oklAAhoma

Hey, next time can we use a different name for the imaginary FA? Maybe Penelope, Gwendolyn, or Naomi...

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

Karen

BigBopper

Friday I flew with a tall, gorgeous blonde named Barbie.

Fly AA J all the way

I know this was not your intent, but I could see some taking offense to this. There is nothing that says a FA can't be both. Granted, the airline industry isn't as attractive for people to enter as it once was, but I think you have a lot of attractive people who could easily do the job as a FA. Personally, I don't want to compromise safety, but on a 3+ hr flight, I wouldn't mind something better to stare at than Eye on American .

Fly AA J all the way

How do you know, did you verify this for yourself?

askworldtraveler

to stay on the topic ..... thanks....

JDiver

Again, I think "attractive" is in the eye of the beholder and quite subjective - I don't care if an FA is male, female, "attractive" or much of anything else, as long as s/he is objectively competent at the job they were hired for, and reasonably service-oriented. If someone is attractive to me, that's icing on my cake... but that same person might not be attractive to you.

At one time, the airlines concentrated on characteristics that were immaterial to safety or service, ignoring many who could have served in favor of those who met the age - weight - marital status etc. criteria, and I am grateful those days are over (along with the days pilots were often hired or not depending on whether they had the preferred branch-of-service background, were married -DL - or what wines they preferred.) Besides, look at it this way, you might get "Raymond" to look at in addition to "Eye"...

Karen, sorry about that - but I think I recall I actually did fly a National a/c named Karen, with the phrase... so, go ahead and sue 'em! (A NYC woman didn't like the "I'm Cheryl, fly me!" so she protested with a placard "Go fly yourself, National!" though I don't think that's what she really had in mind...) There were also Cecille, Renee, Betty, Shirley, Cheryl, etc. (As I recall, you never got to fly a guy...)

May all your flying be uneventful, on time, with upgrades and limitless beverage service.

oklAAhoma

Well, said (as usual). I think it's great that the airlines have (finally) chosen to emphasize function over form.

"Go fly yourself." I love it. I think I'll even borrow that phrase occasionally.

And no need to apologize about using the name "Karen". Although it did startle me for a moment to see it referred to in several posts, there was certainly no harm done. Maybe it's just proof that my mother was right all along. When I used to complain about been given such an ordinary name, she always insisted "Karen" was just as good as any other.

Efrem

To get a bit off-topic: kids who grow up with unusual names always wish they had an ordinary one "like all my friends have." This often alternates generations, with parents giving their kids the other kind.

Back to topic: I appreciate attractive women as much as most other straight guys, but in terms of priorities for cabin crew, it's wa-a-ay down my list.

feitefrank

I would like most other prefer attractive cabin crew, but I think that's unreasonable as main critera. Top of my list if service orientation and attitude. The safety aspects of cabin crew I think is very close to irrelevant, based on statistics and redundancy. If we're talking flight crew, then there is no competition, safety comes first, probably through judgement, experience and understanding of how the aircraft works in a variety of conditions. If they screw up, we're all in trouble. The same will apply to anyone associated with the mechanical workings of the aircraft and of course ATC.

But, cabin crew plays no significant role in safety, with a few exceptions I'll get to later. Only in extremely rare occasions will an emergency evacuation be necessary, and even then it's hardly a particulary difficult task to execute. In fact, if all the FAs were imobilized, I'm certain the pax could easily take care of this themselves, with the instructions if necessary from the flight deck. So unlike the flight crew, if the cabin crew screws up, it really doesn't affect my personal safety much. Also, I completely fail to see a logical connection on how having a poor attitude and lack of service should translate into excellence in emergencies. Just for the sake of argument, assuming in the last ten years, the FAs had been replaced by a dog that passengers could pet to their delight and that food magicially appeared from the overhead bins. How many lives would have been lost in this period for inefficent emergency evacuations? Probably not a whole lot, if any at all.

Obviously, I appreciate the need for keeping the cabin and pax in an orderly state, first hand reports to the cockpit, a pre-defined chain of command and of course medical emergencies. That is clearly the most important role FAs play today, and it is related to safety. FA's role can save lives here and certainly ensure a pleasant flight and cabin atmosphere. Much of it is simply enforcing the FAA/TSA regulations, many of which have questionable safety benefits not to mention how simple it is to enforce. If the FAs actually made up the regulations, then it would clearly be different and I would appreciate the right skills and experience for it, but walking up and down the aisle checking for fastened seatbelts doesn't really qualify for a Nobel Prize if you catch my drift.. It must by law be done, but that doesn't at all change its safety merits. And as I personally think a lot of the regulations are irrelevant based on statistics and risk, I cannot consider enforcing these rules as a key safety measure. Yes, I have no qualms comparing a FA to a waitress at a resturant or hotel staff, the risk of injury or death is driven by chances of an emergency occuring and structural design for dealing with emergencies, not the low-level staff's emergency handling.

So friendly attitude, pleasant personality, a little humor and service orientation is clearly the most important parts of FAs to me. I can of course deny any natural instincts developed the in the last 40.000 years and say that physical attractiveness does not matter, but I would be lying. But it would only be ONE aspect of it, and certainly not something I expect or demand. If aircrafts start crashing more often, then let's talk, but until then attractiveness would outrank the "safety" aspect by at least a mile in my book.

oklAAhoma

That's true. And I guess I shouldn't have complained about the FA named Karen in this thread, I just found out that my niece named one of her Pokemons after me. Of course it could be worse, at least I get to be the owl. I could have been a weed, a weird tree, or a "bee-looking thingy".

That's exactly what my husband says... at least when I'm within hearing distance.

justind

Two Off Topics, then I'm done.

Karen, one of my favorite cartoons, that I still have cut-out and saved, involved two parents sitting on a couch saying:
"When we named our daughter "Bubbles", we were hoping she would grow up to be an exotic dancer, she ended up being a marine biologist, so things worked out OK."
The other OT involves an old "stewardess rule" prohibiting the eating of hot dogs and ice-cream cones, I can't remember which airline, but it was thought to be too sexually suggestive while in uniform.
FA's have a job to do, it used to be required that they be registered nurses. Now I'm pretty happy that they know how to use a defilibrator, are able to direct a life-raft, as well as a bunch of other things that I hope they NEVER have to do.

JDiver

In my "50+" years of flying, I have seen AA FAs deploy their training several times. Most recently, the guy who lost consciousness Wednesday night on AA1951 and was tended to by FAs (no doctor aboard, apparently,) and the guy they saved on an AA SJU-DFW flight I was on (heart attack, he was defibrillated and we made an emergency landing at MIA) might differ with your views. (Ditto for the passengers on AF358.)

The AA FAs do spend most of their time enforcing sometimes Picayunish FAA regs and providing service, but the latter is not the reason the FAA requires a specific number of cabin crew per aircraft. I also feel you may overestimate the average member of the public's sang froid and their ability to respond logically and underestimate panic - as a trained rescue diver and emergency first responder, I have seen death-dealing panic (and how quickly contagious it is) up front and personal. Trained and regularly requalified personnel is the usual antidote, and we'll generally underestimate them until the (hopefully) rare time when we really need them.

I definitely appreciate the smile and service, and am quite willing to provide persoanl feedback and write AA when it happens - but I am also aware of the actual reason FAs are on aircraft - even H00ters Air has actual, qualified FAs on board in addition to the "Hooters Girls."

AA53

FA's seem much better groomed and more fit than passengers I see on board. I would like to see a weight restriction on coach passengers or make them buy 2 seats.

askworldtraveler

That AA is the topic.....

DCA Blondie

You know, what we really need at AA/AE are passengers that are young, gorgeous, and well educated. Seriously, if I have to look at you all day, and make chit chat ocassionally, I want good lookin', smart ones. Girls and guys...I just want the beautiful people. (All FTer's, with just a few exceptions, are naturally included in this category...)

And those that don't leave me gagging in their wake of whatever new, gross thing I learn about humans on this particular day. (Most FTer's excluded from this category, of course!)