Emergency descent..

[vortac]

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/westjet-pass ... -1.1635539

Possibly de-pressurizing at 41000ft.. Scary.
Sounds like the crew reacted well and did a good job flying an emergency descent. Some freaked out passengers though.



In general, how healthy do you guys feel flying up there all the time?

[gonnabeapilot]

This is the second media report I have read that stated that there were only 3 crew members (two pilots and one flight attendant) aboard this aircraft. Recently WestJet was granted the authority to operate under the 1 in 50 exemption for the ratio of cabin crew to passengers. While the standard 1 in 40 rule is based around passengers, the new exemption is based on seats only. Therefore the minimum crew for the 144 seat -700 should always be 5 (two pilots and three FAs) regardless of passenger load. With the media reports regarding this incident, I'm starting to get the impression that WestJet is ignoring a very key part of their new exemption (1 FA for every 50 SEATS) and is still crewing their aircraft based on pax loads. Perhaps someone from WestJet can comment.... are the media reports incorrect concerning the number of crew being reported? Or has WestJet been operating it's aircraft illegally since the new exemption was brought in??

[andy_mtl]

You also need 1 FA per set of floor level exit.
so any 737 requires a min of two FA even if there are 10 pax only on board.

[Troubleshot]

I would say they would have to fly at 41,000 feet on that flight....only 38 passengers, gotta make up that coin somehow.


As far as the F/A vs Seats... The 737-700 is configured at 136 seats, 737-800 configured at 166 seats I believe. Not sure if that makes a difference for them or not.

[CD]

This is the second media report I have read that stated that there were only 3 crew members (two pilots and one flight attendant) aboard this aircraft.

All of the media outlets relying on "The Canadian Press" for the article appear to have the information wrong. Those that use other sources or that wrote their own story (e.g. Winnipeg Free Press) appear to have the information correct:

The plane, carrying 38 passengers, three flight attendants and two pilots, made a rapid descent but landed safety. There were no injuries.

[Skyblazer]

The FA 1-50 rule applies to number of seats on the aircraft not the number of PAX onboard, which is consistent with most international carriers.

ie - a 747 with 400 seats would still need 8 FAs even if its load on a specific flight only had 100 PAX


Cheers

SB

[stickontheice]

We've been operating illegally up until now. We've been operating with 1 FA per plane as Profit Share was down from last year. Hoping to make it up. In order to keep the culture up though the Captain and FO have been taking turns helping the 1 FA in his/her duties. Darn accurate and fair media has blown it for us! They never ever make mistakes! Plus we only have 136 seats. It might be 144 in other operations especially ones that hire foreign pilots to save money but not ours.

[Lateralus]

We've been operating illegally up until now. We've been operating with 1 FA per plane as Profit Share was down from last year. Hoping to make it up. In order to keep the culture up though the Captain and FO have been taking turns helping the 1 FA in his/her duties. Darn accurate and fair media has blown it for us! They never ever make mistakes! Plus we only have 136 seats. It might be 144 in other operations especially ones that hire foreign pilots to save money but not ours.

Lol! Nice one.

Gonnabeapilot, seriously man?

[Tacoma]

At Westjet:
737-600......119 Seats
737-700......136 Seats
737-800......174 Seats

[onspeed]

You mean like your 757 operations stickontheice?

[bcflyer]

The press screws things up all the time. Can anybody tell us how many F/A's were really onboard? (Not how many are required or what the usual number is but how many were actually onboard this particular flight)

[Lateralus]

The press screws things up all the time. Can anybody tell us how many F/A's were really onboard? (Not how many are required or what the usual number is but how many were actually onboard this particular flight)

I know some of you guys are having a hard time wrapping your heads around this but the 1 in 50 rule is very restrictive. It based on seats NOT passengers. The airplane can not even be boarded without all flight attendants on board, in this case 3 (700). It doesn't matter if there are 1 or 136 passengers, all 3 FAs need to be there.

So if there was only 1 FA on this flight, dispatch, crew sched, CSA, Pilots and lone flight attendant would have all have to say "@#$! it, lets go with 1". That did not and would not happen.

There were 3 Flight attendants on board.

[bcflyer]

Figured as much. The press likely forgot about the pilots and only counted the 3 F/A's as crew. Lol.

[TheStig]

The press screws things up all the time. Can anybody tell us how many F/A's were really onboard? (Not how many are required or what the usual number is but how many were actually onboard this particular flight)

I know some of you guys are having a hard time wrapping your heads around this but the 1 in 50 rule is very restrictive. It based on seats NOT passengers. The airplane can not even be boarded without all flight attendants on board, in this case 3 (700). It doesn't matter if there are 1 or 136 passengers, all 3 FAs need to be there.

So if there was only 1 FA on this flight, dispatch, crew sched, CSA, Pilots and lone flight attendant would have all have to say "@#$! it, lets go with 1". That did not and would not happen.

There were 3 Flight attendants on board.

I don't doubt there were 3 FA's on board, but that was because the minimum cabin crew required for passenger operations on a WJ B737-700 is 3. The number of FA's required IS based on passengers (not seating configuration) AND the minimum cabin crew required per type of aircraft. For example the A330-300 in AC's fleet has a minimum cabin crew requirement of only 4, however, this is where the ratio of Flight Attendants to passengers come into play. With any more than 160 passengers an A330 would require more than the minimum number of cabin crew to meet AC's current ratio of 40:1.

[Go Guns]

The way it's worded in our manuals, it's based on 1 flight attendant per 50 passenger seats installed on the aircraft. There is no other minimum flight attendant reference. Before, we needed minimum two, but 1 per 40 passengers. Now, it's three flight attendants (4 on an 800), period.

[CD]

As was noted earlier, WestJet is operating under an exemption that authorizes a flight attendant to passenger seat ratio of 1:50.
WestJet exemption

The number of FA's required IS based on passengers (not seating configuration) AND the minimum cabin crew required per type of aircraft. For example the A330-300 in AC's fleet has a minimum cabin crew requirement of only 4, however, this is where the ratio of Flight Attendants to passengers come into play. With any more than 160 passengers an A330 would require more than the minimum number of cabin crew to meet AC's current ratio of 40:1.

[TheStig]

The way it's worded in our manuals, it's based on 1 flight attendant per 50 passenger seats installed on the aircraft. There is no other minimum flight attendant reference. Before, we needed minimum two, but 1 per 40 passengers. Now, it's three flight attendants (4 on an 800), period.

Interesting thanks, I guess it all depends what's been approved in a specific companies operations manual. I'm surprised WJ hasn't tried to make an amendment allowing them to cap passenger loads to 150 passengers on -800's and operate flights with 3 FA's, as I'm sure this is an issue in IROP situations.

CD, my reference was being made specifically to AC's A330's, as I wrote, "AC's current 40:1 ratio".

[CD]

CD, my reference was being made specifically to AC's A330's, as I wrote, "AC's current 40:1 ratio".

Noted... However, AC apparently has also requested an exemption according to the article posted in the following thread. Have you heard when/if they will be changing?

AvCanada: Re: The Flight Attendant Regulations in Canada

"...Air Canada filed a similar request in September, and its leisure carrier Rouge also recently asked for the change. Transport Canada is considering the requests.

“All air operators are entitled to make an exemption request to Transport Canada and every request would be given equal consideration and assessed on its own merit,” said Transport Canada spokeswoman Karine Martel..."

[TheStig]

Nothing other than they're looking for the exemption only on the narrow body aircraft, but that's just a rumour.

[stickontheice]

Stig I'm not sure what airline experience you have but why would you cap a 800 to 150? You'd be losing revenue from 24 seats. One of our longest legs maybe YVR to CUN or YVR to Hawaii. The fourth flight attendant for one leg would at most cost WJ $350. That would be easily covered by 1 of the 24 seats you're capping.

We don't need an exception to cap loads either. We do it all the time. Particularly to Hawaii where the winds might be too strong so we need more fuel. Or perhaps recovering from an IROP and we've gotta bring more cargo in the way of luggage. But regardless of the Cap we still need 4 flight attendants on the 800. 3 on the 600 & 700. It's 1 FA per 50 seats period. Caps and Passengers don't count.

Air Canada has applied for the exemption too but they are running into issues with the FA union. If granted you can guarantee that they'll do it fleet wide. It saves money and airlines like saving money second only to making money.

[Go Guns]

Interesting thanks, I guess it all depends what's been approved in a specific companies operations manual. I'm surprised WJ hasn't tried to make an amendment allowing them to cap passenger loads to 150 passengers on -800's and operate flights with 3 FA's, as I'm sure this is an issue in IROP situations.

It's my understanding WestJet asked for some sort of amendment like that and was told no by the regulator. It's either 1:40 passengers, or 1:50 seats, but you can't have both. This is just scuttlebutt on the line though.

[TheStig]

Stig I'm not sure what airline experience you have but why would you cap a 800 to 150? You'd be losing revenue from 24 seats. One of our longest legs maybe YVR to CUN or YVR to Hawaii. The fourth flight attendant for one leg would at most cost WJ $350. That would be easily covered by 1 of the 24 seats you're capping.

We don't need an exception to cap loads either. We do it all the time. Particularly to Hawaii where the winds might be too strong so we need more fuel. Or perhaps recovering from an IROP and we've gotta bring more cargo in the way of luggage. But regardless of the Cap we still need 4 flight attendants on the 800. 3 on the 600 & 700. It's 1 FA per 50 seats period. Caps and Passengers don't count.

Air Canada has applied for the exemption too but they are running into issues with the FA union. If granted you can guarantee that they'll do it fleet wide. It saves money and airlines like saving money second only to making money.

Enough airline experience to see the benefits, for example, once I was operating an A321 YYZ-LAS configured with 174 seats and 5 Flight Attendants (to comply with AC's 40:1 ratio). Once again, a bit if background here, as I've mentioned Air Canada's operations manual isn't specific to seating configuration but both a minimum cabin crew (aircraft specific) and passenger ratio, and the minimum cabin crew for the A321 is 4. Upon landing in LAS one of the FA's became ill and couldn't return, so the flight back to YYZ was capped at 160 passengers and we flew home with the 4 remaining FA's.

If that situation had happened at WJ the flight would have to be cancelled or delayed until another Flight Attendant could be flown in right? I wasn't suggesting that flights be planned to be capped but as we've seen in YYZ this month things can come off the rails pretty easily and any extra flexibility can help keep airplanes and passengers moving.

Secondly, I wouldn't guarantee AC would make a 50:1 ratio fleet wide as the wide body aircraft are currently planned, on some routes, with flight attendants in excess of the 40:1 ratio to provide better service or crew rest on extra long haul flights. While A319's on shorter sectors are crewed with 4 FA's to complete the service in the time provided.

[ravensrule]

Stig I'm not sure what airline experience you have but why would you cap a 800 to 150? You'd be losing revenue from 24 seats. One of our longest legs maybe YVR to CUN or YVR to Hawaii. The fourth flight attendant for one leg would at most cost WJ $350. That would be easily covered by 1 of the 24 seats you're capping.

We don't need an exception to cap loads either. We do it all the time. Particularly to Hawaii where the winds might be too strong so we need more fuel. Or perhaps recovering from an IROP and we've gotta bring more cargo in the way of luggage. But regardless of the Cap we still need 4 flight attendants on the 800. 3 on the 600 & 700. It's 1 FA per 50 seats period. Caps and Passengers don't count.

Air Canada has applied for the exemption too but they are running into issues with the FA union. If granted you can guarantee that they'll do it fleet wide. It saves money and airlines like saving money second only to making money.

Enough airline experience to see the benefits, for example, once I was operating an A321 YYZ-LAS configured with 174 seats and 5 Flight Attendants (to comply with AC's 40:1 ratio). Once again, a bit if background here, as I've mentioned Air Canada's operations manual isn't specific to seating configuration but both a minimum cabin crew (aircraft specific) and passenger ratio, and the minimum cabin crew for the A321 is 4. Upon landing in LAS one of the FA's became ill and couldn't return, so the flight back to YYZ was capped at 160 passengers and we flew home with the 4 remaining FA's.

If that situation had happened at WJ the flight would have to be cancelled or delayed until another Flight Attendant could be flown in right? I wasn't suggesting that flights be planned to be capped but as we've seen in YYZ this month things can come off the rails pretty easily and any extra flexibility can help keep airplanes and passengers moving.

Secondly, I wouldn't guarantee AC would make a 50:1 ratio fleet wide as the wide body aircraft are currently planned, on some routes, with flight attendants in excess of the 40:1 ratio to provide better service or crew rest on extra long haul flights. While A319's on shorter sectors are crewed with 4 FA's to complete the service in the time provided.

If this happened with our current regulations, WestJet must cancel or delay the flight until a crew member can be DH in (as you said.)

As an FA, I'm ok with these new requirements for the most part. It sucks during boarding that an FA can't run off for coffee/food. When we were 1 FA : 40 pax, we were always lidding flights at 120 with 3 FA anyway. The extra FA was nice when we would carry an extra 16 people on the -700s. I guess the part that I don't like is that other international airlines usually have J class and less seats on their planes. AA has 140 seats on their 737-800s (based on their inflight magazine.) I'm assuming that once the CM is done with J class, they go and assist the back. WS has 34 more seats, so I would say the work load is a bit higher by serving more people.

I still think we will be going to J class in the next few years.

[Donald]

WS has 34 more seats, so I would say the work load is a bit higher by serving more people.

I still think we will be going to J class in the next few years.

WJ? Serving?? Hahahahaha! You can barely get the folks a glass of water on a "short" 1 hour flight.

J class?!? Hahahaha....you're hurting me now!

[evilgravy]

It sucks during boarding that an FA can't run off for coffee/food.

wah.

You can barely get the folks a glass of water on a "short" 1 hour flight.

probably because the FAs have taken the water to "stay hydrated"