Poor AC Crews
Oct 9, 2017 | 8:28 am
#16
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
[MENTION=288120]capedreamer[/MENTION]
OSM. Someone else decided to add a "B" in this thread.
On the card given to me by an OSM, title was written as:
Onboard Service Manager - IFS
Chef du Service ŕ bord - Service en vol
Discussed in this thread
OSM - Onboard Service Manager on AC flights
OSM - Onboard Service Manager on AC flights
Oct 9, 2017 | 10:18 am
#17
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC SE, Bonvoy, Centara, Hyatt
Posts: 3,216
"A flight attendant who suspects a security breach and is working in the cabin could potentially be half the distance of the aircraft away from notifying the flight crew of the threat”
You report that all FAs were in the rear of the aircraft. That means that the front cabin and flight deck entryway was not under surveillance. This was a serious breach of safety and security protocols. What were these people thinking? In the event of a safety crisis such as smoke or fire, valuable time would be lost waiting for a FA response.
Oct 9, 2017 | 10:25 am
#18
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, SK Gold, Bonvoy Plat LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 47,291
The front of the cabin is not to be left unsupervised. The failure to maintain control of the forward section facilitates a security breach. To quote another report in respect to the limitations of onboard communications;
"A flight attendant who suspects a security breach and is working in the cabin could potentially be half the distance of the aircraft away from notifying the flight crew of the threat”
You report that all FAs were in the rear of the aircraft. That means that the front cabin and flight deck entryway was not under surveillance. This was a serious breach of safety and security protocols. What were these people thinking? In the event of a safety crisis such as smoke or fire, valuable time would be lost waiting for a FA response.
"A flight attendant who suspects a security breach and is working in the cabin could potentially be half the distance of the aircraft away from notifying the flight crew of the threat”
You report that all FAs were in the rear of the aircraft. That means that the front cabin and flight deck entryway was not under surveillance. This was a serious breach of safety and security protocols. What were these people thinking? In the event of a safety crisis such as smoke or fire, valuable time would be lost waiting for a FA response.
Oct 9, 2017 | 10:34 am
#19
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC 75K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 1,692
The front of the cabin is not to be left unsupervised. The failure to maintain control of the forward section facilitates a security breach. To quote another report in respect to the limitations of onboard communications;
"A flight attendant who suspects a security breach and is working in the cabin could potentially be half the distance of the aircraft away from notifying the flight crew of the threat”
You report that all FAs were in the rear of the aircraft. That means that the front cabin and flight deck entryway was not under surveillance. This was a serious breach of safety and security protocols. What were these people thinking? In the event of a safety crisis such as smoke or fire, valuable time would be lost waiting for a FA response.
"A flight attendant who suspects a security breach and is working in the cabin could potentially be half the distance of the aircraft away from notifying the flight crew of the threat”
You report that all FAs were in the rear of the aircraft. That means that the front cabin and flight deck entryway was not under surveillance. This was a serious breach of safety and security protocols. What were these people thinking? In the event of a safety crisis such as smoke or fire, valuable time would be lost waiting for a FA response.
Oct 9, 2017 | 10:35 am
#20
Original Poster
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, SK Gold, Bonvoy Plat LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 47,291
Oct 9, 2017 | 11:41 am
#22
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: TK *G
Posts: 3,336
The front of the cabin is not to be left unsupervised. The failure to maintain control of the forward section facilitates a security breach. To quote another report in respect to the limitations of onboard communications;
"A flight attendant who suspects a security breach and is working in the cabin could potentially be half the distance of the aircraft away from notifying the flight crew of the threat”
"A flight attendant who suspects a security breach and is working in the cabin could potentially be half the distance of the aircraft away from notifying the flight crew of the threat”
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICA...PAPERS/565.PDF
You report that all FAs were in the rear of the aircraft. That means that the front cabin and flight deck entryway was not under surveillance. This was a serious breach of safety and security protocols. What were these people thinking? In the event of a safety crisis such as smoke or fire, valuable time would be lost waiting for a FA response.
Oct 9, 2017 | 12:07 pm
#23
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
[MENTION=288120]capedreamer[/MENTION]
OSM. Someone else decided to add a "B" in this thread.
On the card given to me by an OSM, title was written as:
Onboard Service Manager - IFS
Chef du Service ŕ bord - Service en vol
Discussed in this thread
OSM - Onboard Service Manager on AC flights
OSM - Onboard Service Manager on AC flights
OSM. Someone else decided to add a "B" in this thread.
On the card given to me by an OSM, title was written as:
Onboard Service Manager - IFS
Chef du Service ŕ bord - Service en vol
Discussed in this thread
OSM - Onboard Service Manager on AC flights
OSM - Onboard Service Manager on AC flights
Oct 9, 2017 | 12:20 pm
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Maybe when AC isn't busy with other things, they can keep the acronym and title consistent - both internally and what they say to their customers.
Oct 9, 2017 | 1:41 pm
#26
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
The front of the cabin is not to be left unsupervised. The failure to maintain control of the forward section facilitates a security breach. To quote another report in respect to the limitations of onboard communications;
"A flight attendant who suspects a security breach and is working in the cabin could potentially be half the distance of the aircraft away from notifying the flight crew of the threat”
You report that all FAs were in the rear of the aircraft. That means that the front cabin and flight deck entryway was not under surveillance. This was a serious breach of safety and security protocols. What were these people thinking? In the event of a safety crisis such as smoke or fire, valuable time would be lost waiting for a FA response.
"A flight attendant who suspects a security breach and is working in the cabin could potentially be half the distance of the aircraft away from notifying the flight crew of the threat”
You report that all FAs were in the rear of the aircraft. That means that the front cabin and flight deck entryway was not under surveillance. This was a serious breach of safety and security protocols. What were these people thinking? In the event of a safety crisis such as smoke or fire, valuable time would be lost waiting for a FA response.
Ever since the 2 FA on E75/90, AC has been breaching this mandatory protocol.
Oct 9, 2017 | 7:45 pm
#27
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC SE, Bonvoy, Centara, Hyatt
Posts: 3,216
CC pointed out that the FAs were gathered in the back. I read this to mean in the very rear of the airplane. On an AB 320 that is 33 rows back.
Yes, I am aware that an FA can move back to the mid plane section or even towards the rear on the smaller aircraft. However, there is a difference between those aircraft and the AB 320/321/319.
The other aircraft referenced for comparison sake are not comparable. They are lower density, i.e. the AB has 6 abreast in Y, while the small planes referenced have 4 abreast, and have total rows that range from the low end; E75 - 19 to E90 - 25 to CR 705 - 20.5. Not comparable.
There is no specific regulation that requires the FA to remain on station during the flight in the same manner as those that set out in explicit detail where the FA must be during boarding/deboarding and taxiing. However, it is common sense that the forward cabin not be left unattended for an extended period of time as was the case here. Must it really be explained that it is unsafe to leave the forward 33 rows including aft galley and cockpit entry way unsupervised? Seriously? Ok then.
Yes, I am aware that an FA can move back to the mid plane section or even towards the rear on the smaller aircraft. However, there is a difference between those aircraft and the AB 320/321/319.
The other aircraft referenced for comparison sake are not comparable. They are lower density, i.e. the AB has 6 abreast in Y, while the small planes referenced have 4 abreast, and have total rows that range from the low end; E75 - 19 to E90 - 25 to CR 705 - 20.5. Not comparable.
There is no specific regulation that requires the FA to remain on station during the flight in the same manner as those that set out in explicit detail where the FA must be during boarding/deboarding and taxiing. However, it is common sense that the forward cabin not be left unattended for an extended period of time as was the case here. Must it really be explained that it is unsafe to leave the forward 33 rows including aft galley and cockpit entry way unsupervised? Seriously? Ok then.
Oct 9, 2017 | 8:02 pm
#30
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403