FAA RULING

[citrus jock]

We agree. I just think it would speed up many things that cause delays to have at least one f/a able to leave the aircraft.

I'm in favor of them being able to leave to assist with wheelchairs and UM's, to go eat/smoke, etc. My company's current policy allows them all to leave, pax still on the aircraft, and I'm standing at the front of the aircraft hoping no one needs to exit out the rear door (they won't get very far, as it's not armed, and therfore the tailcone wouldn't detach and the slide wouldn't deploy). I'm not against the new rule. My comments were an attempt to point out to those that voiced concerns with the new rule, that there's already a rule (for some carriers) that under slightly different circumstances (not deplaning) allows for the absence of one or more F/As, and that I disagree with not having someone at the rear door who's trained to arm and operate it with pax onboard.

Who says there's not one there? In my hundreds of Southwest flights I have never seen a situation without a FA in the rear galley or at least at the over-wing exit row. In which case he/she could reach the rear exit door in a matter of 5 seconds.

This calls another question to mind. The evac slides are not engaged while sitting at the gate with engines off, so wouldn't the 2 preferred exits be the forward, and over-wing exits?

At AirTran (and possibly other carriers), on a through flt., all F/As are allowed to leave the aircraft as long as a pilot is standing at the forward entry door. Southwest may not allow that under current rules, and I'm not sure what effect this new rule would have for them, as far as having a F/A at the rear of the aircraft. We have allowed it for (I'm guessing) about the last 2 years or so. To answer your question: if there was a mishap while refueling (flames at the wing area), the preferred exit would be (for the airplane I fly) the aft door. If it's not armed, you'll walk into the tail cone area and get a nice view of most of the pneumatic system of the B717. That's as far as you'll get.

 

[tadjr]

Correction, if a f/a is non-revving/commuting they may NOT "stand in stead" for a working crewmember. It must be someone who is jumpseat qualified AND "on the clock."

Do you get paid while boarding? I thought most carriers only paid when the door was closed. How would the FAA know who was "on the clock" if no one was getting paid during boarding? Unless it was whomever was scheduled to work the flight? We've used other crews to board planes when the inbound crew was late so the plane would be ready to go after a crew switch out. Is this considered wrong also, even though the crew was "working" just scheduled to take out another flight? I dont see how they could differentiate a "working" vs "commuting" crew member as long as they were current on the plane they were helping to board.

 

[nbmcg01]

Do you get paid while boarding? I thought most carriers only paid when the door was closed. How would the FAA know who was "on the clock" if no one was getting paid during boarding? Unless it was whomever was scheduled to work the flight? We've used other crews to board planes when the inbound crew was late so the plane would be ready to go after a crew switch out. Is this considered wrong also, even though the crew was "working" just scheduled to take out another flight? I dont see how they could differentiate a "working" vs "commuting" crew member as long as they were current on the plane they were helping to board.

Why shouldn't the flight attendants stay FLIGHT Attendants? Why should they take on ramp duties (cleaning), agent duties (ticket pulling) and unaccompanied children, contract vendors jobs, wheelchairs? There are required flight safety duties for all on plane staff and the pilots need to be attending to check lists and walk arounds, not doing the f/as jobs. This is really getting out of hand and should be quickly addressed contractually. I suppose the next order of business is loading and unloading bags and catering. Maybe those taks could become part of airport standby.

There are only rare instances a flight attendant needs to leave the aircraft. Of course now that minimum staffing is the "norm" it IS hard for someone to run get everyone something to eat.

How is the union reacting? I haven't seen any of the pay issues "adjusted". (or is this to be considered "out of the goodness of your heart."

 

[swflyer]

How is the union reacting?

To: All Flight Attendants

From: Thom McDaniel, President TWU Local 556

RE: FAA Exemption

____________________________________________________________________
The Federal Aviation Administration recently granted an exemption to Southwest Airlines allowing for the substitution of a pilot "during boarding at an intermediate stop and to reduce the number of required flight attendants onboard during the deplaning of passengers at an intermediate stop."

This exemptions was sought by Southwest Airlines and supported by TWU in an effort to maintain the status quo that has been in effect for many years whereby, Pilots have taken the place of Flight Attendants to provide minimum crew requirements between flights to allow Flight Attendants the opportunity to attend to duties including walking off unaccompanied minors and attend to personal matters such as obtaining food.

The exemption is specific to Southwest Airlines and does not allow Southwest Airlines to require additional duties of Flight Attendants while on the ground between flights and in accordance with the TWA/TWU Local 556 Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 24.2 "A" Flight Attendant will not be required to perform work normally assigned to a cleaner, provisioner or ramp or operations agent." Our Union understands and respects the scope of our Contract and all other Contracts on property. We would never allow ourselves to be assigned or infringe on the work of our fellow Employees. We would firmly oppose any attempt by Southwest Airlines or any other carrier to use this decision to violate the contracts of their Flight Attendants or any other work group.

In preserving the status quo, we have allowed our Flight Attendants to continue to perform their assigned duties and attend to their personal business between flights. We feel that this is a great example of Southwest Airlines and TWU Local 556 working together for the benefit of our Flight Attendants.

 

[nbmcg01]

To: All Flight Attendants

From: Thom McDaniel, President TWU Local 556

RE: FAA Exemption

____________________________________________________________________
The Federal Aviation Administration recently granted an exemption to Southwest Airlines allowing for the substitution of a pilot "during boarding at an intermediate stop and to reduce the number of required flight attendants onboard during the deplaning of passengers at an intermediate stop."

This exemptions was sought by Southwest Airlines and supported by TWU in an effort to maintain the status quo that has been in effect for many years whereby, Pilots have taken the place of Flight Attendants to provide minimum crew requirements between flights to allow Flight Attendants the opportunity to attend to duties including walking off unaccompanied minors and attend to personal matters such as obtaining food.

The exemption is specific to Southwest Airlines and does not allow Southwest Airlines to require additional duties of Flight Attendants while on the ground between flights and in accordance with the TWA/TWU Local 556 Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 24.2 "A" Flight Attendant will not be required to perform work normally assigned to a cleaner, provisioner or ramp or operations agent." Our Union understands and respects the scope of our Contract and all other Contracts on property. We would never allow ourselves to be assigned or infringe on the work of our fellow Employees. We would firmly oppose any attempt by Southwest Airlines or any other carrier to use this decision to violate the contracts of their Flight Attendants or any other work group.

In preserving the status quo, we have allowed our Flight Attendants to continue to perform their assigned duties and attend to their personal business between flights. We feel that this is a great example of Southwest Airlines and TWU Local 556 working together for the benefit of our Flight Attendants.

Thank you..

 

[NAPAUS]

I believe the conclusion was if the infant had to have it's own seat, families would end up driving. An infant in a mothers arms on a plane is less risk to the infant than said infant in a car seat in an auto

That is absolute BS. You my friend need to read accident/incident reports and what has happened to said infants that were being held in said mother's arms. I was witness to one such incident - almost 15 years ago - in severe turbulence. The bay went flying - said mother could not hold on to child and the baby flew up and hit ceiling. Outcome- broken neck , severe bruising and PERMANENT disability for child. How sad that this could have been prevented by Mom buying a ticket for her baby and putting it in a seat. Seems a SMALL price for safety. B) B)

 

[WCT]

Get a life all! At America West, we once had a same policy, too allow minimum crew on a thru flight or stop over. It makes no sense to have full crew on board on these flights. We had 1 flight attendant during boarding if it was a thru flight, or two on larger a/c. I agree with the new policy at Southwest. They, and us, work long duty days, and should be able to get off to get food, take a break, etc. I applaud SW for getting this rule back in place. Maybe at the new US Airways we will get the same.

Get a life all! At America West, we once had a same policy, too allow minimum crew on a thru flight or stop over. It makes no sense to have full crew on board on these flights. We had 1 flight attendant during boarding if it was a thru flight, or two on larger a/c. I agree with the new policy at Southwest. They, and us, work long duty days, and should be able to get off to get food, take a break, etc. I applaud SW for getting this rule back in place. Maybe at the new US Airways we will get the same.

 

[WCT]

 

[SKY HIGH]

I agree with the new policy at Southwest. They, and us, work long duty days, and should be able to get off to get food, take a break, etc. I applaud SW for getting this rule back in place. Maybe at the new US Airways we will get the same.

sky high states: And, why dont YOU educate yourself on why this rule was REALLY mandated====>



***SPECIAL EDITION***
July 11, 2007

Message From the International President

Dear AFA-CWA Member,

In a bid for greater flexibility in crew member responsibilities, Southwest Airlines sought and received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to circumvent certain federal aviation regulations. The exemption granted by the FAA allows the substitution of a pilot for a flight attendant "during boarding at an intermediate stop and to reduce the number of required flight attendants onboard during the deplaning of passengers at an intermediate stop."

While, at face value, this exemption would enable flight attendants the opportunity to purchase meals between flights, it is also a back door fix for the chronic under staffing at Southwest and other carriers. That is why airlines have already begun queuing up at the doorstep of the FAA seeking similar exemptions. (American Airlines, AirTran, Delta, US Airways and America West airlines supported the Southwest petition to the FAA and have stated their interest in applying the exemption to their operations as well.)

Your AFA-CWA International officers felt it was important to inform you about what this exemption really means in terms of our jobs. The FAA claimed they granted the exemption in the public interest as it would allow flight attendants to perform safety, operational and service responsibilities as necessary within the Southwest 25-minute turn time. The exemption creates additional duties for flight attendants which include obtaining wheelchairs for passengers, walking unaccompanied minors off the aircraft, and assisting the traveling public in other ways. Southwest argued that, without this ability, ground times would increase resulting in higher costs and increased airfares.

Let us be very clear: First and foremost, this exemption is not about allowing flight attendants to get off the aircraft to get food or deal with personal issues. This exemption was crafted to enable flight attendants to perform additional duties off the aircraft to compensate for gate agent staffing shortages. Our concern is that, next, the airlines may ask flight attendants to pull passenger tickets.

The ruling exempts Southwest Airlines from complying with CFR 121.391(a) and 121.393(B). These important federal regulations govern flight attendant crew complements based on the weight and seating capacity of an aircraft and provide specific circumstances when minimum crew complements can be reduced during intermediate stops on the ground. It will not affect staffing requirements for originating flights.

The FAA claims that airlines will be able to maintain an equivalent safety level under the exemption because the rate of incidents that occur at the gate is low and because the pilots substituting as flight attendant must be appropriately trained n the specific flight attendant emergency roles and responsibilities. However, the exemption does not state what this 'training' of pilots will entail. At a minimum, the FAA exemption states that only a pilot standing in the passenger cabin could be considered a substitute and not a pilot seated in the flight deck.

The union that represents the Southwest pilots committed that pilots will be "effective in commanding passenger attention during a cabin evacuation since most passengers view a pilot in uniform as the ultimate operations authority figure on the aircraft."

The Transport Workers Union (TWU), which represents Southwest Airlines flight attendants, submitted written support for the management petition last year. TWU emphasized first that the exemption would allow their members to "carry out other duties such as taking care of special needs customers (like children traveling alone or wheel chair bound passengers), and making sure that operation issues are reliably satisfied." To their members, TWU painted this ruling as an avenue for flight attendants to step off the aircraft and grab a meal during long duty days. However, obtaining food on intermediate stops was secondary in their written filing submitted to the FAA--it was an afterthought.

AFA-CWA filed a strongly worded opposition response to the Southwest petition last year. ALPA, the Teamsters and APFA (the union representing the American Airlines flight attendants) joined us in opposing this short-sighted exemption petition. We are now evaluating our next options. Today, I directed the AFA-CWA Air Safety, Health and Security Department to further research this issue and, if appropriate, to file a timely appeal with the FAA as I believe this ruling will set a harmful precedent for our members.

Southwest management sought this exemption to control costs at the airline by piling more work on the backs of our fellow flight attendants there. Management at other airlines will surely see this ruling as an opportunity for them to layer more duties and responsibilities on flight attendants beyond the environment as well. As we have witnessed with other industry trends, bankruptcy notwithstanding, the appetite for cost cutting at other airlines will cause them to follow suit.

In solidarity,

Pat Friend


only stating opinions

 

[citrus jock]

I understand the argument that having F/As assist with wheelchairs and UMs allows an airline to employ fewer gate agents to perform these duties, to the consternation of the gate agent's union. In the case of wheelchairs, some cities I fly to have another company that does this. So having more agents to perform the job that the wheelchair pushing company is supposed to do might piss off the wheelchair pusher's union.

If I'm scheduled to receive 10 hrs. of "rest" (which equals 6 hrs. sleep, after securing the aircraft, post-flt. walkaround, waiting for hotel van, etc.) at the end of a day's flying, and I have a choice between pushing a wheelchair myself or waiting for the company that's supposed to do it (whose performance is usually less than stellar), I'll do it myself. The 6 hrs. of sleep I'm going to get is decreased each minute I'm waiting. The legal amount of "rest" I'm required to get can usually be reduced to 8 or 9, so waiting for someone else to do their job won't cause a delay, possibly causing someone to notice and remedy the situation. If I wait 30 minutes for the wheelchair pusher, the only thing that happens is I get 30 minutes less sleep, and an earful from the person waiting for their chair about how it's my fault that someone from another company didn't do their job.

 

[mrman]

That is absolute BS. You my friend need to read accident/incident reports and what has happened to said infants that were being held in said mother's arms. I was witness to one such incident - almost 15 years ago - in severe turbulence. The bay went flying - said mother could not hold on to child and the baby flew up and hit ceiling. Outcome- broken neck , severe bruising and PERMANENT disability for child. How sad that this could have been prevented by Mom buying a ticket for her baby and putting it in a seat. Seems a SMALL price for safety. B) B)

No need for hostility, I agree with buying a seat, but the reality is most families can't afford the extra seat, so they drive and statistically the additional infants in autos does more harm.

Ask yourself if you had to shell out an additional $300 or drive for four hours what would you do. Most families would drive.

 

[john john]

OK WN lets get rid of the boarding agent at the loading bridge door and let the flight attendant do the boarding. Less agents and flight attendant doing agents work this will save the your company money at the agents expense. Is better unitization of employees? Maybe management/agents can ride the flight jumpseat and bump pass riders just to help out.

 

[swflyer]

Please refer to my above post, outlining that flight crew will NOT be taking work from other workgroups.

We work together, and we like it here. Thanks for your interest in Southwest Airlines. <_<

 

[LCC_#1]

No need for hostility, I agree with buying a seat, but the reality is most families can't afford the extra seat, so they drive and statistically the additional infants in autos does more harm.

Ask yourself if you had to shell out an additional $300 or drive for four hours what would you do. Most families would drive.

There is NO COST TOO HIGH for your child. If you search smart, you will NEVER pay that additional $300. Anyway, that kind of prrice sounds like a NE-Fla price or further. My friend, you will spend a heck of alot more money than $300 if you drive that far and spend a night or two in a hotel.

 

[JS]

There is NO COST TOO HIGH for your child. If you search smart, you will NEVER pay that additional $300. Anyway, that kind of prrice sounds like a NE-Fla price or further. My friend, you will spend a heck of alot more money than $300 if you drive that far and spend a night or two in a hotel.

"no cost too high" is foolish. There has to be a limit or you will go broke protecting your children from every infintesimally small risk in life.

What do you mean by "you will never pay that additional $300 if you search smart"? Is there a secret code to buying a $59 fare for an infant when the adult fare is $600?

Check your math -- $300 for the infant means the adult is $600, and assuming a family of four (two adults, one older child and one infant), makes the total air fare $2,100. Now compare that to the cost of driving your own car. It would be cheaper to drive, which is why the FAA lets infants sit in laps.