FA not required

[ackattacker]

What sounds more accurate? You just had 2 different individuals give you the correct answer, yet you still act as if your answer is correct which it is not.

An MD80 has a SEATING CAPACITY which would require 3 FAs. If there are no FAs on board, then there are NO PASSENGERS. If there are 2 FAs on board, then there are also NO PASSENGERS. Since an MD80 seats 100 or more but less than 150 passengers in capacity, it requires 3 FAs, regardless of the actual number of passengers on board.

The MD80 crew that you heard in ATL could not have occurred. Passengers cannot occupy a ferry flight, nor can they occupy a reposition flight since neither are scheduled 121 operations. If an airline chooses to operate a reposition as a 121 flight, it can be placed into operation as an extra section, but then it's no longer a repo. It's now a scheduled operation and again, requires the specific number of FAs per the regs.[/QUOTe and a E]

Hate to tell you your wrong but it is possible at least at DAL.The key being the pax are all employees, Ive done it both on the DC10 and 757...

I've also seen this done 121, no FA. The captain was not really happy about it but the DO said it was 100% legal. All PAX were badged uniformed airline crew, not just non-rev.

 

[V1rowt8]

Ultra yes I am a 121 Captain current qualified, been so for the last 12 years or so.

Long time gone dude...
No comment, just a bit dissapointed to see a collegue so quick to pass judgement assuming you are a collegue.

 

[dispatchguy]

No

A F/A is not required on an aircraft with less than 19 seats. When I was a ramper at 9E up in MSP (Dec 94-Spring 95) on the JS31 I would load the bags, then before we closed the door I would enter the cabin and give the fasten seat belt speech.

Here is what I wrote for an air carriers Dispatch operations manual

A. If the aircraft is wholly airworthy, a reposition flight will be planned/released the same way as any other flight. Carriage of non-revenue passengers when a flight attendant is not on board may be authorized, subject to the limitations of FAR 91.533, and subject to approval of the DO, SOCM, or FODM, or other flight department management personnel, as appropriate. Flight crewmembers only should be accommodated on these flights, subject to Captain’s discretion. Pass eligible dependants should not to be accommodated on these flights. When any non-revenue passengers are carried on a reposition flight, their names and ID numbers should be added to the flight release as a release remark, or be listed as deadheaders in CrewTrac. The release must be remarked as “FAR 91 REPO FLT – RELEASE INFO ONLY”, or something to that effect.

 

[B727FA]

I've ridden on Delta and North West flights without a full complement of flight attendants.

I was in uniform both times on my way to work, and both times they were missing one FA, the NWA flight a FA delayed the flight until she ran out of time, but not 16 hours a contractual time that it was her choice to continue. The Delta flight was a similar situation.

Wouldn't it all depend on how the flight was released a ferry or a repo flight if the release was signed it would be a 121 flight.

I'm sure they were "overstaffed" in the first place--and even without the "full complement" they still likely had a min-crew.

 

[njcapt]

I fly a 737-700 with 19 seats in it and we are not required to have a FA. Never had one, actually. We have Customer Service Representatives.

 

[at7driver]

back in the day on the bandit, FO's here made all the required annc's and did the cleaning etc etc.. plus all the paperwork.. fun times.. handflying 7 to 9 legs a day unpressurized..

 

[Joblu]

Ultra yes I am a 121 Captain current qualified, been so for the last 12 years or so.

Long time gone dude...
No comment, just a bit dissapointed to see a collegue so quick to pass judgement assuming you are a collegue.

WTF!?! :erm:

 

[B727FA]

I fly a 737-700 with 19 seats in it and we are not required to have a FA. Never had one, actually. We have Customer Service Representatives.

I'm not saying you haven't...but I'll bet it's not Pt 121. It's a Pt 91 or 91K. Right?

Pace, in 2002 was offered a contract on an ambulance rated 737 with 12 seats and ultimately we turned it down b/c of the conformity checks and contract-term were too short...but b/c of MTOW it did require an FA; to fly it as a Pt 121 gig.

It can all be true...just depends on the CFR etc under which the operator wants to fly.

 

[njcapt]

I'm not saying you haven't...but I'll bet it's not Pt 121. It's a Pt 91 or 91K. Right?

Pace, in 2002 was offered a contract on an ambulance rated 737 with 12 seats and ultimately we turned it down b/c of the conformity checks and contract-term were too short...but b/c of MTOW it did require an FA; to fly it as a Pt 121 gig.

It can all be true...just depends on the CFR etc under which the operator wants to fly.

Yes the aircraft is operated pt 91, but the original question didn't discriminate by certification. Which, by the way, is based on seating capacity and payload. Our BBJ has 14 seats and a payload of about 5500 pounds (102.3k lbs ZFW) so it can be certified under pt 91. If the zero fuel weight is officially reduced to within 5999 lbs of it's BOW and it has less than 19 seats it's good. The basic BBJ-HGW version has a ZFW of 126.0K lbs.

If your aircraft was certified under pt 121 it would necessarily require a number of FA's based on seating capacity (minimum of one).

 

[B727FA]

Thanks for your added info!