Canadian Airlines Plus - Fewer flight attendants

I flew YYC - YOW last night and noticed there was only 3 flight attendants on the 737 instead of 4. The flight attendent I talked to said that since Air Canada has eliminated Canadian's enhanced business class, they've decided they only need 3 flight attendants on 737 and A320 aircraft. This leaves only 2 flight attendants in the economy cabin, although the business class attendant helped out towards the end of the flight.

I don't know when this change occurred. I notcied it last night because turbulence near YYC delayed the inflight service, and the 2 flight attendants assigned to the back cabin spent the rest of the flight scrambling to get through everything.

As I don't know for a fact, perhaps I can safely say that you have not flown on transcon CP aircraft (737) during the past two years. As was mentioned by another poster, during the phase where a la carte service was offered in J/C, we were a crew of four. Prior to that and following the cancellation of that service, the 737 had/has been staffed with 3 for the last three years. Most people don't notice. It was instituted as one of the last ditch efforts to minimize overhead expenses at CAIL and AC readily adopted the practice because it worked ...overall.

It is doable if the flight is perfect; meaning no rough air, no passenger medical emergencies, no delays involved, no injury/illness amongst the crew members, no exceptionally short flight time for that sector, etc., etc. I've completed many a flight with this minimum crew compliment but where I find reason to object to the diluted staff requirement is in situations where I need to address, answer or interact with a customer Time is not factored in for any extras that might include, personal needs/questions, medical situations or just granting leeway for conversation on a one to one basis. A justified request, to assist an elderly passenger to the lav, is all that is needed to throw us off our timetable. That's a crime and should not have such an impact on our duties but it happens. So what should we do? Toss the dear soul in the lav, pick up the slack in service and check on the dear him/her when we remember them again (usually due to the long lineup outside the lav). Not a good scenario and not one that consciencious crew are ever proud of.

This point of minimum crew should be included in Shareholder's list for the perfect airline. Having cabin crew minimized to MOT standards and having us gear up to run flat out based on studies conducted under the perfect cruise environment is impractical. No time is factored in to address non plan of action needs, to include the time necessary to converse with people on any number of topics of complaints.

Frankly, I miss the days when I had the time to do this inflight. I still want to have these conversations but I now find myself time strapped for time and making appointments with people I wish to pursue a conversation with on the bridge while when the aircraft is deplaning. I hate that as the alternative to interacting with people when a situation arises or is brought to my attention.

I speak as a short haul fa where flight time confinements are more critical than on overseas or long haul flights. Please do the CAIL and AC crews a favour and express your displeasure with the "cost cutting measure" of crewing short haul and transcon with the bare legal limit.

I wish to be able to present myself with adjustable freedom from onboard responsibility; to be there for you when you need me and not when it is convenient to pull myself out of a preplanned service or make the commitment that I hope to keep to "get back to you" later.

Thank you for listening to my rant. This is a subject dear to my heart and I feel relieved that I can share this with you; that the shorted crew today are a handicap. I find the present company mandate the most crippling deterrent to what I feel strongly is a vital part of my job which is interaction with you people, the customers I accomodate, serve and transport on behalf of my employer.

It seems we're going to see Americanization (or U.S.-isizing) of air service in Canada. More inevitable with a monopoly (I am not saying that Westjet or the charters provide any better service).

FWIW, U.S. regulations call for one FA per 50 pax so 3 is all that will be required on most 737 and A-320 flights. I don't actually remember any 737/320 flights I've taken being staffed with more than 1 up front and 2 back up to 1 March this year, but I know that it is standard for U.S. carriers.

Another note, I've seen up to 5 FAs on QF 737s! That might change given the advent of no-frills discount airlines in Australia (i.e., Spirit).

Flygirl... you're hired. When can you start?

As to the following problem, Toss the dear soul in the lav...it will be resolved soon as they institute the lavatory passes. If it becomes a problem, they can just raise the threshold for issuing the passes, or restrict the fares they are valid on.


And for the humour impaired: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Interesting topics!

Recalling my DFW-YYZ-DFW's CP flights, I saw only three F/As. One in J class -- serving an one tray dinner service, and two in Y class. The service seems okay because the load is pretty light or at least, there are three hours to get through with the service.
On United, there are always 3 F/As for all flights, except Boeing 727s, which have an extra flight attendant for full flights. These days, airlines seem to go to the minimum. On my last N7 flight, an additional F/A boarded our flight after a couple more passengers boarded the flight.

I agree with you that more F/As will allow more time and more service, but airline don't seem to care. AA can have bare minimal F/As on its MD-80 flights because they now can have passengers grab the doggie bags and allow only two F/As to serve only beverage service. I guess an extra meal means an extra F/A for galley.

Carfield

FWIW, U.S. regulations call for one FA per 50 pax

I believe FAA regulations are one FA per exit, excluding over-wing exits. Additional staff for in-flight service would be covered by union agreements, and the "bistro bags" typically don't count as in-flight service.

andrew

Actually in Canada the ratio is one fa per 40 passengers. And although Andrew, you equate the service provided with the ratio required, the ratios are actually set by the FAA and/or TC for the purpose of, and in the event of, an emergency situation where an immediate evacuation of the aircraft must be conducted by cabin crew.

The rule of one fa per exit door can be modified when a flight is not full, dropping to one fa per set of doors. If a load is light, it is legal to operate with less fa's as long as the ratio of crew to passengers is not exceded (again 1 fa per 40 or 50). Hope this info helps.

[This message has been edited by A Flygirl (edited 07-07-2000).]

Thanks for the clarification, Flygirl. I didn't realize the FAA allowed reduced staffing for reduced loads.

I wasn't suggesting the service affected FAA requirements, rather that "bistro bag" service allowed the airline to operate at FAA minimums, whereas actual service might force additional staff to be added beyond the FAA minimum (based on union agreements).

andrew

Correction to the U.S. F.A.A. f/a staffing requirements. It is 1 f/a for every 50 seats and not pax as I had originally stated.

In addition to the info provided by Flygirl, all aircraft have a legal minimum crew complement. For the A320 and A319, it is 3. For the typical A320, with 132 seats (AC config), a full aircraft could not be dispatched with less than 4 F/A's, following the 1 per 40 passenger ratio.

While I would always welcome additional hands to get the job done properly, I do realize that labour costs impact the long term viability of the airline. The only way you are going to see many extra F/A's on a flight is if the overall cost of the F/A group did not go up. Unfortunately, this would translate into lower salaries and benefits for the F/A group.