American Flight Attendant Union Makes Absurd 787 Staffing Argument

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.

More from OMAAT American Airlines’ Most Senior Flight Attendant Retires After 63+ Years Read more

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?