Main Cabin Extra Seats

[fltguymk]

It's one per fifty seats. If it works out to one per door on certain aircraft it's strictly coincidental.

MK
[/quote

Uh, you are wrong... I am looking at my AA FA manual. 8 FA min for 777-200. One per door. AA and FAA an agreement of 10 min FA crew for the 777-300. One per door agreement has overridden the 1/50 rule... Apparently, one per door is more important than the ratio requirement!

 

[BoeingBoy]

Apparently, one per door is more important than the ratio requirement!

But apparently only on certain aircraft types and/or certain carriers. A 737-300/700 is still 3 FA's, not 1 per each of the 4 doors, but a 737-900 is 4 FA's which happens to be 1 per door but is required by the 1 per 50 seats mandate.

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

Must be a widebody thing; AA's typical domestic FA staffing is five on its 757s despite the existence of six doors.

 

[jimntx]

No. AA's staffing for a 757 is 4 f/as--FAA minimum. In an evacuation, the #3 is responsible for both the 2L and the 2R doors. We haven't staffed with 5 since we quit serving meals in coach. I think if a 75 is used on a transcon, there may be 5 f/as, but I don't know that for sure. DFW to LAX, MIA, or LGA is 4 f/as.

 

[737823]

No. AA's staffing for a 757 is 4 f/as--FAA minimum. In an evacuation, the #3 is responsible for both the 2L and the 2R doors. We haven't staffed with 5 since we quit serving meals in coach. I think if a 75 is used on a transcon, there may be 5 f/as, but I don't know that for sure. DFW to LAX, MIA, or LGA is 4 f/as.

BOS-LAX usually has 5 FAs on a 757, 4 on 737-800, and 7 on 763

Josh

 

[cf6mech]

No, you're incorrect. Carty tried to one-up United by expanding legroom in all rows after United rolled out its Economy Plus in 2000. In fact, AA's yields were above UA's while MRTC was in existence. MRTC co-existed with higher yields than the competition.

Along came Arpey, a well-known opponent of More Room, and began dismantling it in the midst of 2003, when AA needed every advantage over the competition. Instead, he claimed that packing in more seats was worth $150 million in incremental revenue each year. Lately, however, UA and DL have seen better unit revenue increases than AA.

If this idea were a "failing idea," then you gotta wonder about UA, which has stuck with it for 12 years now and why UA is continuing it even though Smisek, formerly of CO and a vocal critic of more room, has taken over UA. And you gotta wonder why DL has finally matched UA. Airlines offering more room to some economy passengers have the numbers that you and I do not have, and they say it works. But maybe you're right.

You are delusional......its been done.....when we still had " LUXURY LINER " on the sides of our planes and Southwest and others were reinventing the wheel with no assigned seats and creating a flying experiance like riding a Greyhound bus (as its cheaper and price is king not anemities) .....our management team said "heh"....lets take seats out and loose more revenue.....total bone headed decission and not only cost lost passenger revenue......you have no idea the cost in maintenance and how much work it is to repitch a cabin.....then....as we ended up doing,.... repitch back .....what a debacle. Although it made plenty of mechanics OT pay.

 

[cf6mech]

What AA really needs is proper decision making.
Too much change because of poor decisions is the real cost culprit.

Agree...... and this is an on going theme.

 

[wcs]

It's one per fifty seats. If it works out to one per door on certain aircraft it's strictly coincidental.

MK

FAR 121.391 basically says that the Flight Attendant requirement is 1 per 50 seats unless;
when the emergency evacuation procedures are demonstrated for the FAA on a new aircraft the
carrier needs more than the 1 per 50 seats minimum cabin crew then;
the minimum required will be the number required for the evacuation demonstration.

FAR 121.391

When the 777-200 was certified the evacuation demonstration required 8 F/As.
I don't know if a evacuation demonstration has been done for the 777-300.

 

[FA Mikey]

Must be a widebody thing; AA's typical domestic FA staffing is five on its 757s despite the existence of six doors.

Its an FAA requirement for min time evacuation. When the 777 was certified they were unable to do complete the drill in 90 seconds. Which would have allowed a min down to the 50 seat rule. So instead they were required to staff each door.

 

[notsonew]

Another lovely AA idea...except the pax had better want to wait an additional 30 min to get their drinks since AA is taking another flight attendant off the plane..My experience with these people who are paying for more leg room and are seated up front, they are a bunch of First Class wanna bes..

 

[notsonew]

Another lovely AA idea...except the pax had better want to wait an additional 30 min to get their drinks since AA is taking another flight attendant off the plane..My experience with these people who are paying for more leg room and are seated up front, they are a bunch of First Class wanna bes..

 

[fltguymk]

But apparently only on certain aircraft types and/or certain carriers. A 737-300/700 is still 3 FA's, not 1 per each of the 4 doors, but a 737-900 is 4 FA's which happens to be 1 per door but is required by the 1 per 50 seats mandate.

Jim

I am only referring to AA's 777's. After several mini evacuations (which included blocked exits,fires,etc), the FAA decided one FA per door was needed on this aircraft to evacuate the pax safety and quickly.

 

[jimntx]

BOS-LAX usually has 5 FAs on a 757, 4 on 737-800, and 7 on 763

Josh

Uh, BOS-LAX is a transcon. Did you see me mention 737s or 763s? You have an incisive grasp of the obvious, except when it is obvious.

 

[737823]

No. AA's staffing for a 757 is 4 f/as--FAA minimum. In an evacuation, the #3 is responsible for both the 2L and the 2R doors. We haven't staffed with 5 since we quit serving meals in coach. I think if a 75 is used on a transcon, there may be 5 f/as, but I don't know that for sure. DFW to LAX, MIA, or LGA is 4 f/as.

Uh, BOS-LAX is a transcon. Did you see me mention 737s or 763s? You have an incisive grasp of the obvious, except when it is obvious.

As indicated above, it wasn't obvious to you. Perhaps you don't like or do not have the opportunity to fly transcons. I was sharing my observation on the route which I've flown on a monthly basis for several years now. The route is currently operated with the mix of equipment I shared.

Josh