Incidentally, can anyone else believe that the American airlines let these unions happen to them? They can't even promote employees for good performance anymore; there is only one criteria that employees are evaluated on, and that's time in that job at that airline. Change jobs and you're back at the bottom. Change airlines, and you're at the bottom.
The end result is that the flight attendants that choose the "best" routes (longhaul international) are the ones that care least about their job: they're at the top and they don't need to do a good job to stay there. Ironically, that's where the money is spent, and the people spending that money therefore get worse service. It's no surprise that anyone who pays for their own flights chooses the Asian or European airlines.
(My experience flying international first class on AA is that it's barely worth the taxes on the free flight. OTOH, when my company paid $10,000 for a flight to Singapore on Cathay Pacific, it was worth every penny.)
My understanding is that the "best routes" are not necessarily international routes; they are routes that offer the most paid hours per hour spent at work.
Cabin crew only get paid from the cabin door closing to the cabin door opening. Therefore longer routes tend to be better because messing around on the ground is roughly constant no matter how long the flight, so the longer the flight the more paid hours there are per 'free' ground hour.
However there are several factors fighting this:
- Layover time in a foreign city. Some destinations have bad flight schedules so you might end up with a long unpaid layover.
- After a few years of layovers in Paris it probably doesn't seem as exciting anymore so you aren't as willing to satisfy time at home for it.
- Domestic flights (especially on smaller planes) take less time to fill up, so crew can arrive closer to 'cabin door closed' time.
- Not all cabin crew live near an international departure airport, and they don't get paid to commute. Also they don't get put in first class when flying as a NONREV anymore thanks to free elite upgrades.
Therefore it varies by airline but some domestic or short routes may get very senior staff because they happen to match up with personal schedules, and some international cities will get junior staff because the schedule or paid-vs-free hours ratio is bad.
I think you're conflating "poor service" with "declining hotness".
In fact, I think the original article is pretty sad. Does anyone really care if their stewardess is hot? I don't. I just want them to hand me a can of diet coke, a napkin, a cup and some ice.
>$10,000 for a flight to Singapore on Cathay Pacific, it was worth every penny.
Also, $10,000 ÷ 17 hours (SF to Singapore) = $533/hr. For that kind of money, the hostesses better be hot, naked, and willing to give a happy ending.
No, it's a proxy indicator. A 50-year-old can be hot if she takes care of herself (TV is full of people like this these days, hell the streets are too). Just as they have stopped caring about their appearances, they have stopped caring about customer service. If you doubt this, just try flying United long-haul.
I'm saying is "hotness" doesn't have a bearing on customer service.
I don't care if my cab driver, dry cleaner, and barrista are good looking. It's about as relevant as promoting programmers based on what kind of funny t-shirts they wear.
The amount of jobs listed on HN that are geared toward Mac users is quite sad. Not that anyone is saying "Mac Only!" but, there have been quite a few posts that simply ignore that there are skilled developers using other platforms. When I've brought it up in the past it seemed that my opinion was quite unpopular though.
Ironically, I am the only developer at my job not on a Mac. Sure I get some jokes at times, but I am just as efficient as anyone else, and if I had made a switch to a Mac just to fit in, I wouldn't have been able to hit the ground running.
I'm puzzled as you seem to be. I've had to work on many platforms. Mac tools are immature, buggy and frustrating. The frustration may be due to my unfamiliarity, but the rest is not.
If so many use these tools, they should be more mature. I conclude that only a vocal minority actually develop on the Mac.
"Hotness", is created, not given, and a committed customer service employee will perform at least the minimum self-maintenance to make them selves not unattractive.
I have never worked a customer service job where a neat appearance (or cool, if at a certain kind of place) was not necessary.
I don't want to fall in to a Reddit like trap of [citation needed] as a reply, but what in this article leads you to believe that airlines can no longer promote employees for good performance?
I don't know if you're saying it's a bad thing that airlines can no longer fire the recently un-hot, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume no. Do you think that the service being better on the airlines you mention has any real link with hotness, or just incidental correlation?
There is simply no way such thing as a promotion at an airline. All privileges (pay, schedule selection) that are given to the pilots and flight attendants are based on hours-worked at that airline. There are no other rewards.
I'm not talking about hotness at all. Some employees, attractive or otherwise, are simply bad at their job. Some other employees, are really good at their job. The airlines would get better employees if they fired the bad ones and gave the good ones more money or a better schedule. That's all I'm saying.
> (...) are the ones that care least about their job: they're at the top and they don't need to do a good job to stay there.
I don't know exactly how Japanese airlines work, but the system you describe (seniority) is pretty much standard in Japanese big corps, even without unions.
While that leads to extremely sad things inside the corporations (shudder), customer service doesn't usually suffer due to it. The high school kids working at my local convenience store displays a higher and more consistent level of service than the average stewardess in a North American airline.
The end result is that the flight attendants that choose the "best" routes (longhaul international) are the ones that care least about their job: they're at the top and they don't need to do a good job to stay there. Ironically, that's where the money is spent, and the people spending that money therefore get worse service. It's no surprise that anyone who pays for their own flights chooses the Asian or European airlines.
(My experience flying international first class on AA is that it's barely worth the taxes on the free flight. OTOH, when my company paid $10,000 for a flight to Singapore on Cathay Pacific, it was worth every penny.)