The internet, social media, and technology in general has allowed us to more easily live within our own bubble, a world of confirmation bias and groupthink. My conversations lately with flight attendants have been quite revealing in that respect.
A lot of FAs read my blog, and I am quite thankful for that. I’m often given tips and constructive feedback that are quite helpful. One wrote a very heartfelt rebuttal on an internal United FA issue I wrote about.
Over the last year, I’ve heard an earful on the Dr. David Dao dragging drama and more recently on the dog who died after being stored in an overhead bin on a United flight.
These are usually in the form of conversations and I’m sensing an alarming trend.
FAs know what to say publicly, but ask them privately what they really think and I overwhelmingly hear the following:
- Dr. Dao deserved what he got: he should have known better than to argue (not that a FA was directly involved in the case)
- The gate agent in Houston who assaulted an old man was merely acting in self-defense
- The FA was not even 1% responsible for the dog that recently died in the overhead bin
- Passengers NEVER listen to FAs: we have no more authority
And that may well be the case, though I would argue otherwise on all four points. Yet I find these views striking for the degree in which FAs seem unified. Also keep in mind I don’t just communicate with United FAs, but FAs from other airlines as well, both in the U.S. and in Europe. Could this be the view of the vocal minority rather than the silent majority?
These opinions are not politically correct and I cannot find a FA willing to speak on the record concerning these issues. But do not underestimate the power of this mindset and how it influences the way FAs perform their job duties and view customers.
CONCLUSION
Sometimes FAs are right to feel they are being blindsided. Case in point: the bonus/lottery “enhancement” that Scott Kirby was forced to drop. But these viewpoints do concern me, a bit at least. They also humble me: I am probably guilty of being blind to some of my own errors as well.
image: Tom Purves / Flickr (CC 2.0)
When the economy is good the FA’s think they are gods. Just wait for things to turn and they start losing their jobs.
I’ve been amazed at how many U.S. flight attendants have told me that United/Delta/AA service is just as good as any foreign airline and that people like foreign carriers better because their FA’s are young and wear tight uniforms. There is no nuance regarding differences in pay/staffing/training etc…just that passengers are pigs so no matter how good or bad we are…passengers will like foreign carriers better so why should we try….
Not 1% responsible for the dog? Maybe not 100% but what a ridiculous thing for them to say, and even worse for them to believe. Also, saying Dr. Dao shouldn’t have argued is basically the same thing as “if that little black boy didn’t want to get shot, he shouldn’t have run from the police.” It’s the disproportionate response that’s ridiculous, not the policy that needed his seat on the plane. I know you know this, but I just had to get that out. 🙂 Have a nice day everyone!
“Not 1% responsible for the dog”? WHY are animals allowed on flights in the first place? I guess I can understand HONEST handicapped people being allowed their TRUE service animal but this problem of so called “comfort animals” has gotten way out of line. This abuse should have never been tolerated in the first place. People go online and buy a banner and registration for their animal and then use that as an excuse to bring along their pets. Pets belong secured in a safe area. NOT in the seats that should be used for people. I have seen this “comfort animal” situation grossly abused on many occasions. As far as the “Dr. Dao”” situation is unfortunate but he should not have caused the problem to escalate. The airline had made repeated requests for volunteers to catch another flight and no one stepped up. The process to select a person to be “volunteered” can be debated but someone had to go and he was chosen. He CHOSE to fight and argue after being asked to catch a later flight. They did everything in their power to peaceably resolve the problem and HE would not have any of it. HE forced the hand of security, and, as far as I am concerned, got what HE asked for. What is the alternative? Be chosen, say no, then have them choose someone else because HE refused to accept the decision? There is NOTHING disproportionate about the response. If he had abided by the RULES (again, the “rules” can be argued as to their correctness in another forum) there would have been nothing to “escalate”. HE made the decision to fight security instead of cooperating. If he had just cooperated there would have been no situation to “escalate”. The analogy of “the little black boy” is ridiculous and racist.
These FA’s seem pretty proud of themselves. Whatever.
I’d venture you’re reaching a small subset of FAs who are readers but perhaps mainly read so they can offer rebuttals because they’re defensive of very clear anti-airline/FA sentiment in the media/blogosphere. Almost like trolls, but much more benign and less vitriolic. I know a handful of FAs on various US and European carriers and they are just as aghast at the recent events on United as any non-FA flier I know. What they don’t do, however, is read blogs like this. They simply don’t care because flying is their job day-in, day-out. It’s not for pleasure, it’s for work. And they don’t have the time or pleasure of flying a J product simply for the sake of doing so and writing a trip report. Nobody wants to admit they’re part of a problem, so they deflect or go on the defensive. And, let’s be real, you’re not hearing a lot of feel-good stories about airlines and their employees these days. And if we do, it’s usually someone going out of their way for a customer, but really providing a service that was a given a decade or so ago.
Just some points
“They also humble me: I am probably guilty of being blind to some of my own errors as well.”
No, no, no, no. I agree that sometimes we are biased in righteousness, but for the entire industry to feel that whatever happened it’s not their fault o whatever they say goes is not being blind, it outright being ignorant. Let’s take all the arguments:
1. “Dr. Dao deserved what he got: he should have known better than to argue (not that a FA was directly involved in the case)”
No matter what happened in the plane o the conversation between Dr. Dao, the FA, the police, the gate agent, he did not deserve it, he didn’t deserve being dragged and beaten. The entitlement from FAs to say the otherwise is outrageous and they should quit.
2. “The gate agent in Houston who assaulted an old man was merely acting in self-defense”
Police exist in airports if defense is needed. ‘Nuff said.
3. “The FA was not even 1% responsible for the dog that recently died in the overhead bin”
She gave the order knowing FAA mandates otherwise for storage of pets. She may not be 100% sure but she sure bears responsibility and for the FAs to stand behind her when there is loss of life is sad.
4. “Passengers NEVER listen to FAs: we have no more authority”
Easy. US FAs have instituted a nationwide fear that they will get kicked off a plane if we blink the wrong way, or if we look a certain way that they lose authority in a logical way.
If the flight attendants actually believe this stuff, it is seriously messed up. What, they think that it was the dog’s fault that it died? It just hopped up there by choice? That the old man deserved to be assaulted? I sincerely hope that these deeply disturbing views are just an anomaly.
@ M,
A few corrections are needed to your comment. First, Dao was not beaten, lets be very clear on that. He refused to get up from his seat so an airport security officer grabbed him and while Dao was resisting he faceplanted on the armrest across the aisle. He was then dragged off the plane because he may or may not have been unconscious. But those rental cops never hit him, thats all been verified.
Regarding the dog issue, I actually tend to side with the FAs here. Based on news reports out of Houston, the FA passed by the passenger, saw the bag sticking out from the seat and said it needs to go all the way under or up above. The passenger spoke zero english and couldn’t convey that she had a dog in the bag. It was also reported that the dog was not in a pet carrier but rather a gym like duffle bag. The FA had no idea there was a dog in there but the fact that it was in the overhead bin and was barking and the owner didn’t take it down is insane. She claimed there was turbulence so she couldn’t get it but come one, turbulence for all 3hrs of the flight? Makes no sense. Based on those facts, I don’t blame United for this one at all.
The problem with this culture of entitled passengers is that FAs and other ground crew will never be judged by how objectively well they are doing their job. They will only be judged by whether a spoiled passenger in question is getting what they want or think they “deserve.” All the while, cell phone cameras will be rolling.
FAs and readers may disagree with me on this — but I believe that the airlines actually want to give passengers the best experience possible and the best price possible. Sure, there are trade-offs when service is cut or when new rules are enforced, but we ask for this when we demand lower ticket prices!
Matthew, I understand how this is troubling to you how all of these happened. Frankly, its troubling to me, and FA attitudes can be really troubling also. That being said, you need to have a bit of perspective.
1. You weren’t on the plane when David Dao was kicked off. You honestly have no idea who was responsible for the fiasco. There are three sides: the FA’s, Daos, and the truth. We know numbers 1 and 2, but not 3. I wasn’t on the plane that day either, so all of the above applies to me as well.
2. You weren’t at IAH when Ronald Tigner was assaulted. Based on the video, there’s no justification for the actions of the gate agent. However, do you know for absolute certain that the guy wasn’t about to beat the crap out of the agent, and the agent wasn’t acting in self defense? Could it be that as truly ridiculous as what happened was, that the guy felt truly threatened for some inexplicable reason, and wasn’t willing or able to admit why? Again, I wasn’t there either, so I’m no better at explaining the situation.
3. You also were not on the plane with the dog. Could it have happened that the FAs knew about something that we didn’t, or that the lady was warned about her dog beforehand? Could it be that the lady wanted to be close to the dog, the airline had no other place for it, and the woman wouldn’t cooperate when it was being moved away from her so they suggested to her to put it in the overhead bin? Again, we have the woman’s side, the FAs side, and the truth. Nobody knows who wins. I wasn’t on the plane with the dog either, so I’d do no better answering the question.
I don’t know the answers to any of those questions. I am not in any way whatsoever trying to put blame on someone, in fact I want to do the opposite. What I’m saying is that we can’t put blame on someone unless we know all three sides to the story. In these cases, we only know two of them, and its wrong to accuse FAs or passengers unless we have reasonable proof.
There is almost certainly something in all three of these stories that you don’t know, and in turn, I don’t know. I know no more than you do. Let’s not jump to conclusions about what FAs say to you privately, and instead try to learn more about the situations that they describe. Perhaps what they say is in fact true, perhaps not. But we will never know unless we fast them why and carefully listen to their answers.
I understand the point you are trying to make, however the truth is more discernible than you think. In the Dao case, we have video to corroborate his failure to follow the orders of FAs, ground staff, and police. We can also see the violent way he was dragged off the plane. We are left to decide whether (1) Dao was right to defy clear instructions that he is compelled to follow under federal law, and (2) whether the force used against him was excessive. I say blame both parties!
Given the increasing frequency of these incidents, we cannot sit on the sidelines and assume nothing can be known!
Do they still believe the complete BS about their role being primarily safety? It always gets trotted out to excuse all manner of laziness and to justify poor customer service.
The best of them ( maybe 10%) are real stars and could succeed in any job. The worst (25%?) couldn’t work in an iron lung but they appear to have life tenure ( as per the recent case of the IPad watchers).
As you might guess I’m a pilot at a US major. I won’t say which though I can say its not one of the big 3. Here are my thoughts in brief. Matthew if you’d like to talk in detail I presume you have access to the email address here.
1. Dr. Dao. He didn’t deserve a bloodied face but he certainly deserved to have his hind parts dragged off the airplane. I mean seriously on what planet is it going too end well for you when the cops have told you multiple times to do something and you keep refusing. He’s a Doctor and should know better. Again his physical injuries are unfortunate and the result of the cops not following SOP. But I have little sympathy for him given his conduct.
2. Even if we assume that the gate agent who shoved the old man was acting defensively his actions were over the top. At most from the video the old guy pokes or shoves him. He’s younger and bigger and should have backed off not shoved him to the ground. And the way he walks off as if nothing has happened is utterly inexcusable. His body language says to me that he’s quite happy with the result when he should be horrified. And of course it gets worse when United agents just ignore him.
3. Depending on which report you believe it is entirely possible that the FA who ordered the dog into the overhead bin had no clue what was in the bag. Without interviewing all those concerned its very difficult to reconcile the various statements made and look for the truth. I would suggest that given what we have learned about the FA and her response when the dog was found dead that it seems unlikely she knowingly ordered a dog into the overhead bin. There is simply no reason for her to have done so and no apparent motivation for her to disregard SOPs to such an extent. I think both the owner and the FA are due some benefit of the doubt on this one when it comes to what they did or did not do. Especially since United corporate has done the right thing and accepted full responsibility.
4. FA authority is an interesting topic. Certainly they have all the legal authority they need. Some are better than others and using that authority when they need to and knowing when not to. That’s not at all surprising given how many people work in the profession and the fact that for many its their first job in life. We have a lot of retired cops and fire fighters at my carrier and they are generally my favorite because they know how to use their authority and when not to. And when they have to they can often do so in a way that gains willing compliance rather than forced obedience. That being said I know a great many of our FAs worry about getting written up by customers. The attitude in their leadership ranks tends to be to consider the FA guilty when a customer sends in a Nasty Gram until proven innocent. This can make them reluctant to put their foot down when they need to. I can certainly understand why many FAs feel like they don’t have the authority they need.
We hear constantly on blogs like yours when an FA goes off the rails removing customers who should not have been removed. In the travel blogger bubble it seems like FAs are drunk with power and itching to kick people off planes. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve been in the industry for 20 plus years now and in all that time have had only 1 occasion where we removed a customer from the aircraft. And in that case it was because the customer told the FA to go F bomb himself and was drunk to boot. I think given how much of my life is in airplanes if it was more prevalent the count would be higher.