I do, too. The reason why I've been asking you all these questions is that your stance seemed rather hypocritical to me. With your much more detailed explanation, I have reconsidered: your philosophy, as described, is applied (at least relatively) uniformly, so you are not applying your principles only when convenient. I don't agree with your actions, necessarily, but I do not consider you a hypocrite.

Well, I'm not referring to making false claims and not working according to the contract. However, the contract does not stipulate that an employee has to smile or even be polite; as long as the employee performs the required duties, they are performing their contracted work. A pilot who chooses to keep the seatbelt sign on throughout the entire flight, for example, even in smooth air; or an FA who serves the passengers but does only the minimum required service, does not smile, and is curt in his/her interactions; etc. - all of these are performing their required work and living up to their contract, even if the customer nevertheless still suffers due to the minimum, impersonal performance.

Therefore, it is entirely possible for an employee to perform exactly according to his/her contract and yet still make the customer suffer. Let's assume for the moment that the employee has (e.g. via advertisements by the union, or similar) informed the customer that service will be at the absolute minimum required level. The customer arguably has much more power than the employee: the customer can much more easily use a different carrier than the employee could find a new job. So, in this scenario, why is it still the employee's problem if the customer suffers, when the customer holds the decision-making power?

I agree with that.