Air France Flight Attendants Don’t Want To Be Forced To Wear Headscarves

As of this month Air France is resuming 3x weekly flights between Paris and Tehran. This comes after sanctions were lifted between Iran and the US/Europe, given that international inspectors have confirmed that Iran has allegedly dismantled their nuclear program.

Air-France-777

This new route is leading to some interesting controversy among Air France flight attendants, some of whom are unwilling to work the route. What’s the cause of the controversy?

Female Air France flight attendants will be required to wear headscarves as soon as they land in Tehran, which the union argues violates their personal liberties. Therefore they’re requesting that the flights be voluntary to work, meaning that flight attendants can’t receive any penalties if they don’t want to work this route.

To be clear, Air France is simply requiring flight attendants to follow the Iranian laws which have been in place for decades, requiring all women to cover up. The Telegraph does a good job outlining the two sides to this story.

Here’s what the union argues:

Flore Arrighi, head of the UNAC flight crews’ union, said: “It is not our role to pass judgement on the wearing of headscarves or veils in Iran. What we are denouncing is that it is being made compulsory. Stewardesses must be given the right to refuse these flights.”

She added that female staff were entitled to exercise “individual freedoms”.

The deputy head of the SNPNC flight crews’ union, Christophe Pillet, said: “Female staff do not wish to have dress regulations imposed on them, especially the obligation to wear an Air France scarf that completely covers their hair as soon as they leave the plane.”

Mr Pillet said flight crews were prepared to wear headscarves in Iran when out of uniform, but objected to being ordered to wear them as part of their uniform.

Meanwhile here’s what the airline argues:

The financially ailing French airline, which sees the resumption of Tehran flights as an “excellent” business development, pointed out that other airline staff were obliged to comply with Iranian rules. “Tolerance and respect for the customs of the countries we serve are part of the values of our company,” a spokesman said.

Air France argued that French law allows “the restriction of individual liberties” if “justified by the nature of the task to be accomplished.”

This is a real toughie, and I see merit to both sides. This kind of stuff is always a slippery slope, because sometimes it can be tough to find a balance between following local customs while also respecting the rights people are afforded in an airline’s home country.

What I do find interesting here is that the union acknowledges that Air France is simply asking them to follow local law, and that they’re fine with flight attendants being required to wear headscarves when out of uniform in Iran. What they take issue with is having to wear headscarves as part of their uniform. I’m not sure I totally get the distinction there, personally, since even their time out of uniform in Iran is still technically time where they’re “on the clock.”

That being said, I do get the argument in general. Flight attendants disagree with being marginalized and being forced to wear a headscarf, which I think is a valid point to make. But how do you reconcile that with a for profit airline which flies to markets with different cultural norms?

I guess to take the argument a bit further, should gay flight attendants be allowed to opt out of flights to countries where they lack basic rights?

I don’t know, it’s a toughie…

Bottom line

I’m curious to see how this battle between Air France management and the flight attendant union plays out. Flight attendants want to be able to opt out of these flights since they feel like their personal liberties are being violated. At the same time, Air France is arguing that conforming to other countries’ laws is part of the job. They both have valid points, in my opinion.

Who do you think is right in this headscarf disagreement — Air France or the flight attendant union?

(Tip of the hat to Mike)

Conversations (51)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Kate Guest

Is it true read also required to wear slacks vs skirts on these flights?

0
‼ 0
RTBones Member

If Air France is going to do business in Iran, one would naturally expect Air France to follow Iranian law. I would think a relatively easy solution to the issue would be to either staff the route with all male crews, staff the route with male crews and female voluteers, or perhaps use local Tehran crews on the route. If I make the assumption that Air France is not the only western airline to fly to Tehran, how are other airlines handling the situation?

0
‼ 0
Malc Guest

I think if you work for an airline, your airline decides where to go. Where it does go, you follow the local laws. If you have a problem with this, you should get out of that line of work.

0
‼ 0
Gary Guest

Volatile issue, isn't it? It all boils down to a question of tolerance. Unfortunately, most people (as a number of the comments here demonstrate) believe that they are the victims of the other person's intolerance. This is particularly true when people go beyond carrying their faith in the hearts and practicing their religion in their homes and "places of worship". Iran is an example of this sicking intolerance. The observation, "It's the law.", proves my point. It is a law that promotes intolerance based on one's religious beliefs. Did not Kuwait Airlines do the same recently? How about the recent discriminate against a women passenger on El Al? Respect and tolerance are a two-way street. The problem can be described very clearly (although it is a paradox): In the name of "tolerance", you accept the promotion and presence of intolerance. So, stop abetting the zealots who persecute those who do not agree with them.

0
‼ 0
Paolo Diamond

I doubt that this would be a popular route for FAs ( although Tehran is a charming city). I can't imagine how AF believes it is going to make it profitable: additional costs associated with 3X weekly, limited government and business travel ( at least for now). I thought they are going through a process of rationalising routes rather than speculatively adding more. It will be interesting to see the outcome: this Union can be scary; it was only a year ago when they cornered some execs meeting to discuss possible layoffs and ripped the shirts of their backs, literally.

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published