MattK
06-09-2005, 08:01 AM
Started by Doc Sullivan on February 28, 2005:
Let's have a serious discussion here about a serious topic.
I just made a post on the TEB flight attendant hero thread which said, in part [since deleted...Matt K]:
Quote:...the issue here is:
The difference between a third crewmember, that is, a fully trained, fully qualified Flight Attendant -- OR -- a "cabin server" who is not properly trained in safety procedures, including doors, evacuation procedures, etc. etc. etc.
I know this is a real hot-button issue with most of you here -- and I think it should be.
Can we start a new thread about this topic? I think we're all on the same page about this issue, amongst ourselves. But maybe we should discuss what we can all do to get this information out to those who need it the most: a/c operators? FAA? charter customers? a/c owners?
Who do we need to reach with this message, and how can we do that?
:o
Since I've been participating on this board (about a year and a half now) I've seen a number of discussions about the FA vs cabin server issue.
I think we all know what the relevant points are, and I think that at least most of us are in agreement about what the issues are.
What I want to discuss is:
WHO (besides us) needs to understand the issues?
And HOW can we go about getting the right message to the right people?
I know there are certain individuals in NBAA and the FAA who are concerned with this issue in one way or another. But perhaps we should not just sit back and wait for these bureaucracies -- well intentioned or not -- to get the message out!
Let's talk about what we can do, as individuals or as a group, to get the ball rolling with this.
Reply From MattK:
(2/28/05 4:15 pm)
Re: We need to stop the gameplaying first!
Hi Doc,
I will throw my 2 pennies in.
I think one of the areas that must be addressed is to have "generally accepted training standards" in place for whomever we call a "corporate flight attendant." Right now there are several companies offering training and each company is different from the other as far as what they call "corporate specific" training or "business aviation" training and the like.
Last week I posted a poll, titled: Best Training Company? and listed four popular programs out there [there are, in fact, more programs, but these are the most well known]. With just eight votes tabulated the results are fairly evenly divided. Is it scientific? No, of course not. I am sure that some of the voters selected the one company they were trained by while others were able to compare between several different companies whose program they had taken.
When I posted a similar question nearly two years ago 26 people replied and the talk was pretty heated, especially when some of the training company owners jumped in! Unfortunately, the conversation wasn't very constructive and mostly everyone read between the lines and saw that there was a lot of posturing going on.
So, what am I trying to say? There is no "officially" accepted program out there. Certainly, you will have job postings where the requirement is that the candidate have either FlightSafety or FACTS training within the past 12 months. Where does this leave grads from Beyond and Above and Alteon? Out in the cold, I guess. Is this fair? I can't say that it is. To me, graduating from a program is in NO WAY a certainty that a candidate will work out. I have met people who have successfully completed a program and, in my opinion, should not be flying [at least flying corporate]. They just don't have what it takes [i.e., organizational skills, initiative, the social skills to work with elite clientele, business savvy, etc.]. Unfortunately, it usually takes an excessive long period of pavement pounding before they realize that there is no work for them. Thousands of dollars of training goes to waste in addition to the thousands of dollars of lost revenue suffered because they cannot find work.
Will the NBAA help out? Seriously, I doubt it. Ask any corporate flight attendant who has been around for quite some time and they will tell you that the flight attendant committee is weak. A glaring example is that as of today, February 28, 2005, nothing has been posted about the annual NBAA F/A meeting. It is supposed to be held in some southeast location in June. Why isn't this arranged one year ahead of time? The Schedulers and Dispatchers do it, but not the flight attendant committee. This is not the first year that this has happened either. What sort of message does this send out to the corporate flight attendant? In addition, the Schedulers and Dispatchers have regional meeting throughout the year and publish a newsletter several times a year.
Forget the FAA. They are reactive, not proactive. Another government bureaucracy.
If my tone sounds cynical, I am more exasperated than anything. It would be nice if all the B.S. could be shoved to the side, people's personal agendas put away, and the good of those who work the cabin put front and center. After all are they not onboard to provide comfort, safety and security to the pax? Or, are they a sexy plaything for the chairman or chief pilot?
Let's roll, people!
Reply From RichOffDuty:
(2/28/05 5:30 pm)
Re: We need to stop the gameplaying first!
WHO (besides us) needs to understand the issues?
1) Aircraft Owners / Operators.
2) Operations Managers.
3) Chief Pilots.
4) Cabin Safety Specialists.
5) Regulatory bodies.
And HOW can we go about getting the right message to the right people?
1) Industry Forums/Conferences.
2) Workshops/Workgroups.
3) Mail outs.
4) In your face Advertising (from Training Providers & Associations such as AOCFA etc).
5) Word of mouth.
I personally have even called and dropped in on flight department management in my region to make these guys aware of the importance of having TRAINED crews.
A couple of regulatory bodies in my part of the world have been receptive to my cry, I think once you know the right people they in turn can make others aware.
Having trained and accredited flight attendants onboard corporate aircraft wont happen overnight however with everyone’s support that is everyone that strongly believes that this push forward in the industry is important we need to hear your voice.
With that combined voice we CAN make a difference even if its only a little bit, its still a start….right?
Aviation Safety is Everyone’s Business!
Rich
Reply From Falcon FA:
(2/28/05 11:10 pm)
Re: issues
Who needs to understand? The owners, operators and charter clients. We all know the cheapest most usually is not the safest and you get what you pay for.
If a company is saving money by using untrained servers in the cabin it makes you wonder where else are they cutting corners. What is the experience in the maintenance department, what is the experience in the cockpit, how long does the company wait to make repairs on an aircraft?
I have had to organize charters for a former employer. The cheapest quote always caught the eye. I would recommend the safest aircraft with the best reputation. I would find out from the pilots I flew with if the company was good, the pilots were good etc. But, 9 times out of 10 the cheapest usually won. Obviously, I was never in the position to tell him how foolish I thought it was to put the other passenger's lives in jeapordy just so a buck or two could be saved. But, I really, really wanted to.
Some clients dont care about the safety issue, they just care about looks. I dont want to upset anyone by bringing up that subject but, but all shapes and sizes should be capable and required to pass some sort of industry-wide approved requirements. The requirements to complete a flight attendant course should be strict, to weed out those that really shouldnt be flight attendants. Some people are wonderful and gracious servers and customer service representatives but would absolutely freak even if they got a run in their stocking or their hair was messed up. The cons of the FAA have already been mentioned on this thread. But if it isnt an FAA requirement, what companies will comply?
Maybe if the clients and owners start demanding a safe environment with a fully trained flight attendant then the operators would have to supply it. But that would cost money and company time! Also, try teaching an old millionaire or billionaire a new trick! Ugh!
Reply From GV Flygirl:
(2/28/05 11:46 pm)
Re: issues
Hello to all. I found out from someone on the commitee that this years NBAA FA conference will be held at the ATL (Sheraton I think) on June 17, 18 and 19th.
With that aside I also heard that several training companies and commitee members have contacted the news media and tried to educate them about the realities of a corporate FA. They have had the cold shoulder given to them.
Reply From bettyboop:
(3/1/05 4:45 pm)
Re: politics
Wahoo! What a neat thread. I hardly know where to begin. So many issues raised & valid points made.
We are poorly represented in biz aviation & that is why all this crap continues. There is so much infighting & back stabbing going on between members how can we present a united front?
Does any one else here understand how much vendors control the committee? Does any one else see a conflict of interest?
Put experienced corporate trained flight attendants on the committee & remove the wannabees. Let them set the groundwork & come up with an enforceable >best practices< policy. Make sure all training companies meet these >best practices< & never hire people who have not taken these courses. Pressure the FAA to review 3rd crewmember procedures. Quit putting someone in the jump seat who is manifested as a pax but is the one responsible for the cabin unless she is fully trained.
Shame on the 135 operators who change flight attendants to customer service representatives to save a little money. This is done a lot.
~bb~
Reply From GV Flygirl:
(3/1/05 6:13 pm)
Re: politics
You Go Betty!!!I think that we need to get some of us on to the committee, now only if my company would agree.
Who will be going this year? I hope they use all the info they have gathered from this years tragedies. It would be great for the FAA to participate in a open form on some of these issues.
Reply From DocSullivan:
Re: what do they read?
Tell me something: What kinds of magazines and newspapers do you see your pax reading? Any trends? (I don't think this would be betraying a confidence if you don't name the pax.)
Why am I asking?
Well, maybe it's time for somebody like yer old Doc here to write something about this topic for a target audience that includes the pax who fly on corporate aircraft.
If you can give me some kind of idea about what kinds of things they seem to be reading, maybe I can query one or more of the editors to see if i can convince them to run something about this topic.:o
Might be worth a try...:\
Late yesterday (my time), since I was thinking about this topic anyway, I did a sort of trial run at the type of article that might be. Go and have a look at this essay that I wrote, and tell me what you think. Tell me here, or there (click on "Comments" at the bottom of the essay -- you can comment there anonymously, if you prefer) -- or send me a PM or an email with any ideas you have on this topic.
Reply From RichOffDuty:
(3/1/05 10:53 pm)
Re: what do they read?
I love what you wrote Doc, that’s fantastic.
Usually the magazines that get read the most by my “male pax” is the mainstream mags such as Time, Newsweek, even National Geo & Sports Illustrated always seems to go walkies. For the past 12 months or so I have been also stocking aviation mags on board (mainly for the guys up front on the longer sectors) and usually they filter back to the cabin, which DO get browsed or read by the pax. So could this be a start? Find an aviation magazine to submit the article to or maybe even AIN to get directly to the owners and operators out there?
I had a word to a regular of ours about this a few days ago and in a nutshell this is what he said:
"The public assumes that a person on a corporate aircraft that is for all intensive purposes filling the same role as a flight attendant on a commercial aircraft believes that person is quite justly to be fully trained and competent at the safety aspects of their job. It may come as a huge shock to them in the event of an emergency to realize that the person that they rely on for guidance in an evacuation is no more qualified than they are as passengers onboard the aircraft."
Reply From DocSullivan:
(3/2/05 12:08 am)
Re: what do they read?
Thanks Richie.
Re your quote there -- it reflects my sentiment exactly. It's, in a nutshell, what I tried to say in the essay.
I thought of aviation mags -- like AIN -- but I wonder if that's really where it should go? Maybe I/we should try instead to pitch the message to the customers -- the pax themselves. Like, maybe upscale travel or "living" magazines?
Hmm, maybe even a business publication?
See what I'm getting at?
I think that many pax simply don't understand why/how they're at risk without a real FA in their cabin. We gotta tell them! Look, they don't even really understand the commercial FAs' jobs; they REALLY don't understand yours.
Ironically, since you provide such wonderful and distinguished service, that almost masks the rest of your role even more! Can't win...|I
Reply From Midnight Mike:
(3/2/05 12:19 am)
Re: what do they read?
Support for having a trained Flight Attendant must come from not only the pilots, but, from also the aircraft manufacturers such as Gulfstream & Boeing.
Doc
There are other aviation publications such as: Airways, Airliners that could be interested in your essay?
Reply From TippyToes:
(3/2/05 1:42 am)
Re: what do they read?
Miss DS, where do I begin? Your essay was phenomenal! And a nice tread! I had only mentioned before about the doors, specifically pertaining to the company who suffered a terrible crash. Conde naste ran a nice article regarding f/a's in December of 2004, Travel and Leisure ran a nice article on corporate flying in January of 2005! Overall flying is safe, we know that, 10 percent of 135 operate under Wyvern, which is an outside company that does indepent consulting for maintenence and pilot and third crew member isssues. My comments are never addressed to anyone to hurt them or put them down. In fact when I type it is just my thoughts and my mouth is closed. We all have different views and some people get sensitive, remember it is only a discussion of different views.
the essay was wonderful, and yes I do agree a person trained in safety should be onboard. But, I think companies should do the training, corporate flight attendants, pay tons of hard earned cash to attend training, pay for nice uniforms, hair dressors, nails, nice sunglasses, luggage, shoes, clean teeth, where is the ethic? When it comes to a 25 million dollar jet, who wants to hire someone to pour wine, serve a sandwhich, regardless of age? Sometimes I am torn, and yes I am a trained f/a safety wise and i know my stuff. But sometimes we don't look at the ethics of it, sometimes it is a minumin of 2,500 dollars an hour to rent a jet to get where you are going.
Does a trained f/a always make the difference? We don't know. But it is logical to have one on board, and if the aircraft crashes and the fa is in the toilet because some unruly passenger decided to sit in the jumpseat where does that put us in aviation? Private jets, remain private jets, as long as no f/a is required then it may remain that way.
The key is to get operators to know that you are needed! I would vote for actually having the company train the f/a and get rid of outside vendor training companies! But it is probably costly to them!
Reply From Falcon FA:
(3/2/05 10:50 am)
Re: mags
The magazines seem to be the weekly current event type. Newspapers are good too - USA Today, NY Times, Wallstreet journal.
Another point I wanted to mention: All of the Flight Attendant courses vary. Without industry-wide requirements, a person has essentially passed the course....when they pay their money. What training facility is going to 'flunk' a paticipant? If they do flunk someone, the company has just lost their revenue for a recurrent class. Plus, a person can always go take the training again somewhere else.
Reply From Midnight Mike:
(3/2/05 11:14 am)
Re: mags
Falcon FA
That would depend on the company, a company may not "Flunk" somebody, but, I bet you that they would have the student repeat the course and make sure the student received extra training. The FAA is involved with some of the companies that offer FAA approved courses and would not jeopardize their Training certificate.
Reply From DocSullivan:
(3/2/05 12:36 pm)
Re: CFA training Tippy,
You said:
The key is to get operators to know that you are needed! I would vote for actually having the company train the f/a and get rid of outside vendor training companies! But it is probably costly to them!
I added the "bold" to that last sentence.
I think this is exactly why responsible owners (be they corporations or private individuals) out-source their training -- for pilots as well as FAs. Proper training for crew is a very expensive enterprise.
While many large corporations have whole Aviation departments, they are not in the business of aviation, per se. Compared to, say, an airline whose whole reason for being IS aviation, it is not cost efficient for corporations -- much less individual a/c owners -- to have a comprehensive training program in-house for their aviation personnel.
Just for openers, think of how costly the sims are -- even the cabin sims, much less the full-motion cockpit sims!
Then think of the number of staff they'd have to hire to develop and continually update training programs and materials, as well as to actually teach them. Such staff are very skilled, and do not exactly work for anything close to minimum wage.
I think that the practice of outsourcing training makes a lot of sense. It is less expensive, in the long run, and also provides some semblance of standardization: a pilot or FA working for Company A receives essentially the same kind of training as the pilot or FA who works for Company B, and so on -- at least as far as the compulsory, FAA-mandated core aspects of training are concerned.
Additional/supplementary training that is company-specific can be added on top of that core, to suit and individual operator's needs. The airlines do this, too.
Fo example, in the airlines (talking about Part 121 carriers here), all FAs must be trained to a certain standard of proficiency in certain safety-related skills and knowledge. Beyond that, each company provides its own brand of training in regard to cabin service, customer service protocol, etc.
What business aviation needs to get away from, in my opinion, is CFA "training" that consists of the PIC showing the FA how to operate the doors and maybe where the circuit-breakers for the galley equipment are located -- and then calling that "FA training."
Having a uniform standard for basic, essential safety training for ALL crewmembers should be compulsory. Never mind if there is no rule that says a Part 91 or Part 135 operator must have a CFA on all flights. If there IS a CFA aboard, he/she should be properly trained -- and "certified," if that's what will do the trick. Otherwise, it should be made clear to the pax, the pilots, the aircraft owner -- the world! -- that the person serving in the cabin is NOT a "Flight Attendant."
Reply From Falcon FA:
(3/2/05 1:57 pm)
Re: FAA Approved Companies
Midnight Mike,
I understand completely what you are saying about quality, reputable companies. But there are certainly companies out there that arent as strict and concerned about their reputation and the quality of flight attendant they let loose.
Let's have a serious discussion here about a serious topic.
I just made a post on the TEB flight attendant hero thread which said, in part [since deleted...Matt K]:
Quote:...the issue here is:
The difference between a third crewmember, that is, a fully trained, fully qualified Flight Attendant -- OR -- a "cabin server" who is not properly trained in safety procedures, including doors, evacuation procedures, etc. etc. etc.
I know this is a real hot-button issue with most of you here -- and I think it should be.
Can we start a new thread about this topic? I think we're all on the same page about this issue, amongst ourselves. But maybe we should discuss what we can all do to get this information out to those who need it the most: a/c operators? FAA? charter customers? a/c owners?
Who do we need to reach with this message, and how can we do that?
:o
Since I've been participating on this board (about a year and a half now) I've seen a number of discussions about the FA vs cabin server issue.
I think we all know what the relevant points are, and I think that at least most of us are in agreement about what the issues are.
What I want to discuss is:
WHO (besides us) needs to understand the issues?
And HOW can we go about getting the right message to the right people?
I know there are certain individuals in NBAA and the FAA who are concerned with this issue in one way or another. But perhaps we should not just sit back and wait for these bureaucracies -- well intentioned or not -- to get the message out!
Let's talk about what we can do, as individuals or as a group, to get the ball rolling with this.
Reply From MattK:
(2/28/05 4:15 pm)
Re: We need to stop the gameplaying first!
Hi Doc,
I will throw my 2 pennies in.
I think one of the areas that must be addressed is to have "generally accepted training standards" in place for whomever we call a "corporate flight attendant." Right now there are several companies offering training and each company is different from the other as far as what they call "corporate specific" training or "business aviation" training and the like.
Last week I posted a poll, titled: Best Training Company? and listed four popular programs out there [there are, in fact, more programs, but these are the most well known]. With just eight votes tabulated the results are fairly evenly divided. Is it scientific? No, of course not. I am sure that some of the voters selected the one company they were trained by while others were able to compare between several different companies whose program they had taken.
When I posted a similar question nearly two years ago 26 people replied and the talk was pretty heated, especially when some of the training company owners jumped in! Unfortunately, the conversation wasn't very constructive and mostly everyone read between the lines and saw that there was a lot of posturing going on.
So, what am I trying to say? There is no "officially" accepted program out there. Certainly, you will have job postings where the requirement is that the candidate have either FlightSafety or FACTS training within the past 12 months. Where does this leave grads from Beyond and Above and Alteon? Out in the cold, I guess. Is this fair? I can't say that it is. To me, graduating from a program is in NO WAY a certainty that a candidate will work out. I have met people who have successfully completed a program and, in my opinion, should not be flying [at least flying corporate]. They just don't have what it takes [i.e., organizational skills, initiative, the social skills to work with elite clientele, business savvy, etc.]. Unfortunately, it usually takes an excessive long period of pavement pounding before they realize that there is no work for them. Thousands of dollars of training goes to waste in addition to the thousands of dollars of lost revenue suffered because they cannot find work.
Will the NBAA help out? Seriously, I doubt it. Ask any corporate flight attendant who has been around for quite some time and they will tell you that the flight attendant committee is weak. A glaring example is that as of today, February 28, 2005, nothing has been posted about the annual NBAA F/A meeting. It is supposed to be held in some southeast location in June. Why isn't this arranged one year ahead of time? The Schedulers and Dispatchers do it, but not the flight attendant committee. This is not the first year that this has happened either. What sort of message does this send out to the corporate flight attendant? In addition, the Schedulers and Dispatchers have regional meeting throughout the year and publish a newsletter several times a year.
Forget the FAA. They are reactive, not proactive. Another government bureaucracy.
If my tone sounds cynical, I am more exasperated than anything. It would be nice if all the B.S. could be shoved to the side, people's personal agendas put away, and the good of those who work the cabin put front and center. After all are they not onboard to provide comfort, safety and security to the pax? Or, are they a sexy plaything for the chairman or chief pilot?
Let's roll, people!
Reply From RichOffDuty:
(2/28/05 5:30 pm)
Re: We need to stop the gameplaying first!
WHO (besides us) needs to understand the issues?
1) Aircraft Owners / Operators.
2) Operations Managers.
3) Chief Pilots.
4) Cabin Safety Specialists.
5) Regulatory bodies.
And HOW can we go about getting the right message to the right people?
1) Industry Forums/Conferences.
2) Workshops/Workgroups.
3) Mail outs.
4) In your face Advertising (from Training Providers & Associations such as AOCFA etc).
5) Word of mouth.
I personally have even called and dropped in on flight department management in my region to make these guys aware of the importance of having TRAINED crews.
A couple of regulatory bodies in my part of the world have been receptive to my cry, I think once you know the right people they in turn can make others aware.
Having trained and accredited flight attendants onboard corporate aircraft wont happen overnight however with everyone’s support that is everyone that strongly believes that this push forward in the industry is important we need to hear your voice.
With that combined voice we CAN make a difference even if its only a little bit, its still a start….right?
Aviation Safety is Everyone’s Business!
Rich
Reply From Falcon FA:
(2/28/05 11:10 pm)
Re: issues
Who needs to understand? The owners, operators and charter clients. We all know the cheapest most usually is not the safest and you get what you pay for.
If a company is saving money by using untrained servers in the cabin it makes you wonder where else are they cutting corners. What is the experience in the maintenance department, what is the experience in the cockpit, how long does the company wait to make repairs on an aircraft?
I have had to organize charters for a former employer. The cheapest quote always caught the eye. I would recommend the safest aircraft with the best reputation. I would find out from the pilots I flew with if the company was good, the pilots were good etc. But, 9 times out of 10 the cheapest usually won. Obviously, I was never in the position to tell him how foolish I thought it was to put the other passenger's lives in jeapordy just so a buck or two could be saved. But, I really, really wanted to.
Some clients dont care about the safety issue, they just care about looks. I dont want to upset anyone by bringing up that subject but, but all shapes and sizes should be capable and required to pass some sort of industry-wide approved requirements. The requirements to complete a flight attendant course should be strict, to weed out those that really shouldnt be flight attendants. Some people are wonderful and gracious servers and customer service representatives but would absolutely freak even if they got a run in their stocking or their hair was messed up. The cons of the FAA have already been mentioned on this thread. But if it isnt an FAA requirement, what companies will comply?
Maybe if the clients and owners start demanding a safe environment with a fully trained flight attendant then the operators would have to supply it. But that would cost money and company time! Also, try teaching an old millionaire or billionaire a new trick! Ugh!
Reply From GV Flygirl:
(2/28/05 11:46 pm)
Re: issues
Hello to all. I found out from someone on the commitee that this years NBAA FA conference will be held at the ATL (Sheraton I think) on June 17, 18 and 19th.
With that aside I also heard that several training companies and commitee members have contacted the news media and tried to educate them about the realities of a corporate FA. They have had the cold shoulder given to them.
Reply From bettyboop:
(3/1/05 4:45 pm)
Re: politics
Wahoo! What a neat thread. I hardly know where to begin. So many issues raised & valid points made.
We are poorly represented in biz aviation & that is why all this crap continues. There is so much infighting & back stabbing going on between members how can we present a united front?
Does any one else here understand how much vendors control the committee? Does any one else see a conflict of interest?
Put experienced corporate trained flight attendants on the committee & remove the wannabees. Let them set the groundwork & come up with an enforceable >best practices< policy. Make sure all training companies meet these >best practices< & never hire people who have not taken these courses. Pressure the FAA to review 3rd crewmember procedures. Quit putting someone in the jump seat who is manifested as a pax but is the one responsible for the cabin unless she is fully trained.
Shame on the 135 operators who change flight attendants to customer service representatives to save a little money. This is done a lot.
~bb~
Reply From GV Flygirl:
(3/1/05 6:13 pm)
Re: politics
You Go Betty!!!I think that we need to get some of us on to the committee, now only if my company would agree.
Who will be going this year? I hope they use all the info they have gathered from this years tragedies. It would be great for the FAA to participate in a open form on some of these issues.
Reply From DocSullivan:
Re: what do they read?
Tell me something: What kinds of magazines and newspapers do you see your pax reading? Any trends? (I don't think this would be betraying a confidence if you don't name the pax.)
Why am I asking?
Well, maybe it's time for somebody like yer old Doc here to write something about this topic for a target audience that includes the pax who fly on corporate aircraft.
If you can give me some kind of idea about what kinds of things they seem to be reading, maybe I can query one or more of the editors to see if i can convince them to run something about this topic.:o
Might be worth a try...:\
Late yesterday (my time), since I was thinking about this topic anyway, I did a sort of trial run at the type of article that might be. Go and have a look at this essay that I wrote, and tell me what you think. Tell me here, or there (click on "Comments" at the bottom of the essay -- you can comment there anonymously, if you prefer) -- or send me a PM or an email with any ideas you have on this topic.
Reply From RichOffDuty:
(3/1/05 10:53 pm)
Re: what do they read?
I love what you wrote Doc, that’s fantastic.
Usually the magazines that get read the most by my “male pax” is the mainstream mags such as Time, Newsweek, even National Geo & Sports Illustrated always seems to go walkies. For the past 12 months or so I have been also stocking aviation mags on board (mainly for the guys up front on the longer sectors) and usually they filter back to the cabin, which DO get browsed or read by the pax. So could this be a start? Find an aviation magazine to submit the article to or maybe even AIN to get directly to the owners and operators out there?
I had a word to a regular of ours about this a few days ago and in a nutshell this is what he said:
"The public assumes that a person on a corporate aircraft that is for all intensive purposes filling the same role as a flight attendant on a commercial aircraft believes that person is quite justly to be fully trained and competent at the safety aspects of their job. It may come as a huge shock to them in the event of an emergency to realize that the person that they rely on for guidance in an evacuation is no more qualified than they are as passengers onboard the aircraft."
Reply From DocSullivan:
(3/2/05 12:08 am)
Re: what do they read?
Thanks Richie.
Re your quote there -- it reflects my sentiment exactly. It's, in a nutshell, what I tried to say in the essay.
I thought of aviation mags -- like AIN -- but I wonder if that's really where it should go? Maybe I/we should try instead to pitch the message to the customers -- the pax themselves. Like, maybe upscale travel or "living" magazines?
Hmm, maybe even a business publication?
See what I'm getting at?
I think that many pax simply don't understand why/how they're at risk without a real FA in their cabin. We gotta tell them! Look, they don't even really understand the commercial FAs' jobs; they REALLY don't understand yours.
Ironically, since you provide such wonderful and distinguished service, that almost masks the rest of your role even more! Can't win...|I
Reply From Midnight Mike:
(3/2/05 12:19 am)
Re: what do they read?
Support for having a trained Flight Attendant must come from not only the pilots, but, from also the aircraft manufacturers such as Gulfstream & Boeing.
Doc
There are other aviation publications such as: Airways, Airliners that could be interested in your essay?
Reply From TippyToes:
(3/2/05 1:42 am)
Re: what do they read?
Miss DS, where do I begin? Your essay was phenomenal! And a nice tread! I had only mentioned before about the doors, specifically pertaining to the company who suffered a terrible crash. Conde naste ran a nice article regarding f/a's in December of 2004, Travel and Leisure ran a nice article on corporate flying in January of 2005! Overall flying is safe, we know that, 10 percent of 135 operate under Wyvern, which is an outside company that does indepent consulting for maintenence and pilot and third crew member isssues. My comments are never addressed to anyone to hurt them or put them down. In fact when I type it is just my thoughts and my mouth is closed. We all have different views and some people get sensitive, remember it is only a discussion of different views.
the essay was wonderful, and yes I do agree a person trained in safety should be onboard. But, I think companies should do the training, corporate flight attendants, pay tons of hard earned cash to attend training, pay for nice uniforms, hair dressors, nails, nice sunglasses, luggage, shoes, clean teeth, where is the ethic? When it comes to a 25 million dollar jet, who wants to hire someone to pour wine, serve a sandwhich, regardless of age? Sometimes I am torn, and yes I am a trained f/a safety wise and i know my stuff. But sometimes we don't look at the ethics of it, sometimes it is a minumin of 2,500 dollars an hour to rent a jet to get where you are going.
Does a trained f/a always make the difference? We don't know. But it is logical to have one on board, and if the aircraft crashes and the fa is in the toilet because some unruly passenger decided to sit in the jumpseat where does that put us in aviation? Private jets, remain private jets, as long as no f/a is required then it may remain that way.
The key is to get operators to know that you are needed! I would vote for actually having the company train the f/a and get rid of outside vendor training companies! But it is probably costly to them!
Reply From Falcon FA:
(3/2/05 10:50 am)
Re: mags
The magazines seem to be the weekly current event type. Newspapers are good too - USA Today, NY Times, Wallstreet journal.
Another point I wanted to mention: All of the Flight Attendant courses vary. Without industry-wide requirements, a person has essentially passed the course....when they pay their money. What training facility is going to 'flunk' a paticipant? If they do flunk someone, the company has just lost their revenue for a recurrent class. Plus, a person can always go take the training again somewhere else.
Reply From Midnight Mike:
(3/2/05 11:14 am)
Re: mags
Falcon FA
That would depend on the company, a company may not "Flunk" somebody, but, I bet you that they would have the student repeat the course and make sure the student received extra training. The FAA is involved with some of the companies that offer FAA approved courses and would not jeopardize their Training certificate.
Reply From DocSullivan:
(3/2/05 12:36 pm)
Re: CFA training Tippy,
You said:
The key is to get operators to know that you are needed! I would vote for actually having the company train the f/a and get rid of outside vendor training companies! But it is probably costly to them!
I added the "bold" to that last sentence.
I think this is exactly why responsible owners (be they corporations or private individuals) out-source their training -- for pilots as well as FAs. Proper training for crew is a very expensive enterprise.
While many large corporations have whole Aviation departments, they are not in the business of aviation, per se. Compared to, say, an airline whose whole reason for being IS aviation, it is not cost efficient for corporations -- much less individual a/c owners -- to have a comprehensive training program in-house for their aviation personnel.
Just for openers, think of how costly the sims are -- even the cabin sims, much less the full-motion cockpit sims!
Then think of the number of staff they'd have to hire to develop and continually update training programs and materials, as well as to actually teach them. Such staff are very skilled, and do not exactly work for anything close to minimum wage.
I think that the practice of outsourcing training makes a lot of sense. It is less expensive, in the long run, and also provides some semblance of standardization: a pilot or FA working for Company A receives essentially the same kind of training as the pilot or FA who works for Company B, and so on -- at least as far as the compulsory, FAA-mandated core aspects of training are concerned.
Additional/supplementary training that is company-specific can be added on top of that core, to suit and individual operator's needs. The airlines do this, too.
Fo example, in the airlines (talking about Part 121 carriers here), all FAs must be trained to a certain standard of proficiency in certain safety-related skills and knowledge. Beyond that, each company provides its own brand of training in regard to cabin service, customer service protocol, etc.
What business aviation needs to get away from, in my opinion, is CFA "training" that consists of the PIC showing the FA how to operate the doors and maybe where the circuit-breakers for the galley equipment are located -- and then calling that "FA training."
Having a uniform standard for basic, essential safety training for ALL crewmembers should be compulsory. Never mind if there is no rule that says a Part 91 or Part 135 operator must have a CFA on all flights. If there IS a CFA aboard, he/she should be properly trained -- and "certified," if that's what will do the trick. Otherwise, it should be made clear to the pax, the pilots, the aircraft owner -- the world! -- that the person serving in the cabin is NOT a "Flight Attendant."
Reply From Falcon FA:
(3/2/05 1:57 pm)
Re: FAA Approved Companies
Midnight Mike,
I understand completely what you are saying about quality, reputable companies. But there are certainly companies out there that arent as strict and concerned about their reputation and the quality of flight attendant they let loose.