Company Policy as of Dec 2009 If specifically requested by the ACS Agent, after the door has been cracked, the Flight Attendant will provide a flat handed push to assist with swinging the door open. In-flight (FA) will not assist with the closing of the door or the operation of the door handle on any aircraft type.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no indication of the door being armed and disarmed from the outside of the aircraft correct?

Only reason why I asked is because I was on an MD80 from LGA-MCO a few months back and I was in 1C and positioned to be first off. I watched as the F/A failed to disarm the slide (however its done on the MD80) and start to freak out and told the agent to stop opening the door.

Personally, I think this policy is back assward and that only the F/As should open the door because I would have been in a world of hurt had the F/A not noticed she forgot to disarm the slide.

I agree, as it used to be the way with PMDL. I believe the policy was changed to align with PMNW....it may have had something to do with the union. On certain aircraft there is a light to tell if the slide is armed or not but the MD-88 is not one of those.

The current procedure requires the Gate Agent to knock on the door before attempting to open it. At the sound of the knock, the F/A ensures that the slide is disarmed and gives a 'thumbs up' signal to the Gate Agent who then opens the door. This system gets two people involved and introduces a 'Challenge and Response' type checklist that is traditionally used in cockpit ops. The GA's knock (challenge) requires the F/A to recheck the door disarmed and give a thumbs up (Response).

Let's face it, we all make mistakes and it's very easy to leave a door armed when it's a one person operation. One of the reasons that I would always advocate a two person flightdeck regardless of the automation is that there's another person there to catch my mistakes (and believe me, I've made some doozies only to have the other guy save me). This door procedure gets one more person involved and prompts the F/A to recheck the slide....that's a good thing and the proof is the reduction in blown slides.

Maybe the GA didn't have the strength to maneuver the door so it could be closed and secured?

it has nothing to do with the union.. haha It is strictly has to do with aligning policies.

By policy we're talking about the FA books right? Are they spoon feeding the changes with each book update so they don't have to pay for training sessions or something?

couldn't resist putting it in there ;)

I think that's kind of irresponsible considering people look to you and other employees as a sort of authoritative source.

You should probably separate your views on unions from your responses to inquiries about operations unless you know something for a fact is/is not impacted by a union. Just my two cents.

Mine too...I have opinions too and by no means an "authoritative" source. Read my signature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMoose (Post 14333481)

I think that's kind of irresponsible considering people look to you and other employees as a sort of authoritative source.

---

Err sometimes people get humor. Other times, you obviously haven't.

However, as zsmith2 said, it is ENTIRELY possible that the union worked to develop specific procedures and protocol with the airline.

As pre-merger DL is a non-union airline, that was not a consideration.

AND if you want to discuss irresponsibly posting their personal union views, this is NOT the poster to be talking about .

So you're saying that I could make a claim and people would consider my information equally authoritative as yours?

Good to know...

If you want to consider your information as "authoritative" go ahead....I don't consider my information that way. I believe in equal poster oppertunties. :D

Of course they could consider your information as authoritative as zsmith2's.

However, they'd be very sadly mistaken.

To wit:


And that's precisely my point. As an employee their posts are taken with more credibility which is why I think it's irresponsible to be mixing in their opinions about things like unions in the same sentence as providing information about airline operations.