o2bmmw

Hi all, In the last month or so I have been on 4 flights. On every one of those flights, for the last 30-45 minutes, the FAs announced that due to reports of turbulence coming up, the flight attendants were required to take their seats and suspend service. On only 1 of those flights was there any bad weather in the area and indeed, there was some slight turbulence upon approach and landing. However, on the other 3 flights, there was none to speak of.

I thought this was odd because it occurred at the same exact time toward the end of the flights, and the announcements were almost identical each time.

Is this some sort of job action so the FAs can check out early?

I want to qualify this by saying whenever I have seen FAs be ordered to be seated in the past, it has been the pilot and not the FAs making the announcement. And in all of those circumstances, it was almost always during or immediately preceeding some actual bumps. This time was completely different.

lrdpenn

Even without claims of turbulence I have noticed that on some flights "final preparation for landing" is happening far earlier. I thought it used to be at 10k feet / when there are two dings. Some FAs seem to do this now when the plane starts descending, which is annoying.

Neil Scrivener

I've flown for hours on American flights with the seatbelt lights on and perfectly smooth flying conditions.

It's extremely annoying!

USFlyerUS

You can still get up even when the seatbelt sign is on. One of the FAs might remind you to be careful and that you're getting up at your own risk. I've been on many transcons where the seatbelt sign is never turned off, but there's zero chance I'm going to be able to go 5+ hours without needing to use a restroom. My rule of thumb when traveling is to do what you when you can (e.g., go to the bathroom when able), not when you have to. If it's calm air, even with the seatbelt sign on, I tend to use the restroom at that time just in case it does eventually get turbulent. (The only time I don't recommend doing this is when you're clearly on descent, during the now defunct 30 min within DCA rule, etc.)

saunders111

Yes, a few years ago I flew on an AA flight from FRA to DFW with the seatbelt sign on for the entire flight. No noticeable turbulence at any time.
"The seatbelt sign that cried wolf" could lead to injuring people so easily... Not just annoying but quite dangerous, in my opinion.

saunders111

USFlyerUS

I've noticed pilots at non-US carriers are much more likely to turn the seatbelt sign off except when absolutely needed. Pilots at US carriers, in my experience, tend to leave the seatbelt sign on more often than not.

rucksack

You don't need to have bad weather to have turbulence. Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) is becoming increasingly common. According to the NTSB, flight crews had no warning for almost a third of turbulence accidents from 2009 and 2018.

It's definitely possible that FAs are taking matters into their own hands to wrap up their work early, but it's also possible that other flights reported CAT in the area. Or perhaps airlines have started making their procedures more conservative to reduce liability/injuries.

nachosdelux

just flew SFO-CLT and the captain kept the seat belt sign on the entire flight, minus 20 minutes. There was some light turbulence here and there, but it was overkill. The capt and lead F/A made an announcement at least every 15 minutes to stay seated. I was in F and they did not do meal service. I understand when the turbulence is legit, but this was overly conservative. At least we got nuts and 1 drink, for a 4+ hour flight.

Xero

So no bathroom for anyone without potentially getting yelled at? Yikes! And a transcontinental on top of that.

I have seen FAs manage to deal meal service with light turbulence. Did the captain see a genuine threat to safety of the crew?

mtofell

OP - I've noticed the same thing on AA and AS. I was recently flying LAX > OGG (on AA) and they ordered seatbacks and tray tables up when we were still well above 30K feet and the FAs were not seen again. I'm not sure why this is being tolerated but it definitely is.

There was a post on here a while back where someone reported overhearing the FAs talk to the pilots and basically ask them to report possible turbulence so they didn't have to do a beverage service (short flight). This is all sadly just the way things are in the US now. Everyone's entitled, lazy and expects to get paid even when not doing their job.

econ

Just did JFK-SFO, and seatbelt sign was never turned off. A few bumps here and there, but mostly a smooth ride.

No related announcements of any kind though, didn't seem to impact service, and FAs didn't mention anything when I got up the use the lav.

PotomacApproach

Same experience on a recent flight into SFO. It was absurd, no service and no bumps. Sign on most of the time and switched back on during the middle of smooth as glass flight with an announcement that there would be no service. My friend took a later UA flight and had regular service and a similarly smooth flight. Came home and found out that yes, there is a contract negotiation and passengers are collateral damage. https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2...tract-dispute/

Brandinho1

Beat me to the punch with this. I notice this the most on Latin American carriers that the seatbelt sign goes off not too far after reaching 10k feet. Also I notice on long haul flights the breakfast service in J seems to be served with an hour and 5-10 minutes before landing vs 1 hour and 40 minutes to landing on American carriers.

FlyFreakquently

1:40 is a long time before landing. JFK-LHR is routinely under 6hrs so by the time dinner service ends and breakfast service begins, you�ll have maybe 2 hours of sleep? I�ll eat in the lounge, thanks.

flyexp

Wow sorry to hear this. just frustrates the heck out of me. measly nuts and a drink and they call this a freaking service. I bet they didn�t forget to beg the credit card apps