Originally Posted by
G-CIVC
It will not go through with CAD and FAU.
Under CAD 371:
10.1 When the Flight Crew is augmented for the purposes of extending a standard FDP, a bunk or a comfortable reclining seat, separated and screened from the passengers and flight deck, shall be provided for the Flight Crew member(s) not at the controls. However, when seating arrangements in the passenger cabin ensure that the seat provided for the relieved Flight Crew member is not immediately adjacent to a seat occupied by a passenger, there shall be no requirement for screening.
I was not able to obtain HK's FAU agreement. However, I was able to obtain Canada's CUPE CBA, which says:
7.03 The Company agrees to provide in-flight crew rest periods as determined by the In-flight Services Department and reported to the Civil Aviation Department of Hong Kong.
So using isolated passenger seats is workable.
Originally Posted by
G-CIVC
How much do you actually know about CX?
Sounds like more than you.
Originally Posted by
G-CIVC
Plus, just because there is enough range on paper, it doesn't mean it's the case in reality.
I agree. However - if this is what Airbus is posing its customers, airlines, like CX, should seriously think about the reliability of its products. Personally, I have been trying to avoid flying any Airbuses as much as possible, especially overwater routes.
Originally Posted by
G-CIVC
Same case for why CX A359s cannot fly to ORD/EWR/YYZ/BOS as much as it is a good fit for those ports. I got verbal confirmation from management, not enough legs.
CX owns the planes. CX has absolute authority on which aircrafts on which routes.
As I repeatedly said - I merely pointed out the possibility, rather than saying that CX should use A333s for SEA-HKG.