Agreed!
We vary in this issue of how to be properly addressed - that is to say what we consider our degree of formality, what degree of intimacy is appropriate or inappropriate, tolerance for directness, etc. - by culture, age, upbringing, and more factors.
A number of commentators over the years have written or spoken about the great degree of informality espoused by Americans. But with 300 million or so Americans, it's not likely everyone will have the same point of view. I'm not sure that thinking we do would be classified as "bigotry" but it would certainly fall well within the scope of "stereotyping" and "prejudging", and acting on such a belief would be discriminatory.
The FA was doing it "his way" and, for example, many Europeans and Asians would have been quite happy with the handshake - yet others would take it as the FA trying to "equalize" his status with theirs and inappropriate (some cultures are more class-conscious) for someone in a service position. More Australians and Americans would be happy being addressed by their first name - but obviously not all do.
The best way to communicate is to know the person you are attempting to communicate with and take the clues they offer, much like making an impactful choice in presenting a gift to another (the "platinum" rule of interaction, "treat others as they would be treated") but in this instance, for example, there's no time. The FA is merely attempting to be personable and friendly, and it's likely to not go 100% well because "do unto others as you would be done unto" may make for a nice platitude, but not if taken too literally.
It also explains why we, without the body language and vocal content, tend to over-read what others post and go off on them on an Internet forum. Our filters are on 100% of the time, unless we consciously lower them.
Originally Posted by
yyzgayguy
(Granted, we're discussing a very subtle issue, so please we can do without the flames. This is an unimportant subject, not a showstopper for any of us, I suspect, but it's of mild interest to a few of us. If you think it's appallingly foolish for any of us to even think about this or form an opinion, perhaps you could move on.)
It's funny how we all differ on this one. I found the handshake uncontroversial and I would welcome one from a FA, no problem. Some of you say that the handshake was the part that went too far.
Many of you seem perfectly comfortable being addressed by first name, by a FA, in a premium cabin. I suspect nearly all of you who feel that way are Americans. It will surprise nobody if it turns out that Europeans and Asians will prefer the formality of surnames, and not be put off by the touch of a stranger's hand.
I'm Canadian, which in some respects is a wannabe American, but in some ways un/anti-American. Also, I'm over 50. I expect most Canadians under 35 would not feel as I do. For me, a premium experience is enhanced by light formality. I find it jarring when a call-centre agent or an airline employee uses my first name without invitation. I have never had a bad service experience in AA F or J and when addressed by name I've always been "Mr.". I think it shows respect, which, by the way, I'd happily show in return to any employee whose name tag shows a surname. I never made any enemies by showing respect at first meeting.
I agree with one of you, that this is a "damned if you do" scenario for a FA and the good news is that it is not important. The FA described in the OP was clearly acting in good faith, using his own approach to doing his job well. But since the thread was started for the express purpose of discussing our preferences, I feel fully licensed to do so.
I'm not sure how my preference for formality, especially as I expressed it in my first post above, puts me in the DYKWIA camp. I seem to have touched a nerve in one reader. I've encountered people before, who found inexcusable "snobbishness" in any hint of formality, but I don't assume that all Americans are like that. If I did, that would be bigotry.