I’m a pretty pro-union guy, which is to say that I respect the right for labor groups to collectively bargain, and also think they provide an important counterbalance to corporate greed. However, I also think unions are often far from perfect, and I try to be objective.
Along those lines, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), which represents American’s roughly 28,000 flight attendants, is making a ridiculous argument against the company’s goal to certify its newest jet, as reported by @xJonNYC.
In this post:
American union argues low 787 staffing levels are unsafe
American will soon take delivery of its first “premium” Boeing 787-9, which will feature just 244 seats. This is way more premium than American’s existing 787s, as the planes will have huge premium cabins, including 51 business class seats and 32 premium economy seats. This will also be the plane on which American launches its new business class, featuring suites with doors.
American’s plan is to staff these planes with nine flight attendants, which the union is onboard with. The thing is, American is trying to get the plane certified so that it can fly with just seven flight attendants. The logic is that in the event that flight attendants become injured or ill while on a layover, the airline could exceptionally operate a flight with just seven flight attendants, so that the flight doesn’t have to be canceled.
The union even notes that competitors have a similar minimum staffing requirement:
This week, American management made clear their intention to work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to certify new 787-9P aircraft with a minimum of seven (7) Flight Attendants, moving our minimum requirements on this aircraft closer to our US competitors who have similar equipment and seating configuration.
This minimum staffing is in alignment with other carriers 787 minimum staffing, namely United Airlines, who have the ability to staff their 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series with an FAA minimum of seven (7) Flight Attendants.
However, the union argues that such staffing levels are unrealistic and unsafe:
This is yet another unacceptable erosion of Flight Attendant staffing. It is unrealistic and unsafe to expect that seven Flight Attendants can adequately serve and ensure safety under the new configuration of the 787-9P, especially with an increase to 51 private Business Class Suites, with each seat bringing added Flight Attendant workload in an already understaffed cabin.
Further, the FAA mandates that suite doors remain locked open during taxi, takeoff, and landing, which adds a critical new safety task for Flight Attendants. It is impossible to perform these additional duties without compromising safety and service standards.
APFA categorically rejects the changes to the minimum crew requirement on the new 787-9P. Our safety, workload, and working conditions are non-negotiable.
I strongly disagree with the union on this topic
In my opinion the union is making a really bad faith argument here, and as a consumer, it’s really hard to support them with logic like this.
Let’s be clear, management and the union negotiate standard staffing levels, so this isn’t some foot in the door approach for management, whereby this is part of a plan to consistently staff the new 787s with just seven flight attendants. This is for exceptional situations where a flight attendant is unable to work a return flight due to being ill or injured.
The union’s argument is that there’s no way that seven flight attendants could possibly safely operate a 787 in a pinch, and it’s much better for the flight to just be canceled.
Never mind that United has this policy, including for 787-10s, which have 30% more seats (318 vs. 244). So is the APFA arguing that United is operating its flights unsafely, or that American flight attendants aren’t as capable as their counterparts at United?
In fairness, the requirement to ensure that suite doors are locked and open for takeoff and landing does add a little bit of workload. But does that really make it “unrealistic and unsafe” for flight attendants to operate flights in these situations?
One flight attendant taking a few minutes to ensure every suite door is locked can’t possibly be the difference between a flight being safe to operate or not. And it also can’t be more work than ensuring the safety of an additional 72 passengers, as on United’s 787-10s.
This kind of strikes me as being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and insulting the capabilities of those who work on the front lines.
Bottom line
American will soon take delivery of its first premium Boeing 787-9, and management and the union have agreed to staff the plane with nine flight attendants. However, American wants the aircraft to be certified to fly with seven flight attendants, so that in the event of flight attendants becoming ill or injured during a layover, the return flight could still operate.
The union argues that there’s no way a flight could operate safely with just seven flight attendants, despite the fact that competitor United flies a larger and more dense version of the jet with the same minimum staffing levels.
What do you make of the union’s staffing level argument?
Each door (8 of them) should have a flight attendant available to open that door. Flight Attendants need to evacuate a full airplane in 90 seconds or less. Having to open one door and then cross over to the other side to open the 2nd door is extremely difficult, especially when passengers are already in the aisles and blocking those aisles near the doors.
The truth is...there are 8 emergency exit doors...The policy for AA has ALWAYS been one flight attendant for every emergency exit door on every wide body....do you really want to argue that???
There are 8 doors on this aircraft. In any emergency evacuation situation would you want the door to be unattended by a safety professional (which flight attendants are).
If you opened it as a passenger would you know what to do if the slide doesn’t deploy, or if it is torn to shreds, or if there is a fire right there? And would you know what to do in a split second.
I’ll answer that… not a chance.
All doors should be manned by flight attendants.
let's say if the slide is torn to shreds, or is a fire right there - what can a flight attendant do that a passenger can not?
Let's look at B737-700 or A319, there are 4 doors (2 in the front and 2 in the back) and there are 3 flight attendants - so are you saying all of these airlines flying this type, are unsafe?
Block the exit, which is harder than it looks.
Another example of union overreach in America. Is there anyone who can honestly say they don’t degrade consumer experience and lead to negative externalities for everyone by the worst employees in a given industry or society (i.e police unions)
The current minimum is 8 FA , and it staffed with 9 ( down from 11 on the 777-200 pre-pandemic, which is comparable ). So if a crew member becomes sick, the flight can still operate with 8.
What the airline is trying to do is to eventually bring it down to a standard of 8, and have it operated with 7 if needed.
Won't the suite doors have an indicator light (red / green) that can easily be seen?
I am sorry. But it's not just about making sure a door is open and locked. These staffing requirements for such a large group are ridiculous and a huge workload for flight attendants. In a emergency evacuation, it would be a miracle to get everyone out. Flight attendants are overworked already. If the company, AA, is allowed to changed the minimum crew from 8 to 7, which they state is a just in case scenario....
I am sorry. But it's not just about making sure a door is open and locked. These staffing requirements for such a large group are ridiculous and a huge workload for flight attendants. In a emergency evacuation, it would be a miracle to get everyone out. Flight attendants are overworked already. If the company, AA, is allowed to changed the minimum crew from 8 to 7, which they state is a just in case scenario. The first thing you will see is AA only staffing with 7. Not the original number of flight attendants. Double the workload and save a buck for Isom's bonus
Have we all seen the Elon Musk company new travel vehicle coming in the future?
1000 people inside, anywhere on Earth within an hour
Well I am a retired CSD at BA and what we did if needed was sure to let the flight go, but understaffed also meant under capacity too, so with a crew of 8 on a 767, I lost a FA one night due to sickness and we had to reduce the number of passengers by 30 odd, not good for those left behind, or those on rebate tickets hoping to get on board, but...
Well I am a retired CSD at BA and what we did if needed was sure to let the flight go, but understaffed also meant under capacity too, so with a crew of 8 on a 767, I lost a FA one night due to sickness and we had to reduce the number of passengers by 30 odd, not good for those left behind, or those on rebate tickets hoping to get on board, but that is how it was, at least the AC, crew and most of the passengers got to their destination with minimum upset to aircraft and crew rotation.
@Ben
I agree with you. This argument from APFA is absurd. It is better to operate a flight with 7 flight attendants than to cancel it. If United can operate a 787-10 flight with 318 seats with seven flight attendants then what is the problem in operating a 787-9 flight with 244 seats with seven flight attendants.
“Will soon” take delivery. Yeah sure.
Also worth noting in the exceptional case of a 7 flight attendant crew, that is less than one flight attendant per emergency exit. Doesn't sound ideal to me
737/320 regularly fly with less than one attendant per exit (6 exits, normally staffed with 4 FAs). I think the requirement is for one FA per pair of exits or one FA per 50 pax, whichever is higher.
Merits of the argument aside, does 9 flight attendants not sound low to any body else? Emirates keeps 16 on ultralong haul 777-300ER flights with 354 passengers, the American 787-9s will have 327. Am I underestimating how many of those flights attendants are to enable second shifts, much like flights over 12 hours have flight deck crew of 4 while flights under 9 will have 2?
AA’s new 787-9s will have 244 seats. So about 27 Passengers per FA, while Emirates in your example is roughly 22 Passengers per FA. So the staffing levels aren’t that dramatically different.
Unions are past the point of usefulness. With a significantly more developed, mobile economy these days, people can easily vote with their choosing to stay with an employer or not, in most industries. If enough people are dissatisfied, they quit, and it forces the company to change (safety, wages) or go they out of business. Unions just encourage people to be lazy and develop a sense of entitlement.
Strong disagree. The increasingly massive income disparity between the very wealthy and the workers makes unions more important than ever.
Wrong
Sorry Chris is the wrong one.
U have NO IDEA WHAT UR SAYING
As an aside, I find it fascinating to talk to the cabin crew about what planes they like most and least. In my experience, they are some very interesting people. (Not all are talkative and/or friendly, but many!)
My initial thought was fewer FAs is going to lead to a degradation of service on a “premium” plane where there will be a higher service expectation. That said, this argument is about safety (or maybe fewer cancelled flights?) and I would say that if other airlines are staffing this plane with fewer seats and meeting safety standards, then AA can do the same.
On another note, I think these doors are ridiculous. Unless...
My initial thought was fewer FAs is going to lead to a degradation of service on a “premium” plane where there will be a higher service expectation. That said, this argument is about safety (or maybe fewer cancelled flights?) and I would say that if other airlines are staffing this plane with fewer seats and meeting safety standards, then AA can do the same.
On another note, I think these doors are ridiculous. Unless it offers significantly more privacy I’m not really seeing the benefit of it (esp as it seems to be an annoyance to flight crews).
One more reason that these "doors" make no sense.
Added weight and work-load, in exchange for zero actual benefit.
With current tech can their handhelds show who’s not locked? They already have a seat schematic and if this could be transmitted too?
Why not go with 8 FA’s and meet halfway?
With current tech can their handhelds show who’s not locked? They already have a seat schematic and if this could be transmitted too?
Why not go with 8 FA’s and meet halfway?
They already do less than their counterparts on other flag carrier airlines like Singapore, Japan Airlines, or Emirates, some of which allow foreign nationals in these coveted roles. The only reason the average American flyer doesn't complain is because most don't have the perspective to understand what a raw deal they've been getting in hard and soft product onboard.
They do less AND are fewer. I recall a few years ago when I was flabbergasted to learn that an Asian carrier and United which operate the same route have very diffey staffing. Same number of emergency exit doors. Roughly same number of seats in 3 cabin layouts. 13 fa on the Asian carrier. 9 on united. And the united service was just consistently mediocre to terrible. And once I flew with 8 on UA....
They do less AND are fewer. I recall a few years ago when I was flabbergasted to learn that an Asian carrier and United which operate the same route have very diffey staffing. Same number of emergency exit doors. Roughly same number of seats in 3 cabin layouts. 13 fa on the Asian carrier. 9 on united. And the united service was just consistently mediocre to terrible. And once I flew with 8 on UA. I will never erase the smell of those J lavs. Unsurprisingly, the Asian carrier consistently had outstanding soft product.
Why would anyone fly an American carrier if they don't have an imperative?
And also from the consumer perspective, unless you value having more flights or always being able to "make that flight", why allow American to ever fly a plane with such low ratios? Make staff higher, reposition if they need to, and accommodate you on another carrier when they can cut it.
Not saying I agree with the union's argument but wasn't JetBlue having a problem where they couldn't use the doors on their Mint Suites because they reduced staffing on their flights, having enough to operate the minimum passenger-to-crew ratio but the added complexity of locking and unlocking doors generally requires more crew?
This is probably exactly what gave the union this idea
It just funny to me how the suite doors, which are nice to have but certainly not really a necessary improvement to a J cabin have become so contentious. It takes maybe 10-seconds per row lock them up. So maybe four minutes in total if spread across just two FAs. I really fail to see how there is not adequate time to complete that with a skeleton crew along with other duties.
Collecting those headphones takes ages.
The whole "suite doors locked and secured" thing is ridiculous. A task that takes maybe 3 minutes to complete twice in a flight, during takeoff + landing -- that means that the entire flight needs to be overstaffed just to take care of that task, even if you believe it takes that long?
If the waiver is for exceptional circumstances, and safety is maintained, then so be it. However given that the 789 will be flown long-haul, does crew rest not also factor into safety considerations? How would crew rest be affected by the decreased staffing?
Then there's service level...but if it's for exceptional circumstances, so be it... I'd rather my flight not be canceled
Can't they just keep the doors open for the full flight in an understaffing case like described? I assume they will have some kind of locking mechanism.
Offer the union a 30% pay bonus for any FA's on a flight with only 7. Problem solved.
You all do realize that 40 years a LGA/ORD 90 minute M80 flight with 3 flight attendants handled a more elaborate first class meal service and all coach passengers got a beverage service then a full hot meal service. Then trays had to be picked up. And somehow 3 flight attendants got that done.
This was also the era where 10-15% gratuity was considered normal (and still is for most of the world) Instead prices went up and so went the entitlement of the workers, all while customer experience suffered.
I was thinking the same thing. I spent a lot of time in F Class on AA ORD-DCA (many flights) and with hot towels, full hot meal etc. That was the service expectation and AA was (back then) pretty good at delivering it.
8 doors, 8 flight attendants. United has 7 FA’s minimum across their entire 787 fleet, fine, whatever. AA has 8 minimum crew across the entire 787 fleet. Why try to create additional operational complexity with 1 plane that requires 7?
It’s a slippery slope to recertify the entire 787 fleet, and then be able to claim they staff it above what they’re required to. Don’t forget that the AA/APFA understaffing arbitration is still in progress...
8 doors, 8 flight attendants. United has 7 FA’s minimum across their entire 787 fleet, fine, whatever. AA has 8 minimum crew across the entire 787 fleet. Why try to create additional operational complexity with 1 plane that requires 7?
It’s a slippery slope to recertify the entire 787 fleet, and then be able to claim they staff it above what they’re required to. Don’t forget that the AA/APFA understaffing arbitration is still in progress and this ABSOLUTELY plays into that.
The compromise solution here is to agree to 7 crew but only in situations where no revenue passengers are allowed to occupy the suites with doors. That ensures the workload reduction for the crew, as well as ensures that the company doesn't abuse the provision except in extreme circumstances.
forgot to mention in re to staffing. If American uses 4 in the premium cabin (no idea what they call it) and 2 in premium coach.......that doesn't leave but one in main cabin if staffed with only 7. Would be awful to work and awful to be a coach pax in that situation.
It will likely be 5 in Business, 4 in PE/Main Cabin. PE and MC are considered a single cabin as far as service is concerned, but PE gets a different tray set up for meals.
The worst part of this is that the MC galley FA will be forced to be on a cart full time and won’t be in the back getting things ready for the next service element, so MC service will be slow with long gaps.
"adequately serve".....lol.
well at Delta the doors are locked open before boarding and kept locked open til after the meal service. Deltas policy is closed door equals no service with the exception of water bottles. Nothing is handed over the top. It takes maybe 15 seconds to go down your aisle unlocking the doors on your side after dinner. How many doors on that thing? With only 7 flight attendants if there are 8 or more doors,...
well at Delta the doors are locked open before boarding and kept locked open til after the meal service. Deltas policy is closed door equals no service with the exception of water bottles. Nothing is handed over the top. It takes maybe 15 seconds to go down your aisle unlocking the doors on your side after dinner. How many doors on that thing? With only 7 flight attendants if there are 8 or more doors, that leaves some doors uncovered for takeoff and landing. We call that double door coverage. Not ideal.
this whole argument about the extra workload for FAs w/ suite doors is over the top.
There is a US airline -DL -that has been operating widebodies with suite doors for over 5 years and now has almost 60 A330NEOs and A350s with the feature.
DL FAs manage to do all the stuff other US airlines do for safety and still manage to get the suite doors all locked before takeoff and landing.
And to...
this whole argument about the extra workload for FAs w/ suite doors is over the top.
There is a US airline -DL -that has been operating widebodies with suite doors for over 5 years and now has almost 60 A330NEOs and A350s with the feature.
DL FAs manage to do all the stuff other US airlines do for safety and still manage to get the suite doors all locked before takeoff and landing.
And to Ben's point, there is a case that UA operates the same jet with as few as 7 FAs which is actually a little surprising since the 787 has 8 doors so 7 FAs means that one FA has responsibility for more than one door. The A330-900 also has 8 doors while the 777W has 10 doors.
I suppose unions are going to union but the ship seems to have sailed regarding the workload to manage suite doors.
If there is a risk, it is that there are or can be less FAs than there are doors on the aircraft.
LOL, Tim.
You just gave Delta FA another excuse to unionize.
So they can argue about staffing like AA FAs and lose just like them?
Timmy, that's the whole point of unions.
They don't need to use logic or reasoning, especially a fluffy one like yours.
They argue using whatever they want because collectively they can.
Win or lose is not based on what make sense.
Do the union-negotiated staffing numbers differ for domestic vs long-haul flights? If so, could be the FA's trying to up the numbers on domestic repositioning flights. That's where AA might be more tempted to use the FAA certified minimum since extensive service/crew rest are not required.
I agree that they can seek to collectively bargain - that freedom of association and a free market - but I disagree that the law should require the company to deal with a union, a third party that is not party to the employment arrangement between a business and its employees. If the company refuses to deal with a union and the employees insist, let the free market for labor see who comes out the...
I agree that they can seek to collectively bargain - that freedom of association and a free market - but I disagree that the law should require the company to deal with a union, a third party that is not party to the employment arrangement between a business and its employees. If the company refuses to deal with a union and the employees insist, let the free market for labor see who comes out the winner in that showdown. Moving to this issue.
This example is why I loathe unions, despite my above position: they seem to allows push to do less, usually, for more. You make a good case that the demands from AA's desire to certify with seven FAs is not unreasonable, but that doesn't stop a union. Here's hoping that this is not settled until after January 20th and, despite his pick for Labor Secretary, the incoming Trump Administration will not worry too much about the AA FA's arguments and certify the plane as requested.
> I agree that they can seek to collectively bargain - [...] but I disagree that the law should require the company to deal with a union, a third party that is not party to the employment arrangement between a business and its employees.
When those employees collectively bargain, they're probably not going to all 1,000-10,000 of them be at the meeting, right? They're going to be sending a few representatives. And those employees that...
> I agree that they can seek to collectively bargain - [...] but I disagree that the law should require the company to deal with a union, a third party that is not party to the employment arrangement between a business and its employees.
When those employees collectively bargain, they're probably not going to all 1,000-10,000 of them be at the meeting, right? They're going to be sending a few representatives. And those employees that they represent, they're all going to probably have slightly different needs. Those representatives aren't going to be bringing up the individual contract of each and every 1,000-10,000 employees—including themselves—but rather some generalized set of requirements.
Odds are those representatives aren't lawyers themselves, so they'll need to retain legal counsel to review contracts, etc. Those lawyers are going to cost money, so they'll probably want to ask all the employees to chip in. Realistically, that's a lot of money. They might even want someone to be in charge of the collected money.
There have to be some meetings for the representatives to talk to the group that they're representing, to do stuff like discuss the asks they're bringing to management and what management is proposing. It may not always be practical for all 1,000-10,000 employees to meet up at the exact same time, so they might be split up into teams with someone within each team in charge of sharing information between teams and their representatives. And from a practical standpoint it doesn't make sense to set up all this and then completely disband it every three or four years when contracts come up for renewal.
So to recap: There are reps who talk to the company; people taking care of money, setting up meetings, and doing other administrative tasks; teams of employees and people handling communication for them, all of this for the purpose of collective bargaining. But geez, that's a real mouthful when talking about this structure whose purpose is to collectively bargain on behalf of all the employees. If only there were some word that could be used to describe this entity...
I personally have no faith in AA management and can totally see in the next downturn, them trying to reduce staffing to the bare minimum.
This is for emergency situations only. I guess flight attendants would rather spend an extra unpaid day at a foreign outstation waiting for either a new flight attendant to fly in on the inbound flight or for the ill flight attendant to become fit for duty.
You mean an extra day collecting per diem with accommodations and transportation taken care of...
Not exactly American, United and Delta all have work rules in place to cover this. If the return flight is delayed for most carrier I think its over 4 hours the airline has to pay the flight attendant additional flight pay not just per diem a delay in retuning back to base on an international flight could cost an airline quite a bit of money in employee cost. Not to mention if that delay now...
Not exactly American, United and Delta all have work rules in place to cover this. If the return flight is delayed for most carrier I think its over 4 hours the airline has to pay the flight attendant additional flight pay not just per diem a delay in retuning back to base on an international flight could cost an airline quite a bit of money in employee cost. Not to mention if that delay now also means a flight attendant is no longer legal to report for their next schedule flight the airline now has to pay them the entire trip credit for the trip they're no longer legal to work while also paying another flight attendant who on reserve to cover that trip for the illegal crew member.
The reason the union is fighting American on this is because their membership could potentially make a lot of additional money each time a flight back to base is delayed do to an ill crew member. You don't need 9 flight attendants to operate a 787.
We all know the real argument, which is "If they cert for 7 FA's then it's a slippery slope and eventually they are going to try to negotiate us down to 8 and then 7 FA's per flight" and I think that's a reasonable argument to make. Sure the airline doesn't intend this NOW, but we all know how that goes in the future, so this is the FA's protecting their jobs, which is what...
We all know the real argument, which is "If they cert for 7 FA's then it's a slippery slope and eventually they are going to try to negotiate us down to 8 and then 7 FA's per flight" and I think that's a reasonable argument to make. Sure the airline doesn't intend this NOW, but we all know how that goes in the future, so this is the FA's protecting their jobs, which is what they are supposed to be fighting for, so you can't blame them for fighting back, though I wish they were more honest about what their real argument was.
Protecting superfluous jobs in that scenario. If the airlines do not need 9 FAs, why should they hire 9 FAs? That's one of many problems with unions: inefficiency. AA does not exist to provide jobs. They exist to serve customers and generate a profit for shareholders. Jobs are a by-product of that when you boil it down to essentials.
Full offense, but pretty much every single problem in our country can be traced back to people like you, so just shut up and go away.
@RCB -- The statement by AGrumpyOldMan_GA, that jobs are a by-product of a business trying to provide a product or service to customers, is valid. When that business makes a profit, it can reinvest and expand, creating more jobs. An example of this is Apple. Started in a garage with a few people and now employs thousands. Thousands of individuals and families that own homes, have health insurance, and spend money in their community, which...
@RCB -- The statement by AGrumpyOldMan_GA, that jobs are a by-product of a business trying to provide a product or service to customers, is valid. When that business makes a profit, it can reinvest and expand, creating more jobs. An example of this is Apple. Started in a garage with a few people and now employs thousands. Thousands of individuals and families that own homes, have health insurance, and spend money in their community, which helps other businesses to employ people.
RCB, please provide information to support your statement that every single problem in our country can be traced to people like him.
> The statement by AGrumpyOldMan_GA, that jobs are a by-product of a business trying to provide a product or service to customers, is valid.
The statement was that jobs are a by-product of customer service _and also_ profit making. It should be clear however that for many businesses these days both jobs and customer service are by-products of profit making, and that they're maximizing the latter at the expense of former.
> When that business...
> The statement by AGrumpyOldMan_GA, that jobs are a by-product of a business trying to provide a product or service to customers, is valid.
The statement was that jobs are a by-product of customer service _and also_ profit making. It should be clear however that for many businesses these days both jobs and customer service are by-products of profit making, and that they're maximizing the latter at the expense of former.
> When that business makes a profit, it can reinvest and expand, creating more jobs.
They _can_ reinvest and expand. They can also use it on stock buybacks, as American, Delta, and United did, spending 80-90% of their free cash in the decade prior to the pandemic to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. United just announced another one in October.
@ Steven L. -- Thank you for your response. It was balanced, factual, and I agree with you.
If anyone is interested, read the story about Bob's Red Mill. It is an employee owned company. It is not the profits that are wrong, but the way they are "invested".
And thank you for taking the time to present your thoughts and ideas, instead of saying...... " just shut up and go away".
I 100% agree with you (and the union) on this one because the airline is absolutely setting up a case to remove FAs. So the union is doing what they're paid to do: protect jobs. The laughable part is that even with 2 "not required" FAs, AA will *still* have horrendous service anyway. And everyone on this blog will still bitch about it