Well I guess this is one way to try and beat the staff shortage. I wonder if others will follow suit?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61370175

156 down to 150. surprised they didn’t do it years ago tbh, an extra crew member for just 6 extra passengers. One of the reasons it’s unpopular with LCCs as it’s just above the 150 seat threshold for 4 cabin crew.

There's a photo of the missing row on Twitter already:

https://twitter.com/SPD_travels/status/ ... 7100318723

BA are technically doing the same thing by limiting their Club Europe cabin to 8 rows instead of 12 and 14 on the A320/A320neos and A321neos respectively.

I’m surprised they’re physically taking it out and not just leaving it blocked.

Tweek the back of the seat on the last row to add 50% more recline and charge double for "comfort class"

ikolkyo wrote:

I’m surprised they’re physically taking it out and not just leaving it blocked.

The CAA regulation is based on physical seats on board not passengers on board so the seats must be removed.

I'm surprised they're physically removing six seats and not just using the middle seat blocker they have used in the past to make the A319s in to 150 seaters.

This was non standard configuration made for easyJet, it has two overwing exits to accomodate increase in passengers. Always felt strange that only 6 seats can pay for one flight attendant. Although it provided commonality with A320s.

GVZZZ wrote:

I'm surprised they're physically removing six seats and not just using the middle seat blocker they have used in the past to make the A319s in to 150 seaters.

Don't think that would have helped as the blocked middle seats are is still physically on the aircraft. If that would have been acceptable, then they could have installed blockers on all six seats in the last row, they didn't.

9252fly wrote:

GVZZZ wrote:

I'm surprised they're physically removing six seats and not just using the middle seat blocker they have used in the past to make the A319s in to 150 seaters.

Don't think that would have helped as the blocked middle seats are is still physically on the aircraft. If that would have been acceptable, then they could have installed blockers on all six seats in the last row, they didn't.

They have done this before, they blocked the B and E seats in rows 2, 3 and 4 and were allowed to operate them as 150 seaters.

GVZZZ wrote:

9252fly wrote:

GVZZZ wrote:

I'm surprised they're physically removing six seats and not just using the middle seat blocker they have used in the past to make the A319s in to 150 seaters.

Don't think that would have helped as the blocked middle seats are is still physically on the aircraft. If that would have been acceptable, then they could have installed blockers on all six seats in the last row, they didn't.

They have done this before, they blocked the B and E seats in rows 2, 3 and 4 and were allowed to operate them as 150 seaters.

Unsure if there’s particular verbiage in European regulations, but in the US, YX removed seatbelts on their E190s to get the aircraft to have 99 seats for scope compliance. If there’s no seatbelt, it can’t be considered an occupiable seat. It didn’t make crews happy, and in this case is also a good bit of dead weight to fly around with in a high fuel price environment.

I assume the will paper adjust the weight of these planes to reduce airport fees where possible.

It really does send a message of the airline having little ambition. Ryanair would fill their planes at whatever discount it takes to fill the plane.

Just thought about this. Perhaps they can massage their seat occupancy figures to make the statustics look a bit better.

IIRC AA did the same thing on its 738's before USAir bought them. They physical configuration was 16F144Y and they physically blocked (not removed) 10 seats or so by installing a "drink" table in the middle seat. After the purchase of AA was complete by US, Doug Parker called that move the "dumbest thing he had ever seen" and within a week all airplanes were back to 16F 144Y.

PhilipBass wrote:

I assume the will paper adjust the weight of these planes to reduce airport fees where possible.

It really does send a message of the airline having little ambition. Ryanair would fill their planes at whatever discount it takes to fill the plane.

Just thought about this. Perhaps they can massage their seat occupancy figures to make the statustics look a bit better.

It’s not about being unable to sell the seats. They don’t have enough staff and can’t get them. This way they can reduce the requirement to 3 crew instead of 4 helping them during this period.

When they ordered the 319s they thought they would get an alleviation to have 3 cc. I belive easy swiss was granted this but uk caa said no. However they found out extra 6 seats made more than enough profit in busy periods to justify the extra crew member. They also have done this before using seat blockers on middle seat . Surprised they don't do this again and charge more for it

PhilipBass wrote:

I assume the will paper adjust the weight of these planes to reduce airport fees where possible.

It really does send a message of the airline having little ambition. Ryanair would fill their planes at whatever discount it takes to fill the plane.

Just thought about this. Perhaps they can massage their seat occupancy figures to make the statustics look a bit better.

You don't seem to be actually understanding the reason/issue. It's not about the ability to fill seats so even mentioning Ryanair is foolish.

If it wasn't mismanagement then Ryanair would have the exact same problem with not being able to recruit/retain staff. When it isn't affecting your competitor then who is to blame. They could recruit anyone with an unrestricted right to live and work in the UK and which allows unrestricted global travel. That isn't a high hurdle if only they were willing to pay a living wage.

nickya340 wrote:

156 down to 150. surprised they didn’t do it years ago tbh, an extra crew member for just 6 extra passengers. One of the reasons it’s unpopular with LCCs as it’s just above the 150 seat threshold for 4 cabin crew.

This will result in faster retirement of the A319s. Although with only 87 remaining in the fleet (per wiki), I don't think this is as big of an impact as some make it out to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyJet#Fleet

I believe they ordered 192 of the A319s:
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... craft-1404

So having retired more than half (105 vs. 87), this just means the leasing companies will have a tough time finding homes for the A319s. It is my opinion the engines will go into a leasing pool and the airframes scrapped. I'm not aware of any airline, other than possibly Volotea, however they seem to be buying only A320CEOs used now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volotea#Fleet

In my opinion, Sharklets and engine PiPs reduced the variable cost per flight between the A319 and A320 too much to keep the A319 viable (for its weight). When staffing issues stop being a problem, I don't see the A319CEO recovering.

Lightsaber

PhilipBass wrote:

If it wasn't mismanagement then Ryanair would have the exact same problem with not being able to recruit/retain staff. When it isn't affecting your competitor then who is to blame. They could recruit anyone with an unrestricted right to live and work in the UK and which allows unrestricted global travel. That isn't a high hurdle if only they were willing to pay a living wage.

Is FR being an EU carrier, and U2 not, a factor here.

Not sure how many FR crew are UK nationals.

when you cut this deep then of course you'll have staffing problems:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/13873911 ... us-latest/

bennett123 wrote:

PhilipBass wrote:

If it wasn't mismanagement then Ryanair would have the exact same problem with not being able to recruit/retain staff. When it isn't affecting your competitor then who is to blame. They could recruit anyone with an unrestricted right to live and work in the UK and which allows unrestricted global travel. That isn't a high hurdle if only they were willing to pay a living wage.

Is FR being an EU carrier, and U2 not, a factor here.

Not sure how many FR crew are UK nationals.

they've got 8 airframes on UK AoC as far as I know. COVID doesn't respect borders either.
Easyjet have E.U. bases and AoC(austria I think)

The point I'm making is that the reasons proferred for failure to deliver service is not credible.

Delta did this as well on the 800’s a few years ago to get them to 150.

seansasLCY wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I’m surprised they’re physically taking it out and not just leaving it blocked.

The CAA regulation is based on physical seats on board not passengers on board so the seats must be removed.

Interesting note that in Canada, there’s two provisions- either 1 FA per 40 passengers or 1 to 50 installed seats.

So a 50 seat DH8-300 can operate with a single FA, based on the installed seat count. Meanwhile it’s possible for say a 737-400 with 156 installed seats to operate with as few as two Flight Attendants, provided the load is no more than 80 passengers in the cabin.

phllax wrote:

Delta did this as well on the 800’s a few years ago to get them to 150.

I don't recall that. I'm looking at DL-origin seat maps from 2005 and 2008 that actually had 150 physical seats.

It is notable that EasyJet puts staffing ahead of the extra revenue, but maybe six seats at ULCC fares (on avg) don't bring much.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

BA are technically doing the same thing by limiting their Club Europe cabin to 8 rows instead of 12 and 14 on the A320/A320neos and A321neos respectively.

BA A319s have either 143 or 144 seats so, they’re not technically doing anything of the sort. Of course, they do have the same crew shortage and recruitment issues as U2; their solution (other than cancelling flights) is to wet lease aircraft from I2 and AY.

Interesing they physically took the seats out.
I guess a bit of weight saving there, too.
It's a shame they didn't 'shuffle' the seats back to gain more legroom, but I guess once they have enough staff again it's a case if re-installing thd missing row and away you fly.

The A319 has a bit more range than a 320 due to it bring a bit lighter and having the same fuel volume. So perhaps these are also used on the longer sectors?

ReverseFlow wrote:

Interesing they physically took the seats out.
I guess a bit of weight saving there, too.
It's a shame they didn't 'shuffle' the seats back to gain more legroom, but I guess once they have enough staff again it's a case if re-installing thd missing row and away you fly.

The A319 has a bit more range than a 320 due to it bring a bit lighter and having the same fuel volume. So perhaps these are also used on the longer sectors?

Reshuffling the seats would look better; however, it would require a new LOPA, moving the overhead containers (lights and masks) and recertification of the cabin.

Didn’t JetBlue also do this early on with its A320s?

MIflyer12 wrote:

It is notable that EasyJet puts staffing ahead of the extra revenue, but maybe six seats at ULCC fares (on avg) don't bring much.

That extra revenue is worthless if you have to cancel/significantly delay flights due to staffing shortages.

I’m sure they ran the numbers and determined a more reliable operation would bring in greater revenue and profits than ensuring there are 6 extra seats to sell on the A319s.

f4f3a wrote:

They also have done this before using seat blockers on middle seat . Surprised they don't do this again and charge more for it

Perhaps a blocker/bridge table isn't available for the lightweight Recaro seats now used?

canyonblue17 wrote:

Didn’t JetBlue also do this early on with its A320s?

IIRC, the original B6 config had more than 150 seats but they suffered trans-con range issues. Call it improving range, pitch, or dropping the 4th FA, some seats came out. Over time A320s got PIP'd, and seats went back in.

MIflyer12 wrote:

phllax wrote:

Delta did this as well on the 800’s a few years ago to get them to 150.

I don't recall that. I'm looking at DL-origin seat maps from 2005 and 2008 that actually had 150 physical seats.

It was before 2005. They removed four 3 seat groups from the left aft portion of the Y cabin (12 seats) and added one two seater on the aft left side to get 150 seats. It was an odd setup as there was a large blank space on the left side of the airplane with the last two rows on the left respaced to 36 inch pitch.

There’s talk about it here for those interested.
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-air-lines-skymiles/754474-boeing-737-800-738-a-10.html

Polot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

It is notable that EasyJet puts staffing ahead of the extra revenue, but maybe six seats at ULCC fares (on avg) don't bring much.

That extra revenue is worthless if you have to cancel/significantly delay flights due to staffing shortages.

I’m sure they ran the numbers and determined a more reliable operation would bring in greater revenue and profits than ensuring there are 6 extra seats to sell on the A319s.

It's perverse. Can you imagine cancelling dozens of flights a day, month after month, because you couldn't staff ticket counters?

FA jobs do not require advanced education nor significant training - 10-day courses have been approved in the U.S. That lack of FAs should be accepted as a medium-term constraint on operations is ridiculous.

AirCal did this in 1982 following the PATCO air traffic controllers' action in the U.S, staving off bankruptcy, taking seats out to reduce the flight attendant staffing. 737-100 reduced from Y108 to Y100, 737-200 from Y119 to Y100 (3 > 2 F/A) and DC9-80 from Y160/162 to Y150 (4 > 3 F/A). (They also closed four stations and all of the City Ticket Offices.) Seats and overhead units were spaced out rather than just leaving gaps by simply removing a bank of seats. The resulting legroom, particularly on the 732 was amazing, and in most markets, the capacity reduction was not a big deal. One had to unbuckle one's seatbelt in order to reach a magazine in the seat back pocket; you needed to get up and take a couple of steps to reach a magazine in the exit row. 737-300s entered the fleet at Y140, later reduced to Y130 because it was taking too long to quick-turn those flights.

Eventually it was decided not to put the seats back in permanently. Marketing as 737 Executive Class, new seats were installed at 3x3, but convertible to 2x2 but folding up inside armrests and pulling a fold-down console table out of the center seat back. When loads were expected to be light, the cabins would be fully set up as 2x2 prior to boarding. (Never happened in some markets that did suffer from reduced capacity.) It was hugely popular. The DC9-80s got some extra leg room, but not the fancy seats. Post 1987 merger, AA kept the 737 configurations until the fleets were retired. (The OC D98s were already gone.)

I don't see EasyJet or any LCC/ULCC making the reductions permanent, and certainly not increasing leg room or putting in new comfort seats.

aamd11 wrote:

Interesting note that in Canada, there’s two provisions- either 1 FA per 40 passengers or 1 to 50 installed seats.

So a 50 seat DH8-300 can operate with a single FA, based on the installed seat count. Meanwhile it’s possible for say a 737-400 with 156 installed seats to operate with as few as two Flight Attendants, provided the load is no more than 80 passengers in the cabin.

Is this correct? Where I fly, the distinction was wide body vs. narrow body.

The narrow body fleet is operated on the 1 F/A per 50 installed seats rule where the wide bodies are operated using the 1 F/A per 40 passengers rule subject to a type minimum. So it lead to oddities like 120 passengers on an A321 required 4 F/As but 120 passengers on a 767-300 (when mainline carried passengers on 767s) required only 3 F/As.

Are there airlines in Canada operating 737-400/800/8s with only two F/As when loads permit?

Cons:
Loss of revenue from 6 passengers.
Cost of pysically removing 1 row/2 banks of seats.
Adjusting seat map in booking engine
less ancillary income

if an a319 for easyjet has 10 legs per day and there are 87 of them then they have reduced 1.9million annual passengers capacity from their fleet not that they'd have 100% occupancy or uptime so I'd knock that figure in half to just under 1m.
6x10x87x364=1900080


Pros:
One less Cabin Crew member - reduced cost
slightly lower fuel burn - reduced cost (6x 75kg passengers + one cabin crew and the weight of fuel not needed = 500 to 600kg)
paperbook lower weight - potentially reduced airport charges
one row with more leg room - potential additional revenue generating opportunity
better load factor statistics
less wear on tear on everything except the 3 remaining poor cabin crew.

PhilipBass wrote:

Cons:
Loss of revenue from 6 passengers.
Cost of pysically removing 1 row/2 banks of seats.
Adjusting seat map in booking engine
less ancillary income

if an a319 for easyjet has 10 legs per day and there are 87 of them then they have reduced 1.9million annual passengers capacity from their fleet not that they'd have 100% occupancy or uptime so I'd knock that figure in half to just under 1m.
6x10x87x364=1900080


Pros:
One less Cabin Crew member - reduced cost
slightly lower fuel burn - reduced cost (6x 75kg passengers + one cabin crew and the weight of fuel not needed = 500 to 600kg)
paperbook lower weight - potentially reduced airport charges
one row with more leg room - potential additional revenue generating opportunity
better load factor statistics
less wear on tear on everything except the 3 remaining poor cabin crew.

they are not spacing out the other rows so nobody gets more legroom

phllax wrote:

Delta did this as well on the 800’s a few years ago to get them to 150.

Found a seat guru link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20041204205042/http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Delta_Airlines/Delta_Airlines_Boeing_737-800_A.php

MIflyer12 wrote:

Polot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

It is notable that EasyJet puts staffing ahead of the extra revenue, but maybe six seats at ULCC fares (on avg) don't bring much.

That extra revenue is worthless if you have to cancel/significantly delay flights due to staffing shortages.

I’m sure they ran the numbers and determined a more reliable operation would bring in greater revenue and profits than ensuring there are 6 extra seats to sell on the A319s.

It's perverse. Can you imagine cancelling dozens of flights a day, month after month, because you couldn't staff ticket counters?

FA jobs do not require advanced education nor significant training - 10-day courses have been approved in the U.S. That lack of FAs should be accepted as a medium-term constraint on operations is ridiculous.

Where in the U.S are flight attendants working for the airlines off a 10 day course? Airline training is many weeks long. FAs go through significant training.

why don't EasyJet change all seats size and legging room expanded a few inches more? It looks stupid back row empty there.

Q

Q wrote:

why don't EasyJet change all seats size and legging room expanded a few inches more? It looks stupid back row empty there.

Q

Because it is thousands of hours of work to change the pitch of all the rows vs just removing one pair of triple seats through the doors at the back?

Does having those extra 6 seats in normal times really improve profit ?
Easyjet have the cost of the extra FA, pax lose 1 inch of legroom and you burn fuel to carry extra weight.
Easyjet get revenue only if they hit above 96% seats sold. Thus on many flights, those 6 seats produce no revenue at all

aamd11 wrote:

So a 50 seat DH8-300 can operate with a single FA, based on the installed seat count. Meanwhile it’s possible for say a 737-400 with 156 installed seats to operate with as few as two Flight Attendants, provided the load is no more than 80 passengers in the cabin.

I dont think this is accurate? I remember reading somewhere that the number of full size exit doors also plays a role in determining number of min crew required? Or is this alternate rule just for UK and Commonwealth countries?

For 732, 733, 734, 73G,738 and A319/A320, min crew is 3 with 150 inventory seats. For 737-900 and A321 < 230, min crew is 4. For A310 less than 240, min crew is 8?

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

IIRC AA did the same thing on its 738's before USAir bought them. They physical configuration was 16F144Y and they physically blocked (not removed) 10 seats or so by installing a "drink" table in the middle seat. After the purchase of AA was complete by US, Doug Parker called that move the "dumbest thing he had ever seen" and within a week all airplanes were back to 16F 144Y.

Anyone have pics of this? I don’t remember this at all but would love to see what it looked like…

77west wrote:

PhilipBass wrote:

Cons:
Loss of revenue from 6 passengers.
Cost of pysically removing 1 row/2 banks of seats.
Adjusting seat map in booking engine
less ancillary income

if an a319 for easyjet has 10 legs per day and there are 87 of them then they have reduced 1.9million annual passengers capacity from their fleet not that they'd have 100% occupancy or uptime so I'd knock that figure in half to just under 1m.
6x10x87x364=1900080


Pros:
One less Cabin Crew member - reduced cost
slightly lower fuel burn - reduced cost (6x 75kg passengers + one cabin crew and the weight of fuel not needed = 500 to 600kg)
paperbook lower weight - potentially reduced airport charges
one row with more leg room - potential additional revenue generating opportunity
better load factor statistics
less wear on tear on everything except the 3 remaining poor cabin crew.

they are not spacing out the other rows so nobody gets more legroom

I see the picture in the twitter link but surely they can slide that last row back to create 6 premium legroom seats, increasing revenue partially to compensate and turning a bad news story in to a good news story.

Wasn't the 156-seat A319 variant (with double overwing exits) developed and built at Easyjets request? Pretty sure they were the launch customer for this option, although other operators later chose it as well.

PhilipBass wrote:

Cons:
Loss of revenue from 6 passengers.
Cost of pysically removing 1 row/2 banks of seats.
Adjusting seat map in booking engine
less ancillary income

if an a319 for easyjet has 10 legs per day and there are 87 of them then they have reduced 1.9million annual passengers capacity from their fleet not that they'd have 100% occupancy or uptime so I'd knock that figure in half to just under 1m.
6x10x87x364=1900080


Pros:
One less Cabin Crew member - reduced cost
slightly lower fuel burn - reduced cost (6x 75kg passengers + one cabin crew and the weight of fuel not needed = 500 to 600kg)
paperbook lower weight - potentially reduced airport charges
one row with more leg room - potential additional revenue generating opportunity
better load factor statistics
less wear on tear on everything except the 3 remaining poor cabin crew.

I think 10 legs per day is a bit too much. From what I can recall they’d operate 6-8 legs a day maximum in peak times, so at 100% load would be 1.1M-1.5M fewer available seats based on all aircraft flying a full day 364 days of the year, which on any given day there was always at least 1-2 not flying and in winter there’d be even more not flying and some only operating 2 legs a day.

The 319’s would also operate a lot of domestic legs which would rarely be above 80% load, and even with longer flights I can imagine the number of seats filled in the 156 capacity exceeding 96% load (that would be 150 seats filled) was quite low.

I’d be very surprised if this change means they loose out on more than a few ten thousands sales most, work that out against the amount they will save on only operating with 3 crew, I can see this having very little effect on what they will loose out on profit wise.

I still don't get it or missed it between the lines, but why weren't they able to hard-block the seats like LH does for almost a decade now in their 321s (which physically have 205 seats, but blocked down to 200) with the table. see here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Luf ... t_A321.JPG

stylo777 wrote:

I still don't get it or missed it between the lines, but why weren't they able to hard-block the seats like LH does for almost a decade now in their 321s (which physically have 205 seats, but blocked down to 200) with the table. see here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Luf ... t_A321.JPG

Maybe the CAA won’t allow it.

seansasLCY wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I’m surprised they’re physically taking it out and not just leaving it blocked.

The CAA regulation is based on physical seats on board not passengers on board so the seats must be removed.

CrewBunk wrote:

aamd11 wrote:

Meanwhile it’s possible for say a 737-400 with 156 installed seats to operate with as few as two Flight Attendants, provided the load is no more than 80 passengers in the cabin.

Is this correct? Where I fly, the distinction was wide body vs. narrow body.

BawliBooch wrote:

aamd11 wrote:

I dont think this is accurate? I remember reading somewhere that the number of full size exit doors also plays a role in determining number of min crew required? Or is this alternate rule just for UK and Commonwealth countries?

Yes, that’s correct.

Source: working for an airline with 737-400s for which the minimum crew is two FA, based on the load being 80 or less.

Canadian Aviation Regulation 705.201:
(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:

(a) one flight attendant for each unit of 40 passengers or for each portion of such a unit; or

(b) one flight attendant for each unit of 50 passenger seats or for each portion of such a unit.