A complex story from The Washington Post paints a grim picture of junior flight attendants struggling to survive. So why then is there seemingly endless demand to fill every flight attendant position? This disequilibrium means there will never be a true “fix” to this problem.
Flight Attendants Knowlingly Take On Homelessness And Hunger…Why?
To be clear from the outset, I think flight attendants should earn a living wage and enjoy pay raises commensurate with inflation. Furthermore, I believe that companies should be severely penalized via punitive taxes if their employees are paid so little that they are forced to seek public assistance. No company should transfer its social obligation onto taxpayers.
We learn about Kay, who is a junior flight attendant for Frontier Airlines and also drives for Lyft to make ends meet. Junior flight attendants tend to be on “reserve” meaning that rather than know the routes they are flying in advance, they will fill in for other flight attendants who call in sick at the last minute. That makes planning and life outside work tougher, but that’s the “way of the road” for junior flight attendants.
Kay describes driving since 4:00 am Lyft to make some extra bucks only to be called in unexpectedly to work…think of the safety concerns of a flight attendant (“we’re primarily here for your safety”) coming into to work after already working a full shift driving…
Kay complains:
“I have to supplement my income. But then I’m also not sleeping. We’re expected to save people on the plane … and we’re not getting paid a living wage.”
Sorry, but maybe you just don’t work for a company that isn’t paying you enough? I would not take a job if the starting salary was too low…so why are flight attendants? Wouldn’t you know that the wages you earn cannot support your basic needs in cities like Boston, New York, or Los Angeles?
The answer is two-fold. First, if they just stick it out for a few years, they are paid a much better wage. Flight attendant wages tend to rise twice per year (as their seniority grows) and cap out at 12 years of service. So a flight attendant who works 12 years or 50 years is making the same base salary, which is far above a living wage.
Second, flight attendants are hopeful that after up to a decade of stalled wages, new contracts will begin to lift the starting pay for junior flight attendants and also add boarding pay, which would disproportionally help junior flight attendants (who tend to work more shorter flights than fewer longer ones, which more senior flight attendants prefer).
My frustration over these complaints is not at all animus against flight attendants or the desire to make enough to live on…but there is no shortage of flight attendants. There never has been one. Every time there is an opening or a job fair, airlines get more applications per available slot than Harvard and Yale get for their available slots.
> Read More: Admission to Harvard is Easier than Becoming a Delta FA
If there are tens of thousands of folks lining up to take a job at $25,000/year with miserable working conditions, why should the airline offer more…?
It seems to me that the only people to blame for taking such low-wage jobs are the people who continue to take those jobs…maybe instead of taking those jobs and immediately complaining about how poorly you are paid, you should just look for a different job?
image: Instagram / xoblondevoyage
this is yet another failure of the flight attendants union…why not fight to increase wages in yrs 1-4 (or whenver a true living wage kicks in), flatten it out in the next few years and gently increase it again till year 12. That way you earn the same total salary yrs 1-12 but aren’t literally having to work a second job for the first few years…
Of course we all know the union will never do this, because they aren’t there for the benefit of all flight attendants, rather just the cabal of sr flight attendants that run the union and milk thier jr colleagues in every way they can.
+1
If the female is footloose free , and wants to get around , there are only two jobs I can think of : Air Force enlisted woman , or FA . The serious one with grey matter upstairs might wish to become an air traffic controller in the Air Force , no ? That would translate to a civilian job with the FAA , no ?
I’ve got 2 letters for them…….OF
The recruitment interview should focus on the reality of the job. (apparently many excited applicants are quick to ignore). The demands of relocation away from friends and family, working holidays and weekends, and early financial hardship need to be emphasized
A position of flight attendant is not a glamorous one.
This is a reason why Spirit, many years ago, started hiring flight attendants by base. Obviously they could then transfer and all, but they found more reliable new hires doing it this way (and also tended to make an entire new hire class for one base, building camaraderie from day one… I know several F/As at NK who still fly with their classmates from 10 years ago, all hired for DFW together as example). They also found that they ended up with lots of classmates going on as roommates as needed to share expenses. Definitely was a good thing to do.
“It seems to me that the only people to blame for taking such low-wage jobs are the people who continue to take those jobs…maybe instead of taking those jobs and immediately complaining about how poorly you are paid, you should just look for a different job?”
I’m not really sure that the victim blaming is the way to go here. Some people sign up to be a FA without realizing that they might be assigned to work in New York or some other insanely expensive city. If they’re starting in Huntsville then that’s quite an unexpected shock. Then there’s the (generally youthful) ambition to just stick it out for a few years until they can make some remotely reasonable wage. I blame the company for these, not the applicants who want the “glamour” of travel.
So the people working in poultry plants in the USA doing jobs almost no U.S. citizen will do should just quit because the job sucks? Same premise. Sometimes people get a job and it’s awful but they’re not equipped to switch jobs.
I tend to think that people realize what they are signing up for.
This is not like those who began 10 years ago and never got a raise…new hires new the rate they agreed to. I don’t want people working for me who come in already greedy and expecting more. Don’t like what I am willing to pay, don’t work for me.
Does expecting a living wage withing a couple years of being hired make people greedy?
Their hourly rate for years of service is no secret and published openly.
If they can’t (or refuse to) accept those agreed upon terms then whose fault is that?
Certainly not the company’s.
You strike me as the “pro union” type so you should probably be complaining on AFA message boards and not here.
Absolutely nothing wrong with being pro-union, many working benefits people take for granted today are the result of unions.
You seem like a pro-poverty person to make yourself feel better about yourself.
Unions have done a lot to make America great. Somehow the robber-barons in the USA kept forgetting to share their insanely vast wealth with the people doing the actual work. Unions have helped balance that out a little. Not enough but a little. Just as well since lots of billionaires don’t care if you die in abject poverty after working hard for them for decades.
Matt, I have never wanted to respond to any of your articles, but your complete lack of understanding warranted a response. First of all, the airlines do publish what the starting hourly wage for flight attendants is when they are being interviewed. However, what they don’t tell these new hires is that we are only paid for the hours you are actually flying. So, you can be working 12-15 hours, but only get paid for maybe 5 hours. The companies promise that per diem and other “bonuses” add up which again is skewed. The way flight attendants (and pilots) are paid is very complicated and the companies use this to their advantage. The airlines have a very high rate of turnover the first few years due to burnout, lack of a living wage, and the working conditions which is why they are often hiring. Yes, many country to stick it out hoping that is gets better. There are perks such as schedule flexibility and travel benefits, but it only happens after being with the company for many years. Since YOUR choice of profession relies on these airlines for “journalism” maybe give these people a little more compassion than blame them for the greed of the airline.
Friends are recruiters for a few airlines and they *really* make it clear what the 1st year looks like, its not good at all – no matter *which* airline you sign up with. But the perks of a new city every day (or a few..), overnights in some cool, far off destinations is a driver for many who are perfectly happy being stuck in a tin can for 12 hours with 150 different types of people & attitudes.
Many new FAs tend to take the first offer they get instead of really thinking it out.
Frontier, for example, changed their flight patterns this year to do only out & backs. While this saves the airline tens of thousands each day on hotels, it also means the crews can be HOME every night. As long as that HOME is in base or near a base, like it is for all my Frontier friends. Compare that to my Alaska friends, who are away from home/base for 2-3 days at a time….
At AirTran, our internal communications team put together several “day in the life” videos including new hire flight attendants on reserve, or commuting, and for a corp comm production really was truthful about the bad and frustrating. I guess with FL it kinda helped you were going to be ATL based (or MCO/MKE but they were technically satellites).
But agreed that most airlines are very up front.
Allegiant crews are home every night with few exceptions, they hire by base (like NK does), and I think it really shows. I’ve talked about this with leaders from Frontier that crews returning to base tends to have a positive impact on customer service. You see it with Allegiant… even at the few remaining bases with outsourced ground staff… much better camaraderie as you see and work with the same people every single trip (and generally build better relationships as you’re gonna see them day after day). You get a different sort of applicant like retirees or students…. I love the Allegiant PGD and PIE based crews especially… like flying with your fun aunts and uncles. And they tend to recognize repeat passengers.
Frontier is having some bumps on this change…. AFA with the “can’t earn on a turn” stuff. Crying about reduced per diem earnings and spending more gas driving to work 3-4 times a week versus once. And obviously not great lines for commuting. But I think it’ll be a much better product in the end. Frontier’s MCO base has a lot of local residents including retirees from other airlines, and they are great.
Know who else is “on the verge” of hunger and homeless?….people who work at:
McDonald’s
Walmart
7-Eleven (and just about any convenience store)
Wawa (and just about any other gas station)
Target
Stadium concession workers
Parking lot attendants
Aircraft cleaning contractors
Airport wheelchair pushers
Movie theater workers
And a TON of other occupations.
The attraction is the TRAVEL BENEFITS. If the pay and benefits don’t add up to something that’s worthwhile to you, then DON’T DO IT.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Oh I don’t know maybe because they genuinely have a passion for the job and they understand the job gets better over time plus obviously the travel benefits? You shouldn’t be telling them to apply for other jobs and excusing companies like your beloved United when they don’t pay flight attendants from the moment they sign into work and pay them 2K or less a month yet assign them to bases like San Francisco or Boston. If flight attendants don’t advocate for change then things will never actually change and it will be an endless cycle.
They need to be called out because clearly United has the money if they made nearly as much as Delta yet pay their flight attendants substantially less.Whats the valid excuse for this? Oh yeah there isn’t one besides corporate greed that will be put on blast with the upcoming strike vote.I bet you UA will be listening up soon enough
Why did unions every accept such disparate wages for junior and senior flight attendants? Why did they not fight for boarding pay decades ago?
I think using the term greed is a bit unfair when there are so many people who want these jobs, which does push wages down. That’s the way semi-market-based economies work.
@Matthew
It’s the Railway Labor Act that has prevented cabin crew from being paid properly for decades it’s clearly not the unions fault for this. It’s clear you’re anti union and it shows
Also yes it is corporate greed and the Railway Labor Act that makes it difficult for cabin crew to strike so airlines take advantage of this. Especially United management with refusing to make any progress for years, but their hands will be forced once people select other carriers over them because they fear a strike in summer 2025.When it starts effecting revenue that’s when they pay attention
You need Pay attention as well. When Lufthansa cabin crew decided to strike it brought Lufthansa to its knees and they quickly came to an agreement! The issue is the Railway Labor Act if it didn’t exist crew would be striking and we wouldn’t have to read about corporate greed like this every month,
“The issue is the Railway Labor Act if it didn’t exist crew would be striking and we wouldn’t have to read about corporate greed like this every month,” No, we’d just ask which airline is in bankruptcy this month.
Do senior FAs have disproportionate voting power in unions? Why don’t junior FAs advocate for flattening of the curve so they make a little more in their first few years?
I’ve long advocated for that.
I mean fine, but if they are so essential for safety, shouldn’t they be paid a living wage where they don’t have to do other jobs to supplement their income? $25k is not that in most cities with a crew base.
If enough FAs quit or stop working for airlines then people like Matthew and others would complain about there being not enough flights.
And yet they still take the job…WILLINGLY.
I was part of the IAM when I worked at the airport.
It’s a huge reason I left…they catered to the lowest common denominator and if you were ambitious and wanted to do new and interesting things they mocked you.
I’ve been a flight attendant for 38 yrs at a major US airline…. Yes, I still love my job; however, I would never do this again in this day-and-age.
“ Furthermore, I believe that companies should be severely penalized via punitive taxes if their employees are paid so little that they are forced to seek public assistance.”
Huh? So if a company pays minimum wage or above the government should be allowed to tax them more heavily because the government isn’t raising the wage?
So should restaurant chains be taxed more heavily for forcing waiters to rely on tips?
Should airlines be taxed more than other companies if their unions negotiate poorly for their junior members?
This sentence doesn’t make much economic or policy sense
We should do away with tip positions period in the USA.
Don’t companies already get penalized if they don’t offer health insurance at a certain level to eligible employees? I know in some states like New Jersey at airports companies have to pay an additional hourly supplement in to the state for benefits.
People don’t realize that higher wages have to come from somewhere. I don’t agree with penalizing companies for pay that is above the federal/state minimum wage. The government should raise the minimum wage instead of that. But then prices will go up.
But at some point doesn’t the cost of living equalize over time? If I make $25 an hour in Miami, the business where I work has to price accordingly. And to be competitive, other companies are paying similar. So their cost of goods sold are priced accordingly to cover these higher costs. If I make $12 an hour in McCook, Nebraska, I have at least the same if not slightly better cost of living. Groceries cost less. Going to restaurants costs less… even McDonalds is 40% lower… because wages are lower. Rent is lower. A mixed well drink in a local bar is $4 in McCook versus $16 in Miami. So it is all relative. Higher wages will lead to higher cost of living.
The statement in the very first paragraph that, “No company should transfer its social obligation onto taxpayers,” is absurd. I am normally pretty liberal, but even in my political corner, there is no way that it is an employer’s responsibility to provide some sort of “social obligation” to its employees, other than paying fair market wages for a fair unit of work.
Flight attendants specifically are represented by collective bargaining units; they work something like 70-80 hours per month, and have the ability to pick up extra hours if they so choose, depending on the airline’s schedule. They get not only a fair hourly rate, but full time level of health and other benefits despite working the number of hours that, for the vast majority of us, would be considered part time work.
No. There are certain things we don’t allow. Slavery. Child labor. A lack of car insurance.
Companies who pay their people so little they have to go on public assistance are being subsidized by taxpayers. That is unacceptable.
In a first world nation, people should not be able to contract themselves out for wages that make it impossible to survive without the assistance of taxpayers.
“people should not be able to contract themselves out for wages that make it impossible to survive without the assistance of taxpayers”
Well we are a long, long way from this happening, and I don’t think that junior FA pay is really a meaningful part of the problem.
It seems relatively hard to find an example of a government that mandates wages that are high enough for all workers to not need any taxpayer assistance while simultaneously providing an environment in which relatively little taxpayer assistance in provided to the populace.
In order to mandate higher wages you generally will also get a government that supports widespread taxpayer assistance of the workers.
People with skills that are in demand and valued by society don’t end up on public assistance.
The idea that a person of average intelligence work at a no skill job and be paid $55K is absurd.
And yes, the government desperately wants you on benefits so they can get your vote and use you to justify their confiscation of wealth through taxes.
I’m thinking of how this relates to fields such as the entertainment industry or internships for congress or the white house that may exclude economically disadvantaged people whose parents don’t have deep pockets. This idea of underpaying people in the beginning of their careers, when they are the most vulnerable, which higher pay during seniority is topsy turvy and unhealthy.
People need to take responsibility for themselves and their lives. No one owes anyone a living.
C’mon, Matt. You know you’re better than this. This is a complete lack of empathy, brought on by a skewed perspective. You fly around the world depending on these very same people to get you around safely, and then you blame them for struggling financially. Or maybe they should agree with you and leave you hanging at the gate. Ever tried to work without an education or skills? It’s damn near impossible to find anything that will pay the bills. The real problem is the lack of a living wage for flight attendants brought on by lax labor law. If the US had a minimum wage for airline crew it would help as there’s only a minimum per hour, which the airlines tend to exceed due to their scheduling practices. Further, many people in large cities can’t even pay their bills with much higher salaries. The U.S. cost of living is insane. Meanwhile, don’t ever tell the folks who serve you to refuse to work as flight attendants. They might accidentally spill something on you one of these days.