requirements In Canada  
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 56
Posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1823 times:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031016.r-airline-staff16/BNStory/Business/

Transport Canada may ease flight attendant requirements, from the current 1 to 40 passengers, to 1 to 50 seats, according to the article. Now this may save money in some respects, but it will also have an effect as the the actual minimum flight attendants on each aircraft. Of course, CUPE and other unions are mad, but c'est la vie.

In the U.S. and Europe they have the 1 to 50 seat rule, so I don't think safety will be jeapardized that much. Any thoughts?


"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
2 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1795 times:

So does that mean you will not be serving in the sky's anytime soon?? I was looking forward to Flight Attnedant Gomes serving me a meal and some drinks!!

But on a serious note, does that mean for example on a 100 seat aircraft there will only have to be two serving the flight, example Ac's 732's but as we all know the last revenue flight for the Mainline was yesterday the 15th of October. Would an airline only restrict the number of passengers or seats to 100 to take advantage of this??

What is the cost of a F/A? I know the make like $25 per hour in some cases, but as we all know that the airlines pays a lot more for that employee.. so technically they could save a few bucks?

Grant



Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineLymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

Hmmm, while whittling a 732 down to 100 seats is possible, there is much lost potential revenue. That's destroying 12 seats worth of passengers to save one flight attendant. BUT the same principle works out well in an RJ - take away one seat and there is NO need for and FA!


buhh bye
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fresno Up 12% More Pax In May Vs National Pax Drop posted Wed Jul 5 2006 21:39:54 by FATFlyer
Is Bigger More Efficient In Terms Of Fuel Per Pax? posted Sun Oct 16 2005 17:11:01 by Dougloid
US Airlines May Be Soon Allowed To Fly In Canada posted Wed Mar 2 2005 04:57:15 by STARAC17
TTI May Walk Away From Investing In Air Canada posted Thu Mar 18 2004 00:28:29 by CanadaEH
`Made In Canada' Plan May Solve Signature Woes posted Wed Dec 12 2001 15:00:54 by Rootsboy
Disgruntled PAX Disrobes In MNL posted Mon Feb 12 2007 07:16:45 by Brenintw
B720 Operating In Canada posted Tue Feb 6 2007 23:32:52 by CV580Freak
#1 Airport For Customer Satisfaction In Canada posted Sun Feb 4 2007 05:33:45 by Flyboyseven
How Many 737-200s Left In Canada? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 02:01:05 by WestJetYQQ
Transit Regulations In Canada posted Wed Jan 3 2007 16:06:09 by RicardoFG