Crew Rest Bunks.....A Potential Gold Mine or Management Spending A Dollar to Save A Nickel?

[ebwgs]

I have often questioned the wisdom of taking prime revenue seats (in this post I'll be referencing the A330s) in envoy and coach and using them as crew rest seats. Granted the envoy seats are great for the pilots and our exit row seats are the envy of the coach cabin. And as long as the present crew rest procedures prevail I'm definitely for keeping the seating that we have. But perhaps I'm not getting the big picture here: I have no doubt that this subject has been discussed here before, and if not, in introducing the subject I'd like to propose a radical idea: Why not sell those seats and make revenue? Lots of revenue. And in so doing, why not install a crew rest area underneath whereby we can actually rest and enjoy our off duty time like other airlines?

I've done some very simple--some might say too simplistic math--to illustrate the kind of revenue that could be available to the company should they sell the envoy seat.

If a round trip envoy seat is $4400, then that seat could be worth $30,800 based on flying it 7 days a week. That $30,800 x 365 days comes to $11,242,000. With 9 A330s on the property this comes to $101,178,000. Of course there are hidden variables in these numbers and admittedly, I don't know the total picture. But I do see that $100 million dollar potential that jumps out at me like a genie in a bottle. And these fiqures don't even take into account the Choice seats(used by the flight attendants)in coach.

I don't claim to speak for anyone but my self on this issue, but I'd gladly let management sell those seats for a true crew rest area for cockpit and cabin crew that offers a more restful area with comfortable seating and other modest amenities below. I know that we are in a revenue neutral environment, but in light of the revenue potential of selling those seats, installing crew bunks is a revenue generating opportunity that should be seriously considered. In my opinion, it's a potential win win situation for all of us involved. Any thoughts?

 

[FWAAA]

I'm certain that pilot rest seats do not cost US anywhere near $100 million in lost revenue each year. Maybe 1% of that.

Good analysis, but your conclusion rests on an assumption that US is turning away buyers of its Envoy seats with reqularity because they are used for crew rest, and that just ain't happening. If anything, moving crew rest somewhere else simply means that one more upgrade would clear, and upgrades don't bring in $4,400 return fare.

 

[ebwgs]

I'm certain that pilot rest seats do not cost US anywhere near $100 million in lost revenue each year. Maybe 1% of that.

Good analysis, but your conclusion rests on an assumption that US is turning away buyers of its Envoy seats with reqularity because they are used for crew rest, and that just ain't happening. If anything, moving crew rest somewhere else simply means that one more upgrade would clear, and upgrades don't bring in $4,400 return fare.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Put crew rest seats underneath and cargo gets bumped.

Big money in TA cargo.

 

[ebwgs]

FWAAA you raise some fair points. But if, as you say, the revenue cost to US is 10% of the hundred million that I calculated, would that $10 million revenue increase not be an incentive to make a one time investment in crew rests? Would a $10 million dollar windfall not pay for the cost of installing a crew rest area over time. I would venture a guess that the cost of installing a subterranean crew rest area would in no way approach the cost--keep in mind I'm quoting your estimate of $10 million based on your view that the cost of blocking envoy seats in more like 10% of the $100 million I've estimated--incurred by not having premium envoy and coach seats available for purchase.

 

[700UW]

I dont think the A330 has an option for a real crew rest area, and it is contractual for the pilots and fas to have seats available for crew rest.

I know CO has and installed Crew Rest Areas in their 777 with beds and all.

So if you put in a real crew rest area you will be losing overhead space and maybe seats too.

And from reading other articles CO does the same by blocking business class seats for crew rest, this problem is not unique to US alone.

 

[ebwgs]

Dog Wonder I have not forgotten the impact on cargo, thus my acknowledgement of the "big picture" that I may not totally understand. But have we analyzed the impact on cargo revenues vs. the impact on passenger revenue. Granted every airline's revenue stream differs from the other, but the other carries appear to reconcile their cargo and passenger revenues while offering their inflight crews restful bunk areas where they can comfortably retire without having their rest constantly disturbed by the hectic nature of the passenger cabin. Why can't we do the same?

 

[700UW]

Your info is not totally correct, you can search the internet and most of the US airlines block seats vs putting in a real crew rest area.

CO has some 777 with crew rest areas, and they do take away seats, and/or overhead space and/or cargo space.

And the cargo pays for the flight going overseas, I was an air cargo agent back in the day with PI and trust me it does generate substantial cash.

 

[ebwgs]

700UW you are right the rest seats are contractual for cockpit and cabin crew. As a cabin crew member--speaking for myself--I would be willing to give up those seats for crew bunks and a rest area down below. And the privacy and solitude that it would bring. And as for overhead bins, if I have room below to stow my bags that can open up overhead space for the passengers then that's a good thing. But You folks have raised some excellent points in questioning my post. What I basically want to know is why we don't have bunks. If the status quo makes sense then I'm all for it. But I'm not yet convinced that our system is the most revenue positive approach. There are too many of our competitors who have successfully managed this issue.

 

[700UW]

US doesnt have true bunks probably for several reasons:

1. the cost of them.
2. loss of seats, overheads or cargo space.
3. loss of revenue because of them.
4. really dont have the true long haul international network of the other US Airlines.

When I was am IAM Rep, I was involved in the CO FA Negotiations and they actually had to grieve and go to arbitration to get CO to start installing the crew rest areas instead of blocking seats, CO has a mixture of crew rest areas or blocking seats on planes that dont have them.

CO did not want to install them due to the cost and loss of revenue because of the space they take up.

 

[LCC_#1]

I would like an employee cafeteria, king size beds for all, a disco, gym, and computer room. Take out the seats up stairs and put in strap hangers. There...problem solved!

 

[etops1]

i wrote to andrew nocella about this issue. he told me that the A330-200's are not considered a long range a/c therefore ,no crew bunks will be installed for the cabin crew. the A350 now is considered long range a/c so the issue with the crew bunks will be reserved for the A350's.

 

[FlyDCJets]

The new A330's spec has them configured with a flight deck crew rest bunk.

 

[ebwgs]

I would love to see some empirical data showing that some real thought has been invested in resolving this crew rest seat vs. crew bunks issue, so that I and other colleagues who have questioned the wisdom of taking these revenue seats out of inventory will feel some sense of a commonsensical resolution of this matter has been achieved. I suspect that we are losing potentially millions of dollars by not selling the envoy and Choice coach seats on the A330s. I have yet to see that the millions we are losing on those seats are being offset by the dollar gains made by cargo. I would love to see some evidence. Until then, I suspect we are losing out on a major revenue opportunity.

 

[700UW]

Do you not understand either way you are going to lose seats, overhead space or cargo space with the crew rest area.

I would think blocking a couple of envoy seats is way cheaper than installing crew rest areas.