I'm not sure this is an apples-to-apples argument , kimosabe. Do you work in an industry whose fortunes are so intimately linked to the overall state of the US economy? I doubt it. As goes the airline industry, so goes the US economy. Therefore, government does have a very real and large stake in ensuring the continued viability of the system?

While I can see where you are coming from, your argument regarding Ms. Hansen is dead wrong. If Ms. Hansen is doing what she wants to be doing with her career, why shouldn't she have a reasonable expectation of being better off now than she was in 1986? It's easy to ridicule someone, but try walking a mile in their shoes.

Of course, I suppose you'd be the first to complain about poor service on your next flight....

I suppose you'd be the first to complain about poor service on your next flight....

Touche' Jack.

Whether or not Ms. Hansen is a stewardess is her decision. If she's only making $40 an hour now when she used to make $37 almost 20 years ago is a complete red herring.

We have plenty of qualified candidates that can do her job. Lets face it Jack, the only thing that separates a stewardess from someone serving coffee at Starbucks is the safety lecture. (And most of those are done by video now.)

If she doesn't want to work for $40 an hour then she should quit and let someone who wants it have that job. I'm sure you could easily find 1,000 people who are willing to take her place.

The problem these people are experiencing has been brought on by the flying public and the airlines themselves. More people are flying today than ever before. Unfortunately for the people that work in that business, airline travel has become a commodity. The airlines have done nothing to differentiate themselves. The only real reason to choose United over Delta when flying to Chicago is not wanting to connect in Atlanta. Other than the routes and flight times the service is basically the same.

That means they are pretty much competing based solely on price. Travelers search the internet and take the cheapest fare that meets their traveling needs.

To really know how well Ms. Hansen is doing, you need to look at the cost of airline tickets. Ms. Hansen's pay has increased (albeit not by much) since 1986. I would be willing to bet that during that time United's airfares have decreased or stayed the same.

Jack, Jack, where to start -
You claim that the US economy is somehow linked to passenger airlines? Cargo perhaps, but this wired nation has near zero reliance on passenger flights. Even if the GDP was directly tied to passenger flights, the government's only stake in their success would be tax revenue. Big business (try not to shudder when I say that), however, would have a large stake in it, and would undoubtedly ensure to keep the wheels greased.
Next you imply that Ms. Hansen somehow deserves a government mandated raise. I agree that her situation is unfortunate, and your statement that she should have a reasonable expectation of improved compensation over time is valid. However, that issue is between her and her employer, and if her labor is more valuable or more scarce, then she will be compensated more. It is simply not an issue where government need be involved.
I'm just going to ignore that ad hominem attack at the end of the second paragraph.
Finally, you talk about complaints regarding poor service. If this was a major issue that started costing airlines business, then they would pay higher wages to attract better stewards and stewardesses. If passengers complain, but prefer to pay less for slightly poorer service, then the airlines are not going to lose much sleep over it, and neither will I.

Dang, Steve beat me.

Ravenwood, this is one post I don't agree with you on (at least one part) - airline fares are lower than they've ever been, in real dollars. I would shop around for cross-country fares in the mid-80's, and always felt good getting one less than about $400. That'd be like $700 or so today, and now I see $300 all the time. Don't get me wrong, I totally believe in free markets.

The problem is that the airline business isn't - I know, as I work in it. Every damn thing, almost up to when you can wipe your ass, is run by the fucking Feds. The airlines have no lee-way to use different ideas, including run security their own way. Remember 9/11, right? That would have most likely been avoided if airlines were managing their own security. I would have worked with one that had an "armed passengers (not mandatory) and crew(mandatory)" policy.

There would not have been the policy of "delay, and give them what they want" as far as hijackings are concerned. Yes, that policy was in all the operations manuals, in black + white!

So, a couple of things: Right now fares are so low that passengers don't even deserve a smooth ride - I like light to moderate chop myself - as the passengers barely pay for the gas, gates, and a/c leases. You get what you pay for. Secondly, the security fees and the security bullshit are money that doesn't go to the airlines and bullshit that's not their idea, respectively.

Thirdly, though that flight attendant is well paid, the hourly money is for only when the plane is blocked out, so a 100 hr. month can actually be 160 hrs. easily of work time, especially when working for airlines with short legs, like SW or the regionals, where, BTW, pay is about $15-$20 per block hr.

The part that I agree with Jack about is only that about the service - yes people don't pay enough to deserve squat for service, except those in bidness and 1st class.

You get what you pay for.

Jimmy, I agree with that completely. But it is because people are not willing to pay more that they should not get more.

Think about full service gas pumps. Back in the 1950s, a team of guys would rush out to your car and fill the tank, check your tires, and wash the windshield. Now you have to stand out there in the cold and pump it yourself. (Unless you live in New Jersey.)

But that team of guys disappeared because the public was willing to serve themselves and save on the price. Even modern day full service is just one guy, and all he does is pump the gas.

You see a similar thing in supermarkets today with these "self checkout" lines. It used to be just one or two lines, but now it's most of them. As stores cut down on the number of cashiers needed there will be a surplus of cashier labor available. That surplus will drive cashier wages down to minimum wage or out of a job altogether. Those cashiers need to find another line of work, not blame George Bush for siding with "Big Grocery".

Now you make an excellent point that the airlines definitely have too much government regulation. But those costs should transcend the competition. It would be one thing if United had to pay government security fees when Southwest didn't. Or if United had to perform maintenance every 10,000 air miles but Southwest only every 15,000. But since the fees and regs are the same for all the airlines, its kind of a wash.

The biggest problem with government regs is that it keeps the airlines for cutting costs in those areas. When it comes to safety equipment that might be a good thing. (When it comes to dictating how many olives to put in the salad it's obviously not.)

I wouldn't push for a total laissez-faire approach, but the government could let up just a little.

No, Ravenwood, the government needs to let up A LOT. You may not know how many airline costs are basically fixed due to FARs (The LAW), which it makes it impossible for airlines to innovate (why innovate? - to save costs of course and compete, as you say). Do you realize that that some regional jets with 44 seats instead of 50 (due to union scope clause BS), have no extra leg room, though the cabin is the same size? Why? (is that what you just asked?) I'll tell you why - cause the damn rules just to change the paperwork to reflect a different seat pitch are not worth the damn trouble.

So, you have people that could be seated much more comfortably, but aren't due to government regulatory bullshit. BTW, the extra space is used by 3 closets that cannot be used either due to, uhhhh, wait, ummmm, government REGULATIONS!

Sorry, man, I'm not pissed at you, but I know of what I write about here.

And, relating to the cashiers, they can't cut down on flight attendants, as it goes by number of seats in the airplane - this is for safety.

I guess we would all agree, then, don't expect good service in coach class, as you didn't pay for good service. I'd also agree that the chick in your post is making good money, and should just quit and get another job, making room for a young cutie who would make it a little more pleasant in back (even without the turkey sandwich ;-}

Let me interject here. I'm a licensed professional Electrical Engineer.

I've been licensed since 1996, but doing the work since about 1988.

I'm pretty sure I could learn to do Donna's job with about twenty hours of training, or less.

I don't think Donna could learn to do mine without about five years of training.

She earns more money per hour than I do.

This is obviously George Bush's fault.

Kevin, I just got done saying that it's probably more like 100 hrs. pay for 160 actual hours-at-work, and on the regionals more like a factor of 2. The F/A's only get paid when the door is closed, and the parking brake is off, so all the time pre-flighting, boarding, disembarking, dicking around (so to speak, it's not like the old days --} between flights, checking in/out, etc are all off the clock. On days with 6-8 short legs, that adds up.

Still she probably makes more than you, but then you can sleep in your bed every night, not have to get your schedule switched around on a whim, and you don't run a Chicago-LA run, turn around and do a re-eye back, and be required by the FAA to not read any books when things are slow (although they do, it's just so fucked up they legally they can only read their manual, but they can't sleep which is very contradictory).

You can always try it, Kevin. I've met some retired professional guys who are in it for the flight benefits - without that, however, they would be playing golf, not worrying about the Feds looking over their shoulder all day like everyone else in this bidness.

But, either you or she should not whine about it, nor I. At some point she could always get a haircut and get a real job, and you could check into the airline business and see what it really involves. I could get a full-time gig blogging like Mr. Raven Wood, and live the La Vida Loco ;-}

100 paid hours a month at $40 an hour.

160 work hours, divided by 4 weeks, so 40 hours a week.

$4000 a month for 12 months for $48,000 a year.

Just making sure my math was right.

I can see how one might be upset that a job with minimal training, making that much money, might require other sacrifices like a weird schedule.

Yes, William, as opposed to a unix geek making $65 K / yr. for monitoring a bunch of files and sitting on his ass, occasionally going on line to spout out some bullshit, then returning to monitoring how all the files are doing and answering an occasional phone call in a know-it-all manner, because he knows where the /etc directory and the idiot on the phone doesn't.

Or were you being sarcastic? Not sure if I was or not ;-}

Jimmy, her union negotiated those terms, did it not?

Is being a flight attendant actually worth $48k/yr? Probably, but who knows? Is it worth $70k? The union prevents a free-market solution. But judging from what I've seen unionization do to the copper industry, I'd say probably not.

Then again, if she were payed $17/hr (to start) from the time she stepped onto airport property until she stepped off her aircraft at the end of her shift, with standard overtime/doubletime compensation, she might do as well or better, no? Hard to tell, isn't it?

And I don't get to "sleep in my bed each night" - I was in Sacramento day before yesterday. I sometimes have to work for extended periods out of town, and occasionally on long or odd shifts. I get called out in the middle of the night sometimes, too. It's part and parcel of my chosen career. Everything's a trade-off.

Flying to other cities and sleeping in hotel beds is one of hers.

No offense, and I'm willing to assume there could be something left out that would change my mind, but I call bullshit on the 160/100 talk. Nobody works for nothing in a unionized industry and even those not unionized, by law. I bet there is something unsaid here that paints a far less "tragic" figure of the attendants, like lesser pay for the off block hours or some other compensation. Otherwise we have to believe that an entire industry is forcing workers to put in uncompensated hours, a sure road to the NLRB investigating hall of shame. Somebody please explain.

Mikem,

I told you what I know - how can you "call bullshit" when you don't work in this business. How bout ask someone who knows, OK ? Otherwise, you should shut the fuck up about that part.

The contracts don't pay for the extra time, as everything goes by aircraft data (closing of the door, parking brake, weight off wheels, etc). Used to be, you could fudge at lot, and flights were "on time out of the gate" much more often than now, due to the fact that you could write whatever you wanted in the log, or call in your own times on the radio.

This stuff is in the contracts, and that's why the pay sounds really good on an hourly basis. Like I said, I still believe her pay is pretty good. Keep in mind, she's been there 18 years, it's United, and that at the regionals starting pay is $15/hr or so, and with the short legs, you can easily be "at work" (time you showed up at operations to time you check out) double the amount you are paid - not exactly the big bucks.

Call the NLRB yourself, Mike, I don't give a rat's ass about it. I was just giving out some facts in response to Ravenwood.

Kevin, I think the unions do some good things, when they stick to working for efficient operations with the company and better work rules (don't mean that a different employee can't change a light bulb, and that sort of BS, just rules about scheduling, pay for cancelled flights, etc). However, I am not a big union man, and would agree that they have mostly caused harm and hurt business in most industries.

On the subject of hourly wage vs. hours worked, I don't think it matters. I've worked in a salaried position for years, and even though I supposedly make an hourly wage, I'm exempt from overtime.

That means that I routinely work 50 to 60 hours a week but only get paid for 40. I would hardly call it more work for less pay though.

I would. It's part of the deal when you're a regular "exempt", as they call it, worker. I did it for many years myself. Nothing to complain about, since, you should know something about the place you go to work for when you try to get hired.

A friend of mine works in a place where you basically put in only 37 hours a week, and they have some other nice benefits too. I'm sure many put in extra hours and don't feel at all gyped about it, seeing as the company is very good to them.

BTW, my whole point was, that you should not go taking the woman's $37/hr and multiplying it by the standard 160 hrs/mo. and say she's making $70K/yr. That's just not correct. Like, I said in the regional, especially when some of the F/A's start on reserve for a coupla months, they may take home $800 each of the first months, then make (now I'll say gross pay) $15 * 100 hrs. - $1500/mo after that for months that they are at the/an airport, on a plane, etc for 175 to 200 hrs.

Call em, they are hiring! You can't blog from the plane, cause there is a dumbass rule about not being able to do anything but read the manual, if you are not serving or sitting and staring into space ... Not kidding here. You can't sleep either, which really sucks ass!

Gee, Jimmy, I thought I did "ask someone who knows". So what is with the " you should shut the fuck up about that part." There is no need to work out your self esteem issues with the long distance (cough) bad ass talk.
I have worked both waged and salaried positions and I don't believe for a second that attendants are working uncompensated hours in a unionized industry. It doesn't happen. She has a contract that spells out what is expected and how she is compensated and I think she is reasonably paid, not exorbitantly. But her expectations of some type of guaranteed 80K (whatever) salary as she gained seniority
is not real world thinking in a free economy. It would be nice, but then we would all be paying the artificially high airfares that we did when competition was regulated and unions ruled the roost.
I generally support the concept of unions that protect workers safety and provide redress from unfair firings, but many unions moved beyond that to the point where they were simply fighting against market forces and demanding to be exempt from the same rules that govern all actors in a free market economy.

Mike, it's not about self-esteem - it's about you being either a moron or not able to comprehend my post.

I repeat:
"The contracts don't pay for the extra time, as everything goes by aircraft data (closing of the door, parking brake, weight off wheels, etc). "

You are arguing with me while you could go ahead and find out the facts. All you'd have to do is call up an airline (go to the website - then jobs, call HR and ask them). I guess it's just the lazy thing to keep arguing about something you don't know about.

The woman's contract (or the union one) would indeed state the part about how hours are determined. So, she did know how it works before she starts. That's not my point - my point is that (here, we go, coincidentally, I already stated this, so I'll copy/paste):

"... you should not go taking the woman's $37/hr and multiplying it by the standard 160 hrs/mo. and say she's making $70K/yr. That's just not correct."

"I don't believe for a second that attendants are working uncompensated hours in a unionized industry." Dude, I just told you, they may be at the base airport, at an outstation, on the plane with the main door open, or in an office or crew lounge and they will not be paid for this time. Whether you count that as "working" is a legitimate question - why don't you ask it?

I see, though, that it's the same as time dicking around at a desk job. Yeah, you're not really working, but you're at work - you can't mow the lawn, feed the kids, write out Christmas cards, have wild sex, surf the web and post responses to uncomprehensive idiots (well, depending on your boss), and stuff like that while you're there. The time is not your own.

For the last time, I'm not complaining for her or anyone else, just stating how the pay is done.

Jimmy,
Again with the long distance insults. Does that impress your group of peers?
You are arguing against a charge that I and others are not making, (160 hours @ $37), and expending a lot of energy making an obvious and uncontested point .
"Whether you count that as "working" is a legitimate question - why don't you ask it?"
I don't have to ask your question. If I am required to be at work, then I have to be compensated for that time, regardless of how little the company requires of me during that time. The contract, I am sure, stipulates that precise situation, as you seem to acknowledge.

Mike,

The contract says that the F/A's are paid from door-close/brake-release to door-open/brake on. How hard is it for you to get this. That's all I'm saying.

"then I have to be compensated for that time, regardless of how little the company requires of me during that time." No, they are not compensated for the time on board when the door's open, loading, unloading people, walking to another gate, checking in, updating the manuals in the crew lounge, etc. That's got to be in the contract.

I just don't know how many ways I can say this and have it get into your long-distanced thick skull, Mike. What do you want, man?

"(160 hours @ $37), and expending a lot of energy making an obvious and uncontested point ." You contested it many times, saying you know better, and that union rules specify pay for all work time. Read your posts up above - I'll copy and paste them for you if you want. Ravenwood, can you get this imbecile to shup up, puhleeeze !?!

Jimmy:
I don't think Ravenwood is going to be taking instructions from you, or any of us, as to who may comment here. If he did, I would feel on better ground since I'm not in the habit of trying to win arguments with masterful flourishes of "Shut the f**k up!", "Moron!", etc.
At this point you seem to be simply ignoring what I have said while pretending that I do not comprehend what you have explained. The point is that everything you described is compensated by her contract. She has only her false expectations to blame for her disappointment. She is not a victim any more than millions of Americans who are subject to market forces.

Mike, I didn't say she was a victim, you idiot. I said that she makes $37/hr, but may work roughly 160 hrs. for the 100 hrs. of official pay.

You can't seem to concentrate on what my statement was - it's like your arguing with some kind of figment of your imagination.

OK, not sure how many characters can fit here, but here's some cutting and pasting:

Me:
"Thirdly, though that flight attendant is well paid, the hourly money is for only when the plane is blocked out, so a 100 hr. month can actually be 160 hrs. easily of work time, especially when working for airlines with short legs, like SW or the regionals, where, BTW, pay is about $15-$20 per block hr. "

Me:
"Kevin, I just got done saying that it's probably more like 100 hrs. pay for 160 actual hours-at-work, and on the regionals more like a factor of 2. The F/A's only get paid when the door is closed, and the parking brake is off, so all the time pre-flighting, boarding, disembarking, dicking around (so to speak, it's not like the old days --} between flights, checking in/out, etc are all off the clock. On days with 6-8 short legs, that adds up."

You:
"No offense, and I'm willing to assume there could be something left out that would change my mind, but I call bullshit on the 160/100 talk. Nobody works for nothing in a unionized industry and even those not unionized, by law. "

Me:
"I told you what I know - how can you "call bullshit" when you don't work in this business. How bout ask someone who knows, OK ? Otherwise, you should shut the fuck up about that part."

You:
"I have worked both waged and salaried positions and I don't believe for a second that attendants are working uncompensated hours in a unionized industry. It doesn't happen."

Me:
"The woman's contract (or the union one) would indeed state the part about how hours are determined. So, she did know how it works before she starts. That's not my point - my point is that (here, we go, coincidentally, I already stated this, so I'll copy/paste):

"... you should not go taking the woman's $37/hr and multiplying it by the standard 160 hrs/mo. and say she's making $70K/yr. That's just not correct.""

You:
"You are arguing against a charge that I and others are not making, (160 hours @ $37), and expending a lot of energy making an obvious and uncontested point .
"Whether you count that as "working" is a legitimate question - why don't you ask it?"
I don't have to ask your question. If I am required to be at work, then I have to be compensated for that time, regardless of how little the company requires of me during that time. The contract, I am sure, stipulates that precise situation, as you seem to acknowledge. [umm, what the fuck ??? Ed.]"

Me:
"The contract says that the F/A's are paid from door-close/brake-release to door-open/brake on. How hard is it for you to get this. That's all I'm saying.

"then I have to be compensated for that time, regardless of how little the company requires of me during that time." No, they are not compensated for the time on board when the door's open, loading, unloading people, walking to another gate, checking in, updating the manuals in the crew lounge, etc. That's got to be in the contract."

You:
"The point is that everything you described is compensated by her contract. She has only her false expectations to blame for her disappointment. She is not a victim any more than millions of Americans who are subject to market forces."

Me (now I'm cutting and pasting from this very post):
"Mike, I didn't say she was a victim, you idiot. I said that she makes $37/hr, but may work roughly 160 hrs. for the 100 hrs. of official pay."

Quick question, Mike: Ever spent a lot of time in a government school? Your thinking is let's just say, off ...

Oh my God. You still don't get it. She is not working uncompensated hours. I give up on trying to convince you of that.
I'm pleased that you are no longer pleading with Ravenwood to censor my responses to you.

He's probably just not reading this.

"She is not working uncompensated hours."

How's that?

"Mike, I didn't say she was a victim, you idiot. I said that she makes $37/hr, but may work roughly 160 hrs. for the 100 hrs. of official pay."
That's all.

(I'll try repetition - seems to work on people under 5 yrs old)