Flight attendants, who start as low as $ 12,000 per year, are paid meagerly. No question.
But for all the rhetoric stirred by last month's strike against American Airlines, few have dared to breathe perhaps the key question—a 60-year-old question. Are flight attendants indispensable guardians of passengers' safety and well-being? Or, are they flying waitresses (85% are women) and waiters who are becoming less important to passengers willing to sacrifice frills for cheap fares? Fright attendants find the second suggestion repugnant. "We're very highly trained in first aid and CPR," says Wendy Palmer, an American Air fines flight attendant based in Nashville, "Our goal is to evacuate an airplane in a minute or less. That's what we're there for. In the meantime, we do serve drinks and food. "
"But maybe the time has come to let the free market determine if passengers value flight attendants enough to pay for them," says Thomas Moore, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Customers willing, there's no reason airlines can't hand out sandwiches and soft drinks as passengers board. Then they could be on their way with, perhaps, one safety expert on board.
"I'd suspect some people would be willing to pay dirt-cheap fares," says Bill Winter, spokesman for the Libertarian Party, an opponent of government regulation, "Other (airlines) would go in the opposite direction and there would be three attendants for each flier. "
Already millions of passengers have shown an eagerness to sacrifice service for lower fares. Southwest Airlines, which doesn't offer meals or assigned seating, has been the fastest-growing and most profitable airline in the industry. Southwest never staffs a jet with more attendants than the Federal Aviation Administration requires.
The FAA requires at least one flight attendant for every 50 seats. A 122-seat Boeing 737 must have three flight attendants even if it's flying only a few passengers. Union contracts often require more. Among its demands, American Airlines wants the option of staffing its jets at the FAA minimum.
No other form of transportation falls under such rigid government control. Passengers aboard Amtrak and Greyhound aren't even required to wear seat belts. But climb aboard a Boeing 757, and you not only have to be strapped in, but four specialists are there to supervise a rare evacuation.
The National Safety Council estimates that 1 in 2.2 million people are killed in airline crashes each year. There are about 90,000 airline flight attendants employed by U. S. carriers. They cost the airlines $ 2.7 billion a year, assuming they average $ 30,000 per year in salary and benefits. If they save 100 lives per year, each life costs $ 27 million.
Dee Maki, National president of the Association of Flight Attendants, says 100 saved lives is a gross underestimate. No one tracks the actual number, but Maki says more than 100 heart-attack victims are saved each year by attendants.
Maybe one on-board attendant is all that's needed for safety, says Moore, an opponent of government regulation. "I don't know. But the FAA undoubtedly makes the wrong decision. Government always makes the wrong decision because they don't have the right information.
John Adams, former vice president of human resources for Continental Airlines, doubts that deaths would increase much if the number of flight attendants were cut in half. "Flying is very safe. It's much safer than riding a bus or a train," he says.
No one doubts that flight attendants have a tough job. They make about 20% what pilots make and often less than baggage handlers. Stuck in a metal tube for hours with cramped passengers battling nicotine fits, they are constantly being driven to go the extra mile for customer service.
They have to worry about policies concerning theft weight, height and eyesight. And when a jet does crash, even heroic flight attendants say they face agonizing depression as they rehash what more they might have done.
A 1992 FAA study of airline accidents did find examples where flight attendants performed heroically. But the FAA also found cases in which they were unable to locate and operate emergency equipment because of rusty skills.
American flight attendant Todd Peters says he's never had to evacuate a jet, but once had to tackle a deranged passenger who tried to open an exit door as a flight from Newark, N. J. , to Miami was taking off.
"The public thinks we're up there serving Cokes and Sprites," Peters says. "But if there was an emergency, passengers would be seeking us out, waiting for our instruction. "
Safety is the repeated theme. But airlines say that when they hire attendants, they don't look for backgrounds in nursing or safety. They want outgoing applicants with experience in customer relations.
The history of flight attendants is rooted in safety, but safety usually has taken a back seat to promotion. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, attendants were required to be registered nurses because of fears about the health consequences of flying at high speed and altitude.
But by hiring young women instead of men in the 1930s, they were signaling to the public that planes were safe. When flying caught on in the 1960s, airlines staffed their male-laden planes with pretty single women who were forced to retire at 32.
It was titillation, says John Nance, author and airline-safety analyst.
Braniff even promoted an "air strip", its stewardesses disappearing for a few minutes before returning in a different uniform. One commercial asked: "Does your wife know you're flying Braniff?"
No one knows how many flight attendants airlines would use if FAA minimums were eliminated, says Winter of the Libertarian Party. But he trusts a market free of government interference.
Union president Maki says an end to FAA minimums probably would mean fewer flight attendants on short flights. However, for safety reasons, getting rid of FAA minimums is "crazy", she says.