Flight Returns for FA?

[flytchick]

Any truth that a 767 had to return back to IAD because it was short a required f/a? Whose fault is that and what will happen in the aftermath?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Other than it was a 777 and not a 767, it's apparently true.

Jim

 

[HottootrotNyc]

Now that's one messed up airline.... I mean how much worse can it get?

 

[usstew]

Curious Jim...where did you get your info.?

 

[flytchick]

Jim is right - it was a 777 from IAD to Tokyo - I read about it on another aviation board but have been unable to confirm it. It was reported that it was flight 803 on Saturday I believe.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Flight Global

It's true that the flight returned to IAD (there's a link to one of the flight tracking sites showing the return), but I said "apparently" because the article just referenced "sources" for the part about missing a F/A.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

It was reported that it was flight 803 on Saturday I believe.

Correct - Saturday 10-10-09

Jim

 

[goodgirl37]

Correct - Saturday 10-10-09

Jim

What happened is this , IAD-NRT was delayed, they asked the crew to waive legalities, half of the crew said yes and half said no.. So, there were several reserves on the Moscow flight, so an inflight supervisor came and pulled 4 flight attendants to go on with 5 other flight attendants that did waive their legalities. One of the flight attendants (a reserve) told the purser "we dont have mins, we need 10 f/a's).. Purser replied " I have been doing this for years and we are fine with 9 f/a's" , basically thinking of herself and not messing her trip up.

Before all of this however, When the supervisor pulled the 4 f/a's from Moscow, they were trying to literally shove them on the NRT flight w/o being checked off by the gate agent, and being confirmed as working crew with a new IBS.. The supervisor told the agent "I will give you their names later, you dont need to see their ID's" BIGTIME SECURITY ViOLATION SUPERVISOR!!!! Evidently, the pilots were going illegal in a few short minutes (12 mins) I believe. Then, once the issue was brought up to the Purser (one of the ones that obviously waived and should not have) she basically shunned the reserve and told them that they didnt know what they are talking about.


After the plane takes off to NRT, about 1.5 hours into flight, they have to turn around b/c -- GUESS WHY MISS SMARTY PANTS PURSER??? That's right - it is 10 F/A minimum and we only have 9... So they turn around right back to DULLES.. The Purser should be taken off line and be disciplined and the Supervisor should be in alot of trouble as well for violating security procedures. The gate agent was in the right and no matter what the time situation is, ID's must be checked... The pilots should have had an updated IBS, but all in all, many people are to blame, UAL has very poor scheduling practices... VERY VERY POOR...

 

[USFlyer]

Pardon my ignorance, but unless UA's 777s seat more than 500 people, why do you need 10 FAs (1 FA per every 50 passenger seats)? Was the turnback for FAA regulations or union contract compliance?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I think you've answered your own question - 1 FA per 50 passengers is required by the FAA. Just going by SeatGuru, looks like 7 FA's would meet the FAA requirement. Interesting chain of events if the one account of what happened is accurate - contract legalities were waived (can't waive FAA requirements) but the flight returned to IAD because of a contract legality.

Jim

 

[Bear96]

Pardon my ignorance, but unless UA's 777s seat more than 500 people, why do you need 10 FAs (1 FA per every 50 passenger seats)? Was the turnback for FAA regulations or union contract compliance?

Jim is not correct. It was due to FAA regs. Augmented F/A staffing is required for long haul flights when a duty period is scheduled to be more than 14 hours. See FAR 121.467(b)(4), (5) and (6):

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...ghlight=121.467

As I understand it, here, some of the F/As reassigned to the NRT flight had checked in many hours before that flight's departure to work another flight. When they were reassigned to the NRT flight, at least one must have had a projected duty time of over 18 or 20 hours, which triggered the augmented staffing requirements. Once UA realized what happened a couple of hours into the flight, it contacted the FAA to get some sort of one-time / self-reporting / "oops, mea culpa, honest mistake" waiver. The FAA denied the request, necessitating the return to IAD.

 

[FA Mikey]

Pardon my ignorance, but unless UA's 777s seat more than 500 people, why do you need 10 FAs (1 FA per every 50 passenger seats)? Was the turnback for FAA regulations or union contract compliance?

Good eye no else noticed that. Also although it doesnt matter in this case. FAA min on the 777 is always 8. I was told when we were getting qualified on the 777 that no one was able to do the evac for the FAA in the allotted time with under 8. So it stands.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim is not correct. It was due to FAA regs. Augmented F/A staffing is required for long haul flights when a duty period is scheduled to be more than 14 hours. See FAR 121.467(B)(4), (5) and (6)

Thanks Bear and Mikey. I didn't know two things - the length of the duty period for the replacement FA's and that 8 od the minimum complement for the 777. Just assumed that 7 was the minimum and no more than 1 over minimums would be required as it's blocked for 14:02 (leaving 1:58 for duty before/after the flight.

Jim

 

[goodgirl37]

Thanks Bear and Mikey. I didn't know two things - the length of the duty period for the replacement FA's and that 8 od the minimum complement for the 777. Just assumed that 7 was the minimum and no more than 1 over minimums would be required as it's blocked for 14:02 (leaving 1:58 for duty before/after the flight.

Jim

Yes it is due to duty times, that is the reason, otherwise the could have gone with less. The purser should know this, and so should the cockpit.

 

[czerny]

You need one fa per door on the 777. And there are 8 doors.