The Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), which represents 28,000 flight attendants at American Airlines, has come out strongly against attempts by American Airlines to certify its 787-9 jet with a minimum staffing of seven flight attendants (instead of eight). Does the union make a reasonable point?
American Airlines Flight Attendants Fight Against Minimum Staffing On New 787 Jet
American plans to staff its latest 787-9, featuring a premium-heavy 244-seat configuration, with nine flight attendants, but wants to certify the plane to operate with only seven flight attendants. This would merely match what other carriers, like United, have done:
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.
But as noted by JonNYC the union is unwilling to sign on, saying it represents a grave threat to safety:
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.
Here’s a screenshot of the memo:
AA 798 FA staffing pic.twitter.com/kZfCfJEYmp
— JonNYC (@xJonNYC) December 5, 2024
I Tend To Side With The Union Here…
I find this an interesting situation. One Mile At A Time says he’s pro-union, but the union is out of line here. I’m generally far less pro-union (not because I am against unions providing a necessary bulwark against corporate greed and much-needed safeguards for employees, but because I find them ineffective, far too focused on protecting senior flight attendants at the expense of junior flight attendants, perpetually griping about service improvements onboard, and dwelling too much on divisive political causes), but find myself siding with the union here.
And I take this position even with the stipulation that the motives of the union are not necessarily clean. Think about it. If the union is successful in blocking this change, if a crewmember gets sick, the flight cannot operate. As a result, the other flight attendants will be paid for not working. And if the delay messes up their downline schedule (due to minimum rest time between flights) they could be paid for several days of not working. Therefore, there is a pecuniary incentive for a crewmember to take a sick day, even if just suffering from a common cold.
Even so, am I the only one who finds it ridiculous to operate a 787 with only seven flight attendants? Flight attendants remind us over and over that they are “primarily here for our safety” and that most poignantly includes facilitating a hasty evacuation in case of an emergency.
Do we really want a flight attendant having to open two doors during an emergency on a widebody jet?
I’m not saying it is impossible…indeed, United’s minimum staffing on its 787-10, which have 30% more seats (318 versus 244), is seven. And I recognize it would be in very rare circumstances (two crewmembers would have to fall ill or become injured).
But is this really the sort of cost-cutting that is wise? Is it really worth potentially jeopardizing the safety of the aircraft to save a few hundred bucks…or even tens of thousands of bucks? While the “free market” is a wonderful theoretical concept, I don’t want a minimum baseline of safety sacrificed. And yes, I’d hate to have to evacuate a United 787-10 with only seven flight attendants…
So I guess I see this differently. I think seven flight attendants are too little on a 787, period. And yes, I think senior and junior flight attendants should not have such a wide disparity in pay and flight attendants should be terminated for being rude onboard…so don’t think I’m a union shill here. And yes, I know the A319, for example, has six exits and only three flight attendants…I’m just not convinced on the 787, but open to being convinced. I’d love to hear from flight attendants here.
Do you agree with my assessment of this matter?
image: American Airlines
“Do we really want a flight attendant having to open two doors during an emergency on a widebody jet?”
Ummm…maybe I’m a bit naive here, but isn’t that why the FA’s always ask the pax sitting in the exit rows “Are you willing and able to assist in the event of an emergency?”
Fair enough, but I always take that to merely be checking a box…I cannot imagine passengers actually opening them unless FAs are inacapcaited and it would still require a FA being there to provide the instructions.
I just don’t want this to happen:
https://liveandletsfly.com/passengers-defy-flight-attendants/
And look at the comments there. Maybe all of this does not actually matter…
“But is this really the sort of cost-cutting that is wise? Is it really worth potentially jeopardizing the safety of the aircraft to save a few hundred bucks…or even tens of thousands of bucks?”
But if this is going to be an exceptional occurrence, what kind of cost savings are we talking about, really? If AA and UA only plan to use this in the rare situation that two FAs call in sick on the same flight, cost doesn’t strike me as a motivation here. It would be a rounding error in the grand scheme of things over the course of a year.
Where I grudgingly agree with the union is that I don’t trust AA management to not eventually use this as justification to cut staffing on all flights. Dropping to 7 (or even 8) FAs on that size of a plane isn’t going to be positive for either the passenger experience or safety.
And other benefits for management will be the savings from reduced labor costs , meal catering and beverage services .
Interesting post but there’s no incentive for someone to call out “take one for the team” for pay protection or legality purposes. They’d just call a reserve to replace them. Flights are very rarely cancelled due to a callout unless they’re already down line (in which case there are still options lol)
I think this is a good point and the fact that two would have to be sick, not just one, would make it so rare that something like this could happen.
I’d think it would be so rare that a cancellation or extended delay would not be so bad…?
No I don’t agree. In fact the role of flight attendant and passenger has significantly evolved. Even in an emergency. I would trust frequent flyers to be able to provide assistance and often better wisdom than a six week training program. We have all learned to operate a seat belt, why not trust we can open doors in an emergency. As I am generally pro union I believe it’s time to stop the madness to think some flight attendants are worth so much more than the juniors.
I’m guessing you’ve never flown on a 787. A good majority of my passengers can’t seem to figure out how to get themselves into their shoulder harnesses, open a lavatory door, find where to plug in their headsets or how to operate the seat. No, I would trust my well over 40 yrs of flying as a flight attendant more than the wisdom of a ‘Frequent flyer’. I also consider myself a bit more experienced since I have commanded an evacuation on a runway in the middle of the night.
The average passenger barely pays attention to a safety demo, I don’t expect them to 1. Be familiar with exit locations, slide/raft types, and door operation procedures across multiple aircraft types 2. Know where emergency equipment is stored and how to operate and access 3. Know how to properly assess conditions before opening an exit 4. Know the preferred routes of escape for different types of emergency landings and across different aircraft 5. Know what different pilot evacuation commands mean 6. Command an exit from a safe command location 7. Perform a cabin sweep 8. Know what to do when a slide does not inflate and 9. Even open the exit (the 737 does not have pneumatic assist and is not intuitive). All things covered in just one week of a “six week training program”. There’s a reason why airlines view passengers seated in overwing exits as essentially backups—no one is required to sit there and FAs are taught to make their way up to those exits at some point if conditions allow in an evacuation…
Try me.
OK Maryland. Sounds great. I believe a few airlines are hiring right now. You can give it a go.
Flyer1? Let’s have a pax v FA and discover who makes the best decisions in an emergency! ( or in any situation ). Now go suck down another cocktail.
AA cannot operate a flight of 14 hrs with only 7 f/a’s… plus there is “augmented staffing” for extended periods of time.
The FAA minimum is 7, and on domestic, the FAA allows that. Gary, the other airline blogger, didn’t do his research on the subject..
UA has 10 f/a’s on SFO-SIN-SFO flights; and it needed the ‘augmented staffing’ for the ultra-long flight.
They staff the 787-9 with 9 f/as on all international routes, which is 7+2, according to the FAA staffing guidelines….
Read below the FAA regs for how staffing should be implemented above their minimum requirements:
A certificate holder conducting domestic, flag, or supplemental
operations may assign a flight attendant to a scheduled duty
period of more than 14 hours, but no more than 16 hours, if the
certificate holder has assigned to the flight or flights in that duty
period at least one flight attendant in addition to the minimum
flight attendant complement required for the flight or flights in that
duty period under the certificate holder’s operations
specifications.
(5 A certificate holder conducting domestic, flag, or supplemental
operations may assign a flight attendant to a scheduled duty
period of more than 16 hours, but no more than 18 hours, if the
certificate holder has assigned to the flight or flights in that duty
period at least two flight attendants in addition to the minimum
flight attendant complement required for the flight or flights in that
duty period under the certificate holder’s operations
specifications.
(6)
A certificate holder conducting domestic, flag, or supplemental
operations may assign a flight attendant to a scheduled duty
period of more than 18 hours, but no more than 20 hours, if the
scheduled duty period includes one or more flights that land or
take off outside the 48 contiguous states and the District of
Columbia, and if the certificate holder has assigned to the flight or
flights in that duty period at least three flight attendants in
addition to the minimum flight attendant complement required for
the flight or flights in that duty period under the domestic
certificate holder’s operations specifications.
Then get rid of the meal service altogether.