DoorsToManual From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2008 times:
I am not sure whether some of you were aware that AMS runs a 'competition' in order to award the most efficient user of AMS (calculated by dividing passengers boarded per aircraft by turnaround time). EasyJet grabbed the award for the second time running; an extract from the staff website follows:
"Last week easyJet was recognised for the second time in a row as the most efficient airline at Amsterdam Schiphol. Efficiency is measured by dividing the actual number of passengers boarded (or volumes of cargo loaded) by the duration of turnarounds of aircraft. A Boeing 747 can handle 3 times as many passengers as a 737, but you need 4 times as much time to get all pax boarded it's less efficient use of a gate at the airport.
There were three nominees for The Efficient Airline Award: easyJet, a Turkish charter airline and BMI baby. It came as a suprise to know that our biggest low-cost competitor at Schiphol, Basiqair, wasn't nominated at all.
A Schiphol spokesman said: "Since apron stands are its most valuable assets, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol decided two years ago to introduce this efficiency award for airlines, with an aim to promote and secure efficient asset utilization.
Anne Marie van Hemert, regional airport manager for easyJet said: " I would have been pretty disappointed if we hadn't won the award. Quick turnaround times are one of the basics of low-cost airlines, and we still are the best in that at Schiphol. On top of that our ground handler has won the award for best handler at Schiphol (out of six handlers) based on performance, safety and quality. So we have a challenge ahead to keep this position at Schiphol."
I suppose the only problem I have with rapid turnarounds is the cabin crew's inability to properly clean the aircraft before the next flight; it's a shame when passengers board our aircraft and we still have food on the carpet..
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19188 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
Still, it's a nice and commendable achievement. Which you would, as an FA, prefer:less efficiency by staying on stand for 35 minutes by offering a cleaner cabin, or higher efficiency (by staying on stand for 25 minutes) and a slightly dirty cabin? It's a trade-off, a compromise. In some cases, you probably can sufficiently clean it, whereas in others you probably cannot. In most cases, however, you can probably get most mess up.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."