GA/FA interaction
 

So... this might not be a Delta specific item, but I figured I'll try here first..

This weekend, on boarding a 757 and sitting in Row 16 (at the Boarding-Entrance), i watched the GA struggled quite a bit trying to get the door closed. The FA was watching it too, and when the GA asked for help the FA just stated: "I can help you open it, but i can't help you close it - get a mechanic if you can't do it".

Can somebody enlighten me on the reasoning of the FA not (beeing able/willing to/allowed to) help?

Just curious :)

Thanks

Union rules?

I believe it has to do with that the door gets secured from outside the aircraft, which requires the GA to finish the closing of the door (at least on the 757). As such, it'd be a problem for the F/A to secure the door shut unless they didn't want to be on the plane.

Well, but on smaller planes like CRJs which can't be reached from the jetbridge once the little ramp is removed, the doors are closed by the FA as well - so a 757 Door is different in a way it can't be securely closed from the inside?

Very different comparison between the 757 and a CRJ. The CRJ (and other regional planes) were designed to be self-loadable from the ground, with the built-in airstairs, etc. The 757 requires a boarding platform (be it a jetway, airstairs, etc.) to load/unload.

IF PMNW FA, then that would be my guess as well.....

well, she was wearing an AFA-Pin, so that guess would be true.. however I can't see the real benefit of not trying to make a flight go out in time, no matter what your affiliation is :)

So, I guess PMDL FAs cannot support unionization? :confused:

Based on a quick Google search it appears that the party responsible for opening/closing aircraft doors is typically a company policy and varies between airlines. It doesn't appear to have anything at all to do with a union.

Because company policy has never been determined by union negotiations?

Company policy is for the GA to open and close the door. I've never seen a FA refuse to help close a door. Boeing aircraft doors can be quite tricky to close if you're not used to them.

In the early '90s, NW had a rash of blown slides. Mainly on the A320 and the DC-10. It was a combination of FAs, ground people, cleaners, mechs and caterers. The doors were clearly marked for "armed" "disarmed" on the doors.

As a result, the company (NW) absolutely forbid the FAs from touching the doors. The only people who were allowed to touch the doors while the plane was being worked were the GAs and pilots.

The FAs were only to "arm" and "disarm" the doors. And in Whiteplains when the DC-9s had the built in forward boarding stairs, we had to "crack" the door for the GA. The forward stairs on the DC-9s have all been deactivated and removed.

As far as I know, the policy hasn't been changed to allow the PMNW FAs to touch the doors to assist a GA.

I have personally witnessed a FA helping a GA opening the door to a Mad Dog. That was back in February of 2008 though.

I had a friend who worked on the E-3 Sentry (AWACS) with me who accidentally deployed the slide...into the aircraft. Rear door was cocked halfway opened and his boot hooked the slide pull/arm cable on the way in. Deployed it into the aircraft. Pinned him up against the lav door as it shot down the main aisle. He took a lot of grief that trip for it naturally :D

I thought Dougie kept a few of them installed for situations like HPN, did DL retire those aircraft now?

Thanks, very informative!

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.

Yes I can do a search too!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13698434-post23.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13707248-post51.html

I could go on but I don't feel like wasting anymore time with your "authoritative" posts. :rolleyes:

I don't see how expressing an opinion and offering insider advice goes against each other. Even in the same post it is pretty easy to see which is which.

In any case, this thread has taken the usual route after the U word was brought up. It's too bad, it is an interesting topic.

Really? I like the employee you've decided to call out for that.

The difference between you and me is I'm just one of those "whiny Flyertalk people" and a PMNW customer at that! I'm not privy to information and speaking as an employee of the airline.

Your position on unions is clear, but my issue was mixing that while trying to provide helpful insider information. I think that's irresponsible to do and you should try to have more restraint when mixing the two.

Anyway, I've made my point and all have shown their true colors, so I agree there's no point wasting any more time with this issue.

Good, there's nothing wrong with liking an employee who posts on Flyertalk. To be clear it's not like I dislike this employee, I just thought mixing the "insider stuff" with opinions about unions could have been handled differently.

Geez, cut him some slack. It's not like he's the White House Press Secretary or something . . .

I can't believe you would be coming down like this on one of the more informative posters on this board.

To my knowledge, all the air stairs have be removed from the DC-9s. I remember it had to do with saving money. Flying the stairs around that were no longer used cost to much. (pre merger) I thought that all of the cities that NW served all had jet bridges or mobile air stairs now.

I could be wrong. I haven't worked a DC-9 in close to 20 years.

If you're referring to me, I guess the info provided ruffled some feathers. I think that thread too has been deleted. I thought I had done a good job of leaving company/employee business out of the thread and concentrated only on FT relative content.

Guess I'm still learning. ;)

Don't think it was directed to you - rather a little debate going on up thread.

Indeed - I haven't seen anything remotely controversial from NWAFA for a while now; their one post on this thread was very relevant to the actual discourse in this thread.

LOL! This is true. I could be quite harsh in my assessment of certain situations.I really am trying to provide informative content to the FT group without additional "snide" comments. :D