My $0.02 from working in management there is that UA upper management, middle management and lower supervisors are extremely dedicated to customer service. Motivating FAs is very difficult, partly because they are a migratory work force and partly because we encourage FAs to be independent so they can solve problems without the help of a trainer or supervisor at 35,000 feet. But the supervisors do try. In reality however, FAs have been given so many empty promises over the years they start to tune out what management says and just try and get through the flights. I often felt like I was "apologizing" to FAs for areas the company had been lagging on in improvements. Pretty sad situation.

However, when FAs followed the service training they received and FAOM guidelines for service, as much as they do for safety, you experience a very wonderful level of service. It does happen quite often, but not all the time. In fact, this is why the SIN and BKK FAs win so many service awards, because they follow their training and service guidelines to a T.

But this brings up a key difference between US and non-US carriers. SQ, for example, staffs Cabin Crew Supervisors in addition to Lead FAs (i.e. Pursers) to enforce the rules. Also, it should be noted that SQ is staffing 21-22 FAs on a 744 right now as opposed to UA's 15 with only slight variations in seating capacity (it used to be 18UA FAs prior to 2001). Reduced staffing does have an impact on both the good and bad employees (the good ones just try to do their best).

DL and WN are the only U.S. carriers that regularly require their Onboard Supervisors to fly right now, but even that's just once a month. The other carriers have stopped their supervisors from flying since 2001 in order to cut costs, unless there is a big reason to make an exception.

I can tell you from experience that managing a FAs behaviors in the air from the ground is not exactly effective. The sups know it, the Onboard Managers know it and even the Domicile Managers know it, but they are not willing to speak up to their Regional Directors (only 2 of them, 3 if you count ORD's Domicile Manager answering directly to the VP since ORD is so large) or the VP of Onboard Service about it for fear of losing out on their next promotion.

Onboard supervision at carriers like UA and AA are more focussed on dependability and employee's using the sick time the company gave them than day-to-day service in the air. There really can be a balance, but improving service doesn't catch the eye of the accountants the way disciplining FAs for calling sick too much does (both deserve attention, btw).

Supervisors are constantly trying to breathe new life into both happy and bitter FAs at briefings. The good sups talk until they are blue in the face about focussing more on the soft skills (FA service) even when the hard product is inferior or just broken (broken Suites, dirty planes, missing catering items). The idea is that even when we get things like flat beds or AVOD that we will still need service to differentiate ourselves from other carriers. But more often than not it would fall on deaf ears, as the senior FAs had "heard it all before."

All I can say is there is no easy fix for all of these issues. The commitment has to come from the VP level (I promise you the Domicile Managers and Onboard Managers will fall right into line if the VP says things should be changed). In the meantime, you triage things as best you can and just try to do your best to have an impact.

One last thing about WN: A lot less can go wrong on a 1-cabin's domestic Ted or LCC catering than a 3-cabin int'l. Most UA FAs are pretty chill when catering shorts them a bunch of diet cokes on LAX-LAS (since customer expectations are not very high in that market). But when it comes to missing meals or busted suites on an int'l flight for customers who paid $16,000 for their F ticket, it's not nearly as easy to deal with.