Originally Posted by
mlin32
Perhaps it's because inherently my job is the corporate bean counter- though not for airlines, I see things as a function of cost and benefit.
Yes, and I totally appreciate your perspective on that.
Let me just point out where I don’t share your reasoning (=there is no “right” or “wrong”, just taking a different bifurcation in the logic chain):
Back a few years ago, there was the need to reduce cost and a reduction in headcount was the decision made. Of course, the unions don't like that, so they demand workload reduction.
This my first point of disagreement, not with you, but with the unions. I know that maximising the ratio of EUR/hours-not-doing-a-thing is their reason to exist. But in reality this “it’s too much work, too much stress, flights are too short” is a total BS argument when you take into account the operational reality:
1. on the really short flights there are 2 FAs working the J cabin (I am writing this from onboard one such flight)
2. other airlines manage perfectly well to do it on flights of any duration, even in Europe (BA for instance)
3. on the flights where there is supposedly only one FA serving the J cabin, they are long enough, so let the one FA heat the meals and only start service when meals are hot (he can twiddle his thumbs in the meantime). Or switch on the oven, and while meals are heated, do a pre-meal drinks round with his/her cart and then a second round with the meal.
4. Often crews adapt to the situation, so they can temporarily dispatch a second FA to J just to heat the meals (although that “heating” means switching on the oven and then taking meals out 20 minutes later, total work time is 1-2 minutes for the few movements that are required).
If there is not much loss in revenue from key customers because they don't notice, why add back the headcount ?
But there is no need to add back the headcount, as demonstrated above or as a flight on many European airlines illustrate so well. Instead of adding back headcount, tell the unions to stop whining.
SOme time ago on a CDG-LIS I had a 25 minute long conversation with an FA who explained me that there was no time to do hot meals - until after those 25 minutes I told him “but you’re here, just chit-chatting, so I don’t understand how there is no time”. Demonstration of their fallacious argument flying to their face.
I don't think serving the meals in two batches would be good because then half the J passengers would receive it notably later than the first rows. Unless you decide to also collect the trays 20-30mn later for the second half of the passengers, this would impact the service flow negatively.
You are 100% right. But as said, there is no need to do that. Put ovens in just like other airlines with the same cabin layout, and the problem is solved.
Also, I'm sure that there is some swapping that happens on A220 routes, for example if a longer route like CDG - ATH has to be changed to the A320 or a 321, does that mean you promise to return to hot meals on that as well ? From operational efficiency and cost standpoint, that's an additional layer of complexity and flexibility you lose if you put back hot meals on longer A220 flights. Obviously, if a swap happens to a non-oven ready A320/321, the customer will demand compensation because you promised them a hot meal.
Not sure I understand your point, but mine being “just have ovens and hot meals on all those flights” and that swapping problem ceases to be one.
So if hypothetically AF brought back hot meals, what would you be willing to give up in return to keep it cost-neutral ?
Nothing at all!! Why would I? There is no need to! They don’t need to add more FAs than they already have staffed today. So the only cost effect will come from the actual food, the difference will be, what, something less than 10 EUR? Heck, there are thousands of fares out there that can apply to a given flight, I am sure they’ll find a way to bake it into one of them (no pun intended).