East Airbus Reconfiguration

[US1YFARE]

But you know how it goes TP72, when all else fails, just defer to "it's a safety issue". I think I'll do that the next time I board--I'll complain about the safety issue:

* FA's chatting while people are boarding instead of monitoring the boarding process like they should checking for size of carry-ons, liquids, suspicious characters

* FA's sitting on the jumpseat talking about their boyfriend cheating or a great new diet (yeah right) or the Olsen Twins when they should be monitoring the cabin for suspicious activity and remanining aware of any "safety" related problems that could be occurring while they are so involved in their conversation or magazine

* The grossly obese FA who couldn't save his own butt yet alone mine if an emergency happens

I'm sure I can think of more.

 

[N965VJ]

Some FAs like to “punishâ€￾ PAX in the name of safety.

 

[LCC_#1]

* FA's sitting on the jumpseat talking about their boyfriend

I'm sure I can think of more.

Man, I wish I HAD a boyfriend to talk about.

You are a piece of work!!

DELETED
You STILL have some serious self serving problems!!
DELETED

I think US1YFARE has flown us enough to have an opinion. He has seen the very best AND has bragged on those folks and should have the right to voice his displeasure and yes, anger with regard to poor servive. Considering the snub theat DP has given our top fliers, I feel he is being too kind.

 

[Travels2mch]

* FA's chatting while people are boarding instead of monitoring the boarding process like they should checking for size of carry-ons, liquids, suspicious characters

I have a question....yesterday for the first time, I noticed the FA at the door said hello to each passenger, looking at them, then glanced down toward the floor immediately after. I watched her do it with 3 in front of me, myself and looked back and saw her do it to the person behind me. It almost looked like she was looking at our shoes.

Is there something new that you're all looking out for? Is this a new procedure?

 

[hp_fa]

Probably checking carry-ons for compliance would be my guess. It could be a case of saying hi and looking down at the next person and then looking up to say hi.

 

[N924PS]

Is there something new that you're all looking out for? Is this a new procedure?

Probably a simple shoe fetish or worse a foot fetish.

 

[markkus757]

if the goal is to have the 319/320 fleets common with respect to the number of seats (as posted a couple pages ago), will the west 319's add 6 more seats to get to 130 then too. The 320's seem to be matching up at 150 seats and the 321s will have 183.

 

[IMisstheAladdinTrays]

Some FAs like to “punishâ€￾ PAX in the name of safety.

We have some of those Nazi Stews! I hate working with them! We should not make more out of our job than it is!

 

[CLTBWIDAYSYR]

But you know how it goes TP72, when all else fails, just defer to "it's a safety issue". I think I'll do that the next time I board--I'll complain about the safety issue:

* FA's chatting while people are boarding instead of monitoring the boarding process like they should checking for size of carry-ons, liquids, suspicious characters

* FA's sitting on the jumpseat talking about their boyfriend cheating or a great new diet (yeah right) or the Olsen Twins when they should be monitoring the cabin for suspicious activity and remanining aware of any "safety" related problems that could be occurring while they are so involved in their conversation or magazine

* The grossly obese FA who couldn't save his own butt yet alone mine if an emergency happens

I'm sure I can think of more.

I'm sure you can. You know, respect goes both ways. Sorry you have none for my profession. Nothing like a gross generalization to make a good point, right?

I have had to work FAR too many red eyes in my career. Last month I screwed up bidding and got stuck with those damn LAS trips that provide a lovely "extra" leg from RDU, MIA or FLL to CLT after crossing the United States. I had two different captains who told the A to NOT turn off the forward entry light due to safety reasons, i.e. so that every one on the plane can see who is near the door of the cockpit. So sorry if my comments pissed y'all off, but we did as we were told my the captain.

 

[US1YFARE]

Respect does go both ways...it's too bad that there are some F/A's who have absolutely no respect for the pax and treat each encounter as an unfriendly and contentious one. That does not give the F/A a license to treat all pax with contempt. I certainly don't treat all F/A's with disdain even though there are a few I think should be thrown out of 1L.

You guys certainly put up with a lot and I have never said that you need to tolerate rude behavior, but I am sick of the F/A's who fallback on the bs "it's a safety issue" line when the reason that two F/A's are conducting a conversation in the front of the galley is not because of a safety issue--particularly when pax are boarding.

The fact that YOUR captains asked YOU to keep the lights on is a factually sensitive scenario and is not a mandate by the FAA that the front light be kept on during redeyes. Who knows what the reason was for that request being made. Suspicious pax? The point is, you cannot generalize and say that the two FA's conducted an apparently very loud conversation in the front galley during a red eye flight due to a safety issue. (I know that YOU didn't condone the loud conversation, but others did.)

I am not pissed, but we can play that same game...the next fat a$$ F/A I see will be reported to the company as being a safety issue for all of the above reasons and more. The same goes for the F/A's who choose to conduct a personal conversation during the boarding process. You see, those letters don't look too good in your file...especially when they start piling up. I am from the Howard Stern school of NO MORE BS. Those FA's can be as self-righteous as they want, but it doesn't mean we believe it and will tolerate it. And the more self-righteous an F/A is, the more I will hold that pompous individual to his own standards.

If you don't like working redeyes, then find a new job. I certainly don't like staying up all hours of the night working on TRO's and injunctions, but that is part of my job and I do it--and you know what, I don't whah whah whah about it either. I don't go back to my client and say, I could be sleeping right now, but instead I am working on your stupid bs. Look, redeyes suck, and I understand you don't like them, but I guess my point is that an F/A cannot use the fact they are on a redeye which they don't like flying as an excuse to be rude to a pax.

 

[hublablebla]

A couple of thoughts:

Whomever thinks it's just fine and dandy for an FA to keep all the lights on just to stay awake and because they "have to work" is missing the boat. You really need to keep the passengers comfortable and happy. It's more their right than yours. You need to go out of your way for them."

It may be the right of the passenger to be comfortable and happy, but is my DUTY to stay awake. Duty must take precedence over comfort. If I am first, the lights will be on so I can do my duty. I will not, however, engage in rude loud discussions with other crewmembers.

 

[US1YFARE]

That is fine. Duty does come first--HOWEVER, not just when it is convenient or suits your personal needs. Tell some of your co-workers who need a seatbelt extension that duty comes first and that DELETED won't be able to save himself yet alone a pax in an emergency. Tell your co-workers who conduct a conversation during the boarding process with their back turned to the pax that they are not making duty their priority.

 

[BillLumbergh]

All right. A smidgen of civility would be appreciated here...

 

[LCC_#1]

People, please...the f/a jumpseat reading lights are ENOUGH light to let anyone fool enough to be awake a glance at who is at the cockpit door.

As for the pilot demanding those lights to be turned on. Sorry, but he would get a respectful refusal with condition that the f/a reading lights stay on. Whats he gonna do, throw me off the aircraft in the middle of the flight? I could care less IF he is in charge. He is in the cockpit. It is moi who will battle someone trying to enter the cockpit, whether or not its day or night.

The topic, however is reconfiguration of the airbus.

 

[700UW]

The company and the FAA changed the weight restrictions due to being discriminatory.

As long as the FA can fit throught the wing exit, they are legal to fly.

Your comments are rude.