Buried in a note to key figures in the Trump Administration and Congress asking that all airline passengers be coerced to wear face masks was another, more curious demand: ban leisure travel. Flight attendants should be very careful what they wish for…
Flight Attendant Union: Ban Leisure Travel
The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) wants the U.S. government to “end all leisure travel until the virus is contained.”
Just what might that look like? The AFA goes into detail in its four-page letter.
We call on lawmakers and regulators to take further action to limit the spread of the virus by restricting air travel to only that necessary to continue essential services. Airlines are continuing to deliver people, mail, and cargo, uniting families that are grieving or rushing to be with those who have fallen ill, and transporting others who require medical treatment unrelated to the pandemic.
These are some of the many essential services provided by aviation to all of our communities – large and small – that must be maintained as the pandemic continues. We believe that protecting this essential service and ensuring air travel is not aiding in spread of the virus requires a halt to all leisure travel until the pandemic is brought under control according to health authorities. We appreciate the swift steps DOT has taken to put in place a process for airlines to request exemptions on flights that do not assist materially in the essential service to our communities.
We believe we can all do more together and will work for a brief anti-trust exemption so DOT can coordinate a schedule with airlines to continue essential service only. In addition, we request messaging from all leadership to encourage the public to end leisure travel until we have “flattened the curve.”
(bolding mine)
The second paragraph above sounds like the AFA wants leisure travel banned, just like in the opening paragraph of the letter, which calls on the Administration to “end” leisure travel. The third paragraph sounds like it merely want leaders to discourage that travel. That final paragraph represents the only viable approach. After all, how can you tell the difference between leisure and business/essential travel? That’s very difficult, even on specific routes.
But what happens if leisure travel is banned until the curve is flattened? Airlines are already warning of severe job cuts. If passengers are discouraged from booking, won’t this only exacerbate the coming autumn job cuts? Would flight attendants rather have a job with elevated risk or no job at all?
There is no easy answer.
CONCLUSION
I’m curious to hear from flight attendants. Would you rather than essentially no customers now, knowing that it may lead to more job losses later? I’m obviously not a flight attendant, but it would seem to me that with proper testing you’d want planes as full as possible to avoid pay, benefit, or even job cuts later.
And of course all of this is overshadowed by the reality that actually no one is traveling for leisure now. Planes are mostly empty and I don’t know of anyone who is just traveling for fun. In that sense, this discussion is almost moot right now.
image: Vince_Vega / Flickr (CC 2.0)
Unions don’t seem to care or see that unreasonable demands can put a company out of business. This is common across unions, not just FA’s.
Sara Nelson does not speak for all flight attendant. certainly not me. our industry will be over and gone forever if we determine who can fly and who cannot. And, exactly how would that be done? She s a hack. Overpaid, do-nothing hack.
A few thoughts on this: 1) planes are at best 10% filled as-is. I’m guessing the vast majority of these travels are for essential business or critical family visits. It’s not like flights are 90% full with people going to Vegas, 2) most data suggests that cases are decreasing and, as NYC antibody studies show, more people have been previous infected than ever realized, 3) consumer sentiments don’t change overnight. Banning now would spook passengers for months, even when it might be safe.
It seems that airlines should be ramping up travel efforts, hoping people will return to the skies in Q3 once the peak cases have passed. I know many people who are eager to travel once stay at home bans are reduced. Of course we need to evaluate our own risk tolerances but I don’t see much difference in planes vs grocery store lines.
Really? I’m in a grocery store line for 5 minutes with a 6 foot distance. I’m on a plane for 6 hours with someone who is asymptomatic but shedding the virus. I kind of see a difference.
Isn’t Ms. Nelson a VP candidate?
Only on Fox News and in the president’s Lysol-induced fever dreams.
Don’t worry, come next January the new VP is going to be much scarier to you.
The problem is that once you start this, how do you end it? who decides that it is “OK” to start again? it’s ridiculous, kinda sounds like FAs want to be among the group of people who want to just collect unemployment and collect the extra $600 a week. It’s happening all over the country that people just don’t want to work now because unemployment is pretty good right now.
respectfully, i am a flight attendant and an attorney. i started flying before law school. and never left after the bar. why? the pay, benefits, no-take home work, and flexibility. a lot of people, even some pilots that work aside us, dont realize the majors’ flight attendant contract top out rates are at either domestic 65-80 an hour, or international 92/hour. so your implication that we prefer unemployment benefits for an extra 600 to what a thousand or 2?, is incorrect for many carriers. idc what the internet says, with the avg fa at 32,000. i have never made that little, even as a new hire with very little seniority. all that to say, nah, nobody i know is hurting to get 600 extra dollar when i make more than that in per diem, asleep.
Speaking as a pilot the AFA’s leadership is clearly delusional. Ban or discourage leisure travel? Are they trying to put airlines out of business?
ALPA, APA and SWAPA are doing the same thing. Especially TWU telling WN to pound sand last week and SWAPA’s latest cutesy motto with the lowest seniority guy. Kelly says there are no plans to furlough….there is no way on God’s green earth that he can keep this promise unless he plans on breaking up WN altogether. Unions have a choice: lose 15-25% pay, hopefully temporarily or lose 40-60% of your membership maybe permanently…..or at worse 100%. This isn’t the time to play hard ass. I wouldn’t count on more cash infusions from the fed and flying won’t return to previous levels for 5 years……Unions need to tread VERY carefully here and put the measuring tape back in the drawer.
Unions overall are a force for good. They at least partially act as a counterweight to unbridled corporate greed and they’ve done a lot to raise the standard of living for Americans as a whole. That said, this suggestion is just plain stupid. If enough people in government were inclined to do as the union asks, then the layoffs in October would be gigantic rather than substantial. As 121pilot observes, how is driving their employers out of business going to help them in any way? I’d love to understand their reasoning. Perhaps if they were more clear about what they meant by “under control” it would be easier to understand their perspective, because it sounds like they’re asking for a ban on leisure travel until there’s a vaccine.
Unions a force for good? Laughable. Their existence is basically to extort companies to pay above market wages and benefits, as well as job security that the rest of the population does not enjoy. It’s not the companies who end up getting hurt, it’s the consumer who has to pay more and suffer worse service. The corporate greed screed is nothing more than an empty socialist shoutdown. Greed is a feature of humans, not corporations. People in unions are greedy too, as we are seeing now.
Yes, those heavily unionized countries have such low standards of living… oh wait, they have higher standards of living than us, higher levels of happiness, and vastly less poverty than we have. The horror! And those greedy union members like teachers, don’t even get me started with how much they complain because they can’t afford median housing, have gigantic stress levels, fear going bankrupt if they become ill and want to earn a living wage. You’re right, let ’em all die.
wr2 i AGREE UNIONS AND THEIR interference are never a GOOD thing…not needed in the USA