nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Aer Lingus Fleet/Routes Discussion

JCX BXC

The seat map for the B767-200 being leased by EI next year are available on the Aer Lingus website, the seating is 2,3,2 in economy (As was suspected) and 2,2,2 in business

There are 189 economy seats and 12 Business seats making a total of the reported 201 seats.

Anyone know whether the B767 will be repainted, partially or entirely, in the EI colours for the 6 months that its leased for?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kub

mikel97 wrote: »

And MORE disruption with the little old 737 they use to the faros from the belfast city. All cancelled today malage/faros.
Anyone get any informations?

EI STA is sitting out in Malaga for the last 20 something hours

[Deleted User]

1123heavy wrote: »

Assuming it was 1 crew member out, that would have left them with 3. For every 50 passengers you need 1 crew, why couldn't they operate with 3 crew and allow 150 passengers on board and drastically reduce the number of affected passengers ?

I dunno why they told my sister it was a strike.

I had booked my mums ticket which is why I got the email. It would have been sent at 10:45 am Boston time for a flight that was leaving at 19:30. It’s mad that they have no other staff to call upon should someone ring in sick.

LXFlyer

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I dunno why they told my sister it was a strike.

I had booked my mums ticket which is why I got the email. It would have been sent at 10:45 am Boston time for a flight that was leaving at 19:30. It’s mad that they have no other staff to call upon should someone ring in sick.

They do have cover at the home bases.

But following on from your post, do you seriously expect them to have cover at every destination airport lest a crew member falls ill mid-journey?

This is a very rare occurrence - it’s not good but I think a sense of perspective is needed here.

Shamrockj

1123heavy wrote: »

Assuming it was 1 crew member out, that would have left them with 3. For every 50 passengers you need 1 crew, why couldn't they operate with 3 crew and allow 150 passengers on board and drastically reduce the number of affected passengers ?

I'm not 100% sure but I think the 757 cannot operate with 3. Also it could have been the senior crew member sick which they cant operate without

adam88

Shamrockj wrote: »

It was due to crew sickness

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/aer-lingus-apologise-to-passengers-after-plane-forced-to-take-off-and-fly-to-shannon-without-them-934005.html

That covered by 261????

HTCOne

There’s a minimum number of exits that need to be manned on each aircraft type in the event of an evacuation I think. I’m sure any flight or cabin crew in here can either correct or confirm that.

[Deleted User]

LXFlyer wrote: »

They do have cover at the home bases.

But following on from your post, do you seriously expect them to have cover at every destination airport lest a crew member falls ill mid-journey?

This is a very rare occurrence - it’s not good but I think a sense of perspective is needed here.

I don’t know the ins and outs of airlines. Do they not use fully trained temp staff if the need arises?

It would have to be cheaper to pay agency rates for a temp staff. I know of 10 people who were put on this evenings flight. Aer Lingus are covering all their costs for accommodation, food, travel, etc since Saturday.

smurfjed

The authorities may decide to base the cabin crew requirements on the number of doors or the number of seats, the airline will then be required to do a demonstrated evacuation with that number of crew, once established they wont be allowed to operate revenue flights with less than that number regardless of the actual number of passengers onboard.

LXFlyer

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I don’t know the ins and outs of airlines. Do they not use fully trained temp staff if the need arises?

It would have to be cheaper to pay agency rates for a temp staff. I know of 10 people who were put on this evenings flight. Aer Lingus are covering all their costs for accommodation, food, travel, etc since Saturday.

As I said before Aer Lingus would have crew cover in their bases in Ireland.

They do spot hire in aircraft in certain circumstances which come complete with crew, but they do not use agency crew on their own aircraft. In all likelihood that wasn’t really an option in these circumstances given that it was obviously a relatively last minute event.

As I said above this is a very rare occurrence - expecting staff to be sitting around at or near every EI airport isn’t realistic and isn’t what happens in practice.

Locker10a

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I don’t know the ins and outs of airlines. Do they not use fully trained temp staff if the need arises?

It would have to be cheaper to pay agency rates for a temp staff. I know of 10 people who were put on this evenings flight. Aer Lingus are covering all their costs for accommodation, food, travel, etc since Saturday.

There’s no such thing as “temp” cabin crew or pilots for that matter.
All cabin crew legally have to carry an AQTV, and Attestation, essentially this is a license. It stipulates your training and aircraft qualifications, each of which is specific to each airline and aircraft type. It would be very very impractical and costly for airlines to have fully trained crew sitting around at all their destinations on the off chance a crew member might fall ill downroute.
While this will have been a costly episode for Aer Lingus it’s part and parcel of the costs of running an airline.

[Deleted User]

LXFlyer wrote: »

As I said above this is a very rare occurrence - expecting staff to be sitting around at or near every EI airport isn’t realistic and isn’t what happens in practice.

I’m not trying to get into an argument when I have no clue how airlines operate. It’s definitely been an expensive sick day.

alancostello

I wonder how expensive it would be to send an extra crew member on one of the BOS flights, and have them be available to deadhead to other airports in the event of another crew member falling sick (this will get even easier in the future as crew will be dual-rated for A321LR and A330).

The last flight out of BOS on EI is at 9:30pm which should be late enough to catch any issues elsewhere, surely a delayed flight to accommodate a crew member arriving is better than a cancelled flight. If no issues they can just return on the 9:30pm flight out of BOS.

I would imagine this would only need to be used once or twice in a given year to more than pay back the costs versus compensation due on a cancelled flight.

LXFlyer

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I’m not trying to get into an argument when I have no clue how airlines operate. It’s definitely been an expensive sick day.

Apologies I wasn’t trying to get into an argument either - I was just trying to explain to you why that doesn’t happen.

As above every individual airline have their own operating procedures and as such only use their own crew.

In that context I was trying to explain that the notion of having crew at every outstation on the entire network on the off-chance someone goes sick wouldn’t be realistic.

Noxegon

alancostello wrote: »

The last flight out of BOS on EI is at 9:30pm which should be late enough to catch any issues elsewhere, surely a delayed flight to accommodate a crew member arriving is better than a cancelled flight. If no issues they can just return on the 9:30pm flight out of BOS.

You want a crew member to go out on the morning flight then work the evening one coming back?

alancostello

Noxegon wrote: »

You want a crew member to go out on the morning flight then work the evening one coming back?

No, that's insane. I'm suggesting they could work the flight over on a Monday, overnight as usual, and then essentially be on standby Tuesday evening, if they don't get called out then return on the 9:30pm flight as normal.

trellheim

Cost of keeping the standby CC ( and flight crew, too, why not ? ) in hotel and subsistence and their necessary rotation home from time to time would likely be ruled out of order by the bean counters. There are very likely statistical tables for this sort of thing somewhere .

LXFlyer

alancostello wrote: »

No, that's insane. I'm suggesting they could work the flight over on a Monday, overnight as usual, and then essentially be on standby Tuesday evening, if they don't get called out then return on the 9:30pm flight as normal.

So who would cover their slot on the later flight if they got sent on another flight?

All you’re doing is moving the problem.

alancostello

LXFlyer wrote: »

So who would cover their slot on the later flight if they got sent on another flight?

All you’re doing is moving the problem.

No, I'm not, as per my original post I said extra crew member. If the standard crew complement is 8, I'm suggesting you could send 9, and have the 9:30pm flight return with 9 if they weren't needed elsewhere. My argument was the cost of one additional crew member that isn't always required may be cheaper than having to pay compensation on flights that are cancelled.

smurfjed

My argument was the cost of one additional crew member that isn't always required may be cheaper than having to pay compensation on flights that are cancelled.

And this is exactly what a lot of airlines do, not only for the purpose of safety but to provide a proper level of service to their passengers. Our 757 operates with a minimum of 8 cabin crew but to the doors and a regular number of 11.

Shamrockj

alancostello wrote: »

No, I'm not, as per my original post I said extra crew member. If the standard crew complement is 8, I'm suggesting you could send 9, and have the 9:30pm flight return with 9 if they weren't needed elsewhere. My argument was the cost of one additional crew member that isn't always required may be cheaper than having to pay compensation on flights that are cancelled.

I'm guessing it's not cheaper otherwise they would be doing it. An extra crew members salary, hotel, training, Visa, allowance etc. Is probably more than one cancellation.

L1011

1123heavy wrote: »

Assuming it was 1 crew member out, that would have left them with 3. For every 50 passengers you need 1 crew, why couldn't they operate with 3 crew and allow 150 passengers on board and drastically reduce the number of affected passengers ?

It's installed seats not passengers.

Locker10a

L1011 wrote: »

It's installed seats not passengers.

Some aircraft can offload a percentage of passengers and operate a minimum crew, however this is obviously not allowed on the 757 which makes sense as it’s a narrow body and one crew member would be required at each pair of doors

Tenger

Saw a link on Facebook from airlineroutes,
A321LR showing SNN-LHR next summer.

kevinandrew

Tenger wrote: »

Saw a link on Facebook from airlineroutes,
A321LR showing SNN-LHR next summer.

Reported last week. It’ll do the 380/381 morning rotation. With the Dublin flight there will be two A321LR aircraft on the ground at the same time at Heathrow.

joeysoap

All the more reason to have 5 on the 321LR. If one gets sick they would still have the minimum required and most of the time it would mean better standard of service.

On the subject crew, have AL the skinniest amount of crew on TA’s, 8 on the 330’s seems to be very tight to me.

Nothing on the Lisbon non flight. There was a news article that said the pilot apologized and everybody else did a runner including ground handling agents. Went on to say there was somebody in a wheelchair at Lisbon airport allnight and passengers had to sleep on the floor.

kevinandrew

joeysoap wrote: »

All the more reason to have 5 on the 321LR. If one gets sick they would still have the minimum required and most of the time it would mean better standard of service.

On the subject crew, have AL the skinniest amount of crew on TA’s, 8 on the 330’s seems to be very tight to me.

Costs. Once any business proves they can provide the same service with the lowest possible staffing levels, there's no going back. Crew going sick is rare, very rare and the long term savings clearly far outweigh the additional costs. As for better standards of service, it could be argued but I doubt "not enough cabin crew" is high up on the list of complaints. I've been on a number of transatlantic flights with various airlines and the lower cabin crew count on Aer Lingus doesn't seem to have much of an impact, in all honesty they tend to fare better than most from my experiences.

Of course throwing on an extra crew member for every flight might not sound much but in reality it really is, particularly to the bottom line. It could be the difference between Aer Lingus having a cost advantage on the Atlantic and not, the difference between a route being profitable or loss making and the difference between new routes being launched or routes being cancelled.

The current crewing levels work, there really isn't a business argument to suggest otherwise. Now if the A321LR and its new galley layout prove an issue which is proven to impact the bottom line, you've got a solid argument but right now that's not the case.

sandbelter

Two quick questions:

Noticed in the Minneapolis star at EI intend to use the A330 to MSP as the A321Lr is not certified for the range yet....isn't this normally done at the launch and how long will it take?

Normally Travel Extra gives us the earliest clue as to where EI's next transatlantic destination/s will be....but there's been no Sunday posting for two months now...is this still site still alive?

The_Wanderer

sandbelter wrote: »

Normally Travel Extra gives us the earliest clue as to where EI's next transatlantic destination/s will be....but there's been no Sunday posting for two months now...is this still site still alive?

The facebook page is alive and well with regular postings.

Jamie2k9

sandbelter wrote: »

Two quick questions:

Noticed in the Minneapolis star at EI intend to use the A330 to MSP as the A321Lr is not certified for the range yet....isn't this normally done at the launch and how long will it take?

Normally Travel Extra gives us the earliest clue as to where EI's next transatlantic destination/s will be....but there's been no Sunday posting for two months now...is this still site still alive?

T Extra is mostly based on what is already reported in one place.

Tenger

sandbelter wrote: »

........
Noticed in the Minneapolis star at EI intend to use the A330 to MSP as the A321Lr is not certified for the range yet....

There’s a shock (say no-one)

As for certification, I’m not really sure but I’m going to hazard a guess that the LR has to be in ETOPS operation and demonstrating it reliability before the current certification is extended.