Are some crew members unfit for duty?

[FlyboyAl]

Qantas 747 crew are heading this way. A lot of them are getting on a bit! Also seem to hate their job, barely able to be civil to passengers in the main cabin. I find it amazing some of the things I've seen and heard.

Sorry, seems the reply with quote button got stuck for my previous reply.

 

[L.Sinc]

Sorry, I take exception to your remarks.
I flew QF11 last Saturday and the crew were great - I wasn't looking at them regarding their ages, but none of them stood out as "old". they were all having fun, and to me, really enjoying their jobs.
They also loved the chocolates I gave them and many of them came to my seat o say thanks.
If I was emplying cabin crew tomorrow, I would employ them all!
Oh, and the crew on the United flight to SFO were brilliant - they did the drinks run, and clean up on a full 739 in under 40 minutes.

Yes, QF11 is not a 747 it's A380 and I fly that route often too. The crew are fantastic, they love their job. Different crew though I understand. Different award. All young and great fun!

 

[FlyboyAl]

Last Saturday it was a 744 - don't know why, but I was a little pi##ed off when I lost my upstairs PE seat on the original 380, but they made up for it on the flight

 

[markis10]

Yes, QF11 is not a 747 it's A380 and I fly that route often too. The crew are fantastic, they love their job. Different crew though I understand. Different award. All young and great fun!

Not always, a 747 is often subbed, even a three class got the gig!

1/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQJ	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
22/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQH	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
23/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQH	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
24/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQG	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
25/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQL	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
26/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQF	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
27/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQL	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
28/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQF	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
29/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQA	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
30/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQG	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
31/07/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OJL	B747-400	14F/52J/32W/255Y
01/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQG	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
02/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQC	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
03/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQA	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
04/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQC	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
05/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQE	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
06/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQC	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
07/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQE	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
08/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OEB	B747-400	14F/52J/32W/255Y
09/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQI	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
10/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OEB	B747-400	14F/52J/32W/255Y
11/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OJI	B747-400	56J/40W/275Y
12/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQJ	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y
14/08/2013	QF11	Sydney		Los Angeles	VH-OQC	A380-800	14F/64J/35W/371Y

 

[harvyk]

Qantas 747 crew are heading this way. A lot of them are getting on a bit! Also seem to hate their job, barely able to be civil to passengers in the main cabin. I find it amazing some of the things I've seen and heard.

Disagree 100%... I did 3 QF 747 flights last month in both Y and J and in each case the QF crew where great.

 

[stewiejp]

As far as safety concerns, I'd rather an "old head" keeping passengers and less experienced staff calm, than younger staff who may or may not be competent. In my experience dealing with emergency situations, (and there has been a few), the older more experienced staff seem to handle it/deal with it a lot better and calmer than others. In an emergency on an aeroplane, I would rate mental strength as more desirable attribute than physical strength - especially when people begin to panic. In this regard, a more experienced (older) FA may be more likely to get "Best On Ground" that a younger one.

JMHO

 

[KPerth]

I am more concerned with older - particularly female - flight attendants who would struggle to lift the emergency exit doors. If there are a number of injuries on board there maybe no-one close handy to help. I believe Civilian aircrew should have to pass medicals which are as stringent as the RAAF because they almost always have more passengers to look after and maybe evacuate. Obese pilots should also have to resign if they cannot meet the same BMI as military aircrew. People do not seems to realize that the greater your weight the more easily you become fatigued, and just as on the road, fatigue is a killer.

 

[mannej]

Sorry, but BMI isn't a valid tool to be using when it comes to something like that

 

[joemenzies]

Air crew young to mature! I have no problem in this issue. I recently travelled on several different airlines with a range of cabin crew of various ages and all did their duties well. Many mature people have great abilty in handling all sorts of issues and are valued employees. Qantas has crew of all ages and on a recent flight Singapore/Perth cabin crew (young to mature) were pleasant and efficient. Makes for a great journey and restored my faith with Qantas.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
Oh, and the crew on the United flight to SFO were brilliant - they did the drinks run, and clean up on a full 739 in under 40 minutes.

Which cabin? I did UA SYD-SFO-SYD on a 747 last month in First (where I understand seniority rules in the (non pilot) cabin crew selection) and I have no hesitation in describing the cabin crew as 'very senior'. And I'm mid 50s. My comments on their performance here.

When I saw them do their first cabin run, I really did think "Gee, how are this 2 going to perform in an emergency? We are on our own".

If the US authorities certify them as competent, well, fine, but I'd prefer crew who have actual authority and some strength, rather than some 'inclusiveness' appeasing policy which allows 'seniors' free reign because of their seniority.

ps I have never seen ANY QF staff as 'senior' as the UA cabin crew I had. not close.

 

[FlyboyAl]

I was in coach. I'd estimate the guy to be in 30's, the girl in her 40's. In first, the girl would have been in her 40's. When I boarded, I got a smiling welcome, and they seemed to be happy the whole trip - whatever they were on, I want!!!

 

[Cocitus23]

As the original poster on this thread, I feel that I owe most posters an acknowledgement and thanks. The discussion seems to have got a bit off track in talking about which aircraft Qantas assign to which flights, but never-the-less most posts have tried to contribute to the topic under discussion. Thanks to markis10, Boris spatsky, drron and simonsyd, all of whom have contributed specialist knowledge. I thank Rooflyer, too, for his support for my concerns. To Whatmeworry, you suggest that I should have used the descriptor "morbidly obese". You're dead right. I believe that "morbidly obese" actually has some technical definition, so I didn't use it, but the pilot in question certainly fitted the common usage of that term. In fact, he was worse than the cartoon of Homer Simpson which you helpfully supplied.
Nalagalle, you intimated that there were plenty of Tommy Hafeys among our octogenarians (or at least that's the way I read your comment), but I'd put it to you that Tommy is a stand out and virtually unique in Australia among his age group. He is the exception proving the rule!
In closing, I'd just like to stress that I was talking about extreme cases - those very much over weight and the obviously elderly. Also, I was focussing particularly on the situation in USA, where these extreme cases seem to be more in evidence. Some of you talked about Qantas crew. I have seen not a single case on Qantas which I would describe as doubtful. I have not the least reason to be dissatisfied with their crew selection and training.
Happy and safe flying, all.
Cocitus23

 

[MEL_Traveller]

...

By way of disclosure, may I confess to being in my 70s and moderately over-weight. Although I am still mentally and physically able, I think it would be ridiculous for an airline to continue to employ me as a crew member at this stage of my life, no matter how much experience I might have.

i reviewed this thread after your closing comments and was struck by your final paragraph which I have quoted above.

you say your comments are directed to the obviously elderly and obviously obese. I cannot comment on the obesity side, but on the elderly side I have a difference of opinion.

the flight attendant you saw, and the other examples on northwest and united prove the cabin attendants in question have passed rigorous safety testing each year. if they can climb fully clothed out of the water into a life raft I take my hat off to them! therefore it is impossible to say it is 'obvious' they are too old.

your age shouldn't matter. while many people enjoy retirement, it's not for everyone. my parents are both approaching 80, my father is up every morning at 430 and doesn't stop working until 8pm... dog walking, emails, stock market, supermarket, fresh food market, twice a week at my sister's farm building or repairing decking, outhouses and fences.

the question is why is it 'ridiculous' if an airline were to keep you employed if you are able? if my mother is a former flight attendant, if she was still flying to Hong Kong, singapore, bangkok or Tokyo once a week it would be totally awesome!

 

[Melburnian1]

One reason it may be 'ridiculous' to employ someone as a flight attendant into their early 80s is that Australia has a lot of underemployment and unemployment (ask the Roy Morgan company, which maintains that the Australian Bureau of Statistics' measure of 'employment' - working one hour or more a week in paid employment, a definition agreed to internationally - dramatically understates both) so enforcing retirement at a certain age shares the wealth around.

The other is 'planning for succession.' If employees work until (literally) they drop dead at an advanced age, the airline (or indeed company in any other sector) may end up (given our increasing median longevity) with a very large number of 'baby boomer' employees who are in their 60s and in time above, but comparitively very few employees under 35.

The unstated reason is allied to the first: 'they've had their go'. To work 'forever' might please some people but it seems rather selfish to me. Don't our younger community members deserve to be able to earn the money to buy a house or flat, start a family and have the money to enjoy at least an annual holiday?

 

[Cocitus23]

Thank you both MEL_Traveller and Melburnian1 for your contributions. I must confess that my initial statement that it would be ridiculous to continue to employ me in an air crew (if I had ever been one, which I have not) at my age of 70 was to a large extent influenced by my contentment with retirement and by a sense that "I've had my go", as Melburnian1 puts it. I recognise that that might be old-school thinking, and certainly MEL_Traveller's post got me thinking. An earlier poster had suggested that some beneficial attributes for crew members might actually increase with age, e.g. wisdom and coolness in a crisis. This is true. Also, I would maintain that I am not 'over the hill' and could probably still execute any of the demands, intellectual or physical, of any job I ever held. By the way, I am a civil engineer, and spent my years both on rugged construction sites and in the design office.

So do I still think that air crew should retire before they are geriatrics? Yes, I do, because most slow down, become more tired and gradually increase in their risk of heart attack and stroke. So at what age? 65? 70? 75? 80? Goodness knows. It will vary with the individual, but I would guess that 65 is too young for a blanket rule, and that 80 is too old. Have independent tests, certainly, but make sure that the tests include exercises targetted particularly at the weaknesses of the elderly.

I know that Tommy Hafey is over 80 and might be a great man to have in a crisis, but how many octogenarians are there like Tommy?

 

[nlagalle]

Nalagalle, you intimated that there were plenty of Tommy Hafeys among our octogenarians (or at least that's the way I read your comment), but I'd put it to you that Tommy is a stand out and virtually unique in Australia among his age group. He is the exception proving the rule!

Actually you will be surprised there are a few like him. take a look at the fun runs around as a start. my point is don't just generalise that because they are over 70 they can't do it.

 

[Hvr]

One reason it may be 'ridiculous' to employ someone as a flight attendant into their early 80s is that Australia has a lot of underemployment and unemployment (ask the Roy Morgan company, which maintains that the Australian Bureau of Statistics' measure of 'employment' - working one hour or more a week in paid employment, a definition agreed to internationally - dramatically understates both) so enforcing retirement at a certain age shares the wealth around.

The other is 'planning for succession.' If employees work until (literally) they drop dead at an advanced age, the airline (or indeed company in any other sector) may end up (given our increasing median longevity) with a very large number of 'baby boomer' employees who are in their 60s and in time above, but comparitively very few employees under 35.

The unstated reason is allied to the first: 'they've had their go'. To work 'forever' might please some people but it seems rather selfish to me. Don't our younger community members deserve to be able to earn the money to buy a house or flat, start a family and have the money to enjoy at least an annual holiday?

So what do you do with someone who is fit and ready to work at 70, 80 or whatever but they're forced out of a job just because of their age? Not because they are unfit etc. And they still need to earn an income to work?

Not everybody has had the benefit of massive superannuation investments, or a nice quiet life and been able to accumulate enough money to retire? So do they get extra benefits for being compulsorily retired or what?

 

[Cocitus23]

Actually you will be surprised there are a few like him. take a look at the fun runs around as a start. my point is don't just generalise that because they are over 70 they can't do it.

OK, I'm happy to take your point.

 

[nlagalle]

The unstated reason is allied to the first: 'they've had their go'. To work 'forever' might please some people but it seems rather selfish to me. Don't our younger community members deserve to be able to earn the money to buy a house or flat, start a family and have the money to enjoy at least an annual holiday?

The percentage of people working past retirement age is small, why should they be forced out when they have shown loyalty to a company? perhaps they still need to pay that house off too?

Most Gen Y'ers wouldn't have spend more than 5 years in a single job - they just move on. Why wouldn't companies than spend a fair whack on training etc want to get some return out of it?

your "they've had their go" is a moot statement.

 

[Melburnian1]

nlagalle, perhaps one reason so many 'Gen Ys' stay for such little time is that many companies do not encourage employees to stay long term.

'They've' had their go' - that's a statement of fact if an individual has been working for the same entity (company or government department) for 45 years!