YYZatcboy
Topic Author
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Wed May 08, 2013 3:01 am

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...o_use_fewer_flight_attendants.html

Westjet suceeded in convincing Transport Canada to allow them to use a 1:50 seat ration vs a 1:40 pax ratio, giving an estimated savings of 30 million dollars.

As usual the union and opposition party firmly put reason aside in favour of the political realities that allow them to continue to exist.

Thoughts?
DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
 
Bureaucromancer
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:17 am

RE: WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Wed May 08, 2013 3:33 am

What relevance does any union have to this? WJ is non-union, and to my understanding there has yet to be any serious push for it. Of course anyone associated with Air Canada is going to complain, but I see no reason they shouldn't be able to get this permission themselves. In fact the story linked claims that Transport Canada intends to make the change generally themselves.
 
CdnCactus
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:50 pm

RE: WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Wed May 08, 2013 3:37 am

Just wondering: have there ever been any studies done to see what's the optimal FA/pax ratio to facilitate the quickest emergency evacuation?
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Wed May 08, 2013 6:43 am

Believe AC has a limited waiver for the CRJ200s, which seat exactly 50.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Wed May 08, 2013 5:56 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
Believe AC has a limited waiver for the CRJ200s, which seat exactly 50.

They did when they operated the aircraft, but no longer.

But it usually went with two anyway, as per the ACPPA one had to be bilingual, and if the Purser wasn't BL, then an additional F/A had to be added. Equal playing field? Uh huh.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Wed May 08, 2013 7:38 pm

Quoting CdnCactus (Reply 2):
Just wondering: have there ever been any studies done to see what's the optimal FA/pax ratio to facilitate the quickest emergency evacuation?

Conventional wisdom is that more is better.

However, when the FAA and EASA allow a ratio of 1 FA to 50 seats, it’s hard to see why Transport Canada is only allowing 1 to 40. They have to have a good reason to limit it to 1 in 40 and anecdotal evidence by a union that more is better isn’t going to work trying to convince a regulator.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Wed May 08, 2013 9:04 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
Believe AC has a limited waiver for the CRJ200s, which seat exactly 50.

Dash 8-300 as well, also exactly 50 seaters... I remember Air Ontario's pre-exemption, the 2nd FA never seemed to have much to do except sit in the back fold away.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18846
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Wed May 08, 2013 10:48 pm

KL often has 3 flight attendants on 100-seat E-190s. Not sure if that's standard but there were 3 on a KL E-190 AMS-GVA last week. Always 2 on 80-seat Fokker 70s.

LX has 2 on 97-seat Avro RJ100s.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Thu May 09, 2013 1:37 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):
However, when the FAA and EASA allow a ratio of 1 FA to 50 seats, it’s hard to see why Transport Canada is only allowing 1 to 40. They have to have a good reason to limit it to 1 in 40 and anecdotal evidence by a union that more is better isn’t going to work trying to convince a regulator.

FAA requires 1 F/A per 50 seats, while Transport Canada requires 1 F/A per 40 passengers. So in many cases LESS F/A's are carried per Transport Canada requirements than FAA requirements. That is down to a minimum which varies per type and door arrangement.

For example, consider a B767-300, or A330-300 with 120 passengers as an equipment sub.

T/C requires 3 F/As on the B767 and 4 on the A330.
Using FAA rules, with our seating arrangement, it would be 5 F/As on the B767 and 6 on the A330!!!

As the events in Canada over the last few years have shown, unions have no pull with the government.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
YYZatcboy
Topic Author
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

RE: WS Gets 1:50 FA Exception From Transport Canada

Thu May 09, 2013 1:43 am

Agreed. It only makes sense if your flights are mostly full.
DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Starlionblue and 23 guests