Can Someone Please Verify This For Me?

[PITbull]

Clue,

"In-base", is your assigned domicle. For example U has 6 bases or domestic domicles. Flight attendants are assigned to a base. Doesn't matter where you live in the country. When you are to pick up a trip, you sart the trip at you domicile. Reserves have to be "in-base" when on duty. When they are released from duty, then they can leave their base to go home or where ever. YOu know, its like your under "house arrest" when your in base. And then when your released, you can then have some better existence.

 

[flyin2low]

In base (Domicile) means nearby (hour) to the airport so that if the crew schedulers call, you can be ready to go to work. Some airlines have a reserve system that places crew on the airport property for really quick call outs.

 

[stuckonphlreserve]

It is true. Actually in today's Phl newspaper there was an article about it. The crew was PHL based but the nonrev was Boston based I think.

 

[jimntx]

I don't have the FAR immediately at hand, but I'm pretty sure that intentionally riding the lav has to violate a FAR of some sort.

From the Federal Aviation Regulations:

Sec. 121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses.

(a) No person may operate an airplane unless there are available during the
takeoff, en route flight, and landing--
(1) An approved seat or berth for each person on board the airplane who has
reached his second birthday; and
(2) An approved safety belt for separate use by each person on board the
airplane who has reached his second birthday, except that two persons
occupying a berth may share one approved safety belt and two persons
occupying a multiple lounge or divan seat may share one approved safety belt
during en route flight only.
(B) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board an airplane
operated under this part shall occupy an approved seat or berth with a
separate safety belt properly secured about him or her during movement on the
surface, takeoff, and landing. [The rest of (B) goes on to talk about exceptions for lap children and child safety seats.]

The toilet does not meet the definition for an approved seat or berth (a)(1). But, the lav is also illegal by implication. The fact that the lav does not have approved safety belts installed makes it illegal to ride in the lav for taxi, takeoff, and landing.(a)(2) and (B)

 

[jimntx]

FYI everyone. I did not put in the smilies. Part of the notation in the FAR was open parend, capital B, close parend. This is the code for that particular smiley.

 

[ClueByFour]

I wonder if you can "quote" smily characters. With a backslash or something. Let's try \. Okay, so if you have a smiley sequence, if you slap a "\" directly in front of it, it will maintain the original character sequence (albeit with the backslash present). Stupid trick of the day.

Anyway, I know that a belted lav is a legitimate seat under the FAR, because our coporate Lear's are thusly equipped. I've never seen a belted lav on a commercial carrier.

 

[etops1]

WHAT HAPPENED WAS A HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING AND THE F/A WHO RATTED SHOULDN'T HAVE. WE LOST GOOD PEOPLE CAUSE OF THIS. I GUESS THIS F/A HAD AHARD ON TO GO TELL.

 

[DCAflyer]

WHAT HAPPENED WAS A HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING AND THE F/A WHO RATTED SHOULDN'T HAVE. WE LOST GOOD PEOPLE CAUSE OF THIS. I GUESS THIS F/A HAD AHARD ON TO GO TELL.

How is this a misunderstanding? A gate agent allowed an employee to board an A/C when no seats were available for their safe passage. The gate agent informed the A F/A that it was being done, and the A F/A ratified this illegal action.
The following people should have been terminated: The "lav riding" employee, the gate agent, and the A F/A. When you know the rules and you break them, you take your fate into your own hands. When you break safety rules and ingore FARS, you lower the bar in that regard. We are on the A/C for safety reasons, and anyone who allows such unsafe flying conditions diminishes our reason to be on the A/C.

I stand by the flight attendant who informed the company that this happened.

AFAR violation is a FAR violation. If you learned that the company was, for instance, only using half the required lug nuts on A/C tires, would you turn a blind eye, or would you inform the FAA of this clear safety violation? We as airline employees need to take safety seriously. There is no excuse for allowing anyone to take of and land in the lav in normal conditions. On one occasion, when I was the A F/A we had a B F/A experiencing morning sickness. I informed the captain and we had the D F/A keep an eye on the sick F/A. We thought she may have to land in the lav, but that was entirely the captain's call from my point of view. I wasn't about to not inform the F/D personnel. As it turned out, however, she was fine for landing. Sometimes lav landings are unavoidable. But nobody should ever take off in a lav because you can always turn back.

 

[aredeeyou22]

dcaflyer..........................you seem to know alot about the details of what happened.....where you part of the working crew...or one of the agents involved?
You must have been to make such statments. You have no idea of what actully happened and I find it sad that you automatically assume the crew is guilty!
You must be in management.

 

[DCAflyer]

aredeeyou... Here we go again... DCAflyer must be management because DCAflyer doesn't automatically side with labor when labor breaks the rules.

Admittedly, I have no first hand knowledge and I based my opinion on what was written in this string, which if you have followed it many people did. When I became a flight attendant I did so knowing that my primary responsibility was cabin safety and I have always been unwavering in the prosecution of those duties.

But if it will make you happy, I will rephrase my opinion. IF a gate agent allowed an employee to board a plane knowing that there was no seat for that employee and that the employee would be hiding in the lav during takeoff and landing, both the employee and gate agent should be fired. IF the gate agent told the lead flight attendant and the lead flight attendant did not take action to prevent this unsafe cabin condition, then the lead flight attendant should also be fired. As a lead flight attendant, I would never have allowed this to happen and would have informed the gate agent that I would not accept the passenger. It's not worth my job and it's not worth the jobs of my fellow crewmembers. If the agent persisted, I would have immediately informed the flight deck crew and let them handle it as they see fit. Also, if I had refused the stowaway, I would have made damn sure that every working flight attendant on that A/C knew what the agent had attempted so that all lavs could be checked prior to pushback.

If there had been an aborted takeoff or landing, or severe turbulence, and the stowaway got hurt or killed, on whose hands would there be blood? There are reasons we have FARS ans reasons we have rules. This is not a piddly little "don't touch the rim of a glass" rule. This is a clear safety violation... a Federal rule at that. It is in place for a reason. Imagine if everyone tried this... people WOULD be getting hurt. The company cannot turn its back on these types of situations. It would face heavy fines and lawsuits. I don't believe people should be fired for minor things, but this situation, AS THE ALLEGATIONS ARE LAID OUT IN THIS POST, was a serious transgression and needed to be dealt with summarilly and decisively.

So let me ask you, what would you do if (a) you were the lead flight attendant and the gate agent tried to get a stowaway on board, and (b ) you were a flight attendant supervisor and learned that the lead flight attendant allowed a stowaway.

DCAflyer