US Airways Express cannot exceed 50 occupants infants and lap children

[john john]

We have been told that all US Airways Express Air Wisconsin flights that the total number of passengers (including infants and lap children cannot exceed 50 occupants. this is due to FAR requirements that each occupant of the aircraft must have a flotation device. effective immediately the total number of passengers that US Airway express Air Wisconsin can accept for transport including lap children can not exceed 50 on a 50 seater
If you have 48 pax on a fifty-seater a/c with two laps you are in compliance however even thought there are two empty seat on the a/c additional pax can not be boarded

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

We have been told that all US Airways Express Air Wisconsin flights that the total number of passengers (including infants and lap children cannot exceed 50 occupants.

What?!!?. Is this in writing anywhere? Is this just an Air Wiskey deal? If this turns out to be true, what a unholy mess it will be!

 

[jimntx]

I do know that you cannot exceed the number of oxygen masks in a row. For instance, on the MD-80, there are 4 masks on the DEF side of the aisle. Therefore only 1 lap child per row on the DEF side if all seats in row are occupied.

I have never heard of matching the number of passengers to the number of flotation devices.

 

[john john]

New interpretation I guess was inform today by Air Wisconsin management THIS IS A FACT AS OF TODAY HAD TO DEAL WITH IT

 

[BoeingBoy]

FAR § 121.340 Emergency flotation means.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (B) of this section, no person may operate an airplane in any overwater operation unless it is equipped with life preservers in accordance with §121.339(a)(1) or with an approved flotation means for each occupant. This means must be within easy reach of each seated occupant and must be readily removable from the airplane.

(B) Upon application by the air carrier or commercial operator, the Administrator may approve the operation of an airplane over water without the life preservers or flotation means required by paragraph (a) of this section, if the air carrier or commercial operator shows that the water over which the airplane is to be operated is not of such size and depth that life preservers or flotation means would be required for the survival of its occupants in the event the flight terminates in that water.
----

Additionally, this "Safety Alert For Operators" (SAFO) was issued by the FAA earlier this year.

SAFO Concerning Lap Children & Flotation Devices

Question - does Air Wisconsin have life vests on board or do they rely on the seat cushion it meet the "approved flotation devices" requirement. If the latter, there obviously aren't more seat cushions than seats so lap children would not have a flotation device available.

Possibly, they had relied on an exception as provided by 121.340(B) in their role of UA Express but weren't able to continue that in their role as US Express, given the geographically different area of operation.

Jim

 

[N903AW]

Perhaps now air carriers will have a reason for charging a seat that the infant must occupy in an approved child restraint system.

Much safer for the baby in the event of an emergency as proven by so many accidents in the past where lap children that were unrestrained may have survived.

 

[AIRMAIL]

Can you imagine non-reving and there are plenty of seats available and when you get to the gate you see a bunch of infants. At that point you know you are screwed. If the company is going to adhere to this policy then the lap child needs to pay for the seat. Can you imagine taking DB`s to account for lap children.

 

[a320av8r]

What constitutes "overwater operations"? Are we talking within 50 miles of landfall or crossing the Mississippi?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I suspect it's whatever a carrier can convince it's POI to accept, within the hard and fast rules.

Jim

 

[ItsJustAJob]

I suspect it's whatever a carrier can convince it's POI to accept, within the hard and fast rules.

Jim

At PSA our -200's (50 seats) carry an extra 5 infant life vests. Our -700's (70 seats) carry an extra 7 infant vests. Therefore we are limited to 5 and 7 lap children. I'm guessing Air Wisconsin does not carry these vests.

 

[NCflyer]

At PSA our -200's (50 seats) carry an extra 5 infant life vests. Our -700's (70 seats) carry an extra 7 infant vests. Therefore we are limited to 5 and 7 lap children. I'm guessing Air Wisconsin does not carry these vests.

PDT carries extra life vests as well for just this situation.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

. Can you imagine taking DB`s to account for lap children.

I'd like to to believe that ZW will have to pay US Airways some sort of a penalty for the lost revenue this will cause. I don't, of course, think that will happen.

Why doens'r Air Wiskey just put infant life vest on their barbiejets?
What is interesting is why this has not come up before. If it has something to do with losing a waiver as a result of to from UAX to US Express, why did it take so long.

On the topic of infant lifevest in general, where are they stored on aircraft that do have them? Except in a "planned ditching" how would the parent have access to the lifevest?

 

[john john]

:Is this in writing anywhere? what a unholy mess it will be!

YES ZW Management sent out a memo

 

[expressedndepressed]

I agree with not-shirley, should not LLC expect just-compensation until the problem is fixed?

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Update: On Friday, the daily system briefing stated that the new ZW infant restriction had been rescinded. If that really is the case, word has not yet been received at ZW dispatch. Per ZW dispatch this AM, the infant restriction is still in place.