Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This inquiry into cabin crew ratios on Australian aircraft was about safety. It was not an inquiry into minimum standards; it was not an inquiry into employment in the sector; it was not an inquiry into commercial imperatives and cost pressures in the aviation industry; and it was not an inquiry into other safety aspects of airlines and terminal security. The committee's terms of reference were quite clear; they included the role of cabin crew in managing passenger safety and security. The committee's first recommendation calls on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Office of Transport Safety to work together to determine an appropriate cabin crew ratio for Australian domestic flights. Australia has an enviable record of safety, and I found it quite ingenuous of some witnesses to claim that a ratio of one to 50 is world's best practice. It may be the world's accepted practice, or indeed the current world standard, but I cannot accept that having fewer flight attendants makes it safer. Indeed, I am quite concerned by claims by the airlines that they actually rely on passengers to assist in times of a crisis.

Whilst there is no doubt an expectation that some passengers can and may assist at the time of an incident, the make-up of passengers varies considerably from flight to flight. Since this inquiry began, I have from time to time questioned passengers sitting in the exit rows. According to some evidence we received, these passengers are seated in this location because they have been identified as passengers who will assist in times of an emergency. However, an older woman who was seated in this row on one of my flights advised me that she had actually paid extra for her seat, which she had booked in advance, because she liked more room. When I asked her whether she thought she could open the emergency door and assist other passengers, she said she would probably need someone else's assistance to open the door, and that if there was an emergency she intended to be one of the first off the plane and had no desire to assist others. In fact it was submitted to the inquiry that there are different types of doors and without training 'most people' would have difficulty. Even last Sunday on my flight to Canberra, the flight attendants were most concerned to find that a handicapped person had been seated in the exit row.

Indeed, while airlines believe their planes are safer and require fewer flight attendants, from my own personal observations there can be no doubt that, if anything, passengers have become more difficult and demanding. I found it inappropriate that CASA granted exemptions to the one to 36 rule on the basis of manufacturer's certifications and claims by aircraft companies such as Boeing and Airbus that their modern aircraft were designed and certified to operate safely with a ratio of one to 50. Those who do not take into consideration the human element do so at their own peril. These days we see many more elderly passengers flying than previously and passengers who do not speak English. There are many more young children and unaccompanied children, and also passengers with a disability and those who need a wheelchair. As well, we often have only one adult with several young children. On a recent flight to Perth, just in the rows around where I was seated there was one family of two adults and three children occupying only four seats, and another family group of a mother with three young children occupying only three seats. If you listen to the airline representatives they would have you believe that other passengers can be relied on to assist in times of an emergency. Now, that flight was particularly full, with nearly 250 passengers. It was fortunate that we did have flight attendants in the ratio of one to 36, because, if that plane had experienced an emergency, we would have needed at least one flight attendant for each of the exits as well as calling on passengers to assist. I still cannot see how they would have evacuated everyone in a reasonable time.

While most passengers will act with the best of intentions, that is not to say that they are not much more likely to get it wrong than a trained flight attendant—even if it is for the right reason—and in fact endanger other passengers. Who can forget the incident at a major international airport where the passenger in the exit row, having carefully listened to the flight attendant's instructions, then decided to open the emergency door just to check it was working properly. This caused major disruption and more than six hours delay to the flight. CASA admitted that Boeing and Airbus had increasingly 'put some dependence on able bodied passengers being able to assist in the evacuation' in their claims that fewer flight attendants are needed.

We also need to consider the cabin crew ratios in terms of assistance from other crew members. Before 9-11 it was not uncommon for the captain to walk down the plane, and he or the flight engineer could be relied on to assist the cabin crew with difficult and/or unruly passengers. Now the cockpit door is locked and crews no longer include a flight engineer, who, as one witness said, was 'replaced by a computer'. So, already, in times of an emergency, there are less professional airline staff on board than in previous years. And, on top of that, in recent weeks we have heard that the sky marshal program is to be wound back.

I was very impressed with the evidence presented by the Flight Attendants Association of Australia as well as Ms Beverley Maunsell's submission and, in particular, airline safety adviser Mr Ken Lewis. I only regret that the TWU chose that particular session to raise other issues about airport security which, although important, were not part of our terms of reference. This reduced the time we had to hear Mr Lewis's expert evidence and discuss other relevant aspects.

Flight attendants are trained for emergency situations. They are trained to assist passengers and identify in advance those who may need assistance and those who may cause trouble. I understand Qantas flight attendants have specific training sessions twice a year. No matter how well intentioned a passenger may be, they cannot provide the same level of assistance in an emergency. We all hope that we will never have to put the cabin crew ratios to the test in real life, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I wish to place on record my appreciation to the committee secretariat and in particular Julia Morris and James Nelson and their team for their professional support and assistance. As the report quotes from Beverley Maunsell's submission, 'You cannot separate occupational safety, operational safety and security, because they are all so intertwined.' As recommendation 7 states:

The 1:36 cabin crew ratio should be retained until such time that it can be demonstrated that a change to any other ratio in Australia will not result in reduced levels of safety or security.

See this speech in context