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
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2160 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2209 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?
Lymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2177 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!