Life Silver Recognition? Nope accused of made up crime and threatened with arrest..

[Flying_man]

A B738 has five flight attendants all of whom have rolls to play in a major emergency and all of whom have a job in normal operations.

By splitting the roles you will five extra cabin crew. Are you really suggesting the airlines give up five pax seats for people to loaf in until or if needed.

No loafing! They can do safety inspection and patrol of cabin.

 

[straitman]

No loafing! They can do safety inspection and patrol of cabin.

Seriously?

For the 99.99999% of the time in normal operations they would have nothing to do!

Would you suggest the same for bus travel?

 

[GoldCanyon340]

No loafing! They can do safety inspection and patrol of cabin.

Sounds like the aviation equivalent of the classic one person digging a hole in the road and nine others standing around watching!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Is that an assumption or have things changed that I’m unaware of?

I’ll stand by what I said and can give examples. One that comes to mind is PER-SIN last year. One FA had a bad attitude (IMHO) and took it out on several pax. An incident occurred with a pax collapsing on leaving the toilet. She went from being the Ogre to running the full length of the a/c and doing a great job of reviving him.

I appreciate the example. But I don't think we can necessarily take it for granted. If pilots get it wrong, so will cabin crew. Is a bad attitude towards your job an indicator you might also have a bad attitude during your training? I guess that's the unknown.

 

[rikkitikkitavi]

Today I was in J, quietly filled in my arrival card during the safety presentation, held my phone in a similar manner to last time for a little bit as an experiment, no one batted an eyelid, crew were great as well as the service. We had a laugh when the little kid in the first Y row behind me tapped the CSM on the shoulder and asked if he could please have a coke while we talking about the wine. They went above and beyond and located a dessert wine to have with the cheese. Neither I nor the small child were threatened with arrest. Good flight.

 

[SOPOOR]

Today I was in J, quietly filled in my arrival card during the safety presentation, held my phone in a similar manner to last time for a little bit as an experiment, no one batted an eyelid, crew were great as well as the service. We had a laugh when the little kid in the first Y row behind me tapped the CSM on the shoulder and asked if he could please have a coke while we talking about the wine. They went above and beyond and located a dessert wine to have with the cheese. Neither I nor the small child were threatened with arrest. Good flight.

the cabin crew got the kid a dessert wine???

 

[Strategic Aviation]

No, rikkitikkitavi alleges they were threatened with arrest for alleged filming ...

Be that as it may, it is not what the FA threatened @rikkitikkitavi for

The FA threatened @rikkitikkitavi (wrongly) for the supposed crime of filming as perceived/witnessed by the FA - not for allegedly filming (e.g. where another FA alleged to the FA that @rikkitikkitavi had been filming), and not for a supposed crime of 'allegedly filming' (i.e. where you have committed a crime if someone alleges that you have been filming, regardless of whether you were or were not filming).

Exactly, there are no agreed facts between myself and Qantas yet.

It wasn't about the facts (or allegations), just an attempt at humour based on grammatical pedantry

Anyhow, and apologies if you've already stated this in the thread, what correspondence have you entered into with Qantas and what outcome are you seeking?

 

[BD1959]

Be that as it may, it is not what the FA threatened @rikkitikkitavi for

LOL .... you miss the point (and comedic irony) entirely.

Until proven (and usually pending an outcome in a court of law) any accusation is alleged. See the OP's response at #152 above.

Regards,

BD

 

[Strategic Aviation]

LOL .... you miss the point (and comedic irony) entirely.

Hahaha, thanks for the laugh mate Funnily enough you miss the point (and meaning of certain words) entirely, but at least you made me laugh.

Now back to the thread ...

 

[straitman]

I appreciate the example. But I don't think we can necessarily take it for granted. If pilots get it wrong, so will cabin crew. Is a bad attitude towards your job an indicator you might also have a bad attitude during your training? I guess that's the unknown.

I’m happy to stake my 50 years of aviation experience that it really is a minor issue and pretty much boils down to an individual having a bad day or simply getting one or two things wrong out of the many they do during a day. Aviation professionals are after all just humans doing their job.

 

[rikkitikkitavi]

the cabin crew got the kid a dessert wine???

He was disappointed by the lack of Sauternes, only Muscat or late harvest Riesling but I think he handled it well!

 

[Flying_man]

Sounds like the aviation equivalent of the classic one person digging a hole in the road and nine others standing around watching!

Ok so give them other job to do if they have downtime, like admin work or telemarketing. But important thing is they are not provide “customer service” to passenger. They are seperate to on-board waiter and are only there to enforce rules and safety.

 

[straitman]

Ok so give them other job to do if they have downtime, like admin work or telemarketing. But important thing is they are not provide “customer service” to passenger. They are seperate to on-board waiter and are only there to enforce rules and safety.

I understand what you are saying but it’s economically it’s not a practical option and really would do nothing to enhance safety.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Have more than one, enough to be adequate for emergency.
But they don’t provide “customer service”, so they have full respect of passenger for their authority.

You'd need one fully trained safety officer for each 50 pax (or whatever the local regulations are). And that should equate to at least one safety officer for each door on a large passenger aircraft. If you consider the A380 that would mean 16 safety officers. At a minimum they have to be able to handle the use of a door, and potentially determine when to initiate an evacuation in the absence of time or advice from the flight deck.

On a 737/A320, by the time you have one to cover each door there's really only scope for 1-2 non-safety officers. But by themselves they wouldn't be able to conduct on board service.

 

[Flying_man]

I understand what you are saying but it’s economically it’s not a practical option and really would do nothing to enhance safety.

Maybe I start new thread to canvas my good idea.

 

[straitman]

Maybe I start new thread to canvas my good idea.

You have done or said nothing that in anyway supports your idea at this stage.
Where are the resources coming from to service this idea?
The extra man power required is 70-100% more than the current cabin crew requirements so that also equates to 5-15 pax that cannot be carried. That is many millions per year extra in costs that need to be carried by the airline.
Aviation is already a very marginal and expensive business without adding a major cost factor to achieve a level of safety that we already have.
Remember the old aviation saying that the way to make a million dollars in aviation is to start with 10 million.

 

[juddles]

..... what correspondence have you entered into with Qantas and what outcome are you seeking?

I hope you aim high - for example, demand that they rename one of the A380's "rikkitikkitavi". That outcome I would love

 

[Strategic Aviation]

They should let @rikkitikkitavi film (direct) the next safety video.

 

[SOPOOR]

They should let @rikkitikkitavi film (direct) the next safety video.

With a warning.

"Failure to listen carefully like in 3rd grade may result in police arrest or fbi involvement

 

[rikkitikkitavi]

With a warning.

"Failure to listen carefully like in 3rd grade may result in police arrest or fbi involvement

The flight will be diverted to Pyongyang where you will be reeducated...