Maybe if so many of them hadn't sabotaged their own business for so long with surly, minimal service, driving away God knows how much goodwill and revenue, they wouldn't have to ask themselves such questions.

I for one would fly NW internationally much more often if the vicious old crones who staff so many NW longhauls were replaced by people who actually liked their employer, jobs and customers.

I completely disagree with the OP on all counts. There seem to be three majors topics going on in this thread: Replacing an American Worker with a Foreign Worker as a matter of: 1) National Pride, 2) National Security, 3) Quality of Service. My opinions on all three:

1. The notion that it is morally wrong to replace American workers with workers of foreign countries is in and of itself morally wrong. Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how anyone could feel this way without being patriotic to a fault and essentially believing that non-Americans are someone less human or less deserving of employment. While it is certainly unfortunate that anyone, any where has to lose his or her job, if some American loses a job and some Indian, Thai, etc. person gains that same job I don't see how there's any net negative effect on humanity at large. As any FTer knows, our world is a small one and only getting smaller. Good people are good people regardless of what nation-state they happen to have been born in.

Still, as an American I think it is my duty to prefer American things. But not at the expense of quality, humanity, or price. If two goods (or employees for that matter) both meet my needs, are of equal quality and price, and my purchase (or employment) of them are equally good for humanity (ie in environmental, societal senses) I will purchase (employ) the American good (employee) over the non-American one 100% of the time. Of course, that's rarely the case anymore. Especially when it comes to employees. The main problems are that American employees demand wastefully high standards of living, rarely are willing to work as hard as their foreign counterparts, and in pink and white collar jobs, increasingly are more poorly educated than their foreign counterparts.

2. There are major, fundamental problems with our national security which could cause foreign FAs to be a security risk but that would not decrease our overall national security. Essentially, foreign FAs as a security risk is a symptom and not a cause. Our real problems are porous borders and the complete inability to track foreigners within the country. With the exception of the few US-VISIT airports, we have no idea when/if a foreigner even leaves the country. Without fixing these problems the country will never really be secure and foreign FAs do not increase the already significant risk in any meaningful way. The notion that the foreign FAs will somehow be less effective in terms of maintaining a safe flight environment makes no sense because as I already mentioned foreigners are just as smart, as educated, and as capable as Americans.

3. This one is short and simple. While there are definitely some excellent American FAs, as others have already mentioned the average foreign FA is simply far and away better than the average American FA and the reasons are obvious: they work harder and they understand (and practice!) great customer service all the time. As a result, as a consumer I much prefer foreign FAs to American ones.

One thing I think people overlook when considering why carriers would prefer to use foreign based FAs is that the growth of international traffic *to* the US will far outpace growth *from* the US. If you were a citizen of China or India looking to travel to the US for business or pleasure would you rather fly with a carrier who used FAs that spoke your language and understood your needs or with one whose FAs are cold and unsympathetic with and often raise their voices at passengers whose English comprehension is poor. So even ignoring the wage differences it seems foolish for NW to exclusively American FAs.

Well put and from where I sit right on the $$$$.

Thank God
 

Thanks for the great news OP... I couldn't be happier, the sooner the better. Please NWA international FAs, dont let the door hit you in the arse. This is the best news to happen at NWA in a while. Even if there are no new features to worldperks next year, if this happens I'll be a happy camper.

Ever see those singapore airlines FAs? Man! wow. Nice too. No more cratchety-grandmother treatment for me.

The only thing that scares me is that if for seniority reasons, NWA fires the nice fresh FAs they have on domestic runs and rotates the crab bags from international back into the US. If that happens I will surely switch to AA.

Dan K

Wah! We want a hub at NRT and nothin' but big-boned murkin' matrons slinging coffee and hash at the paying public!! Wah!

:p

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in another line of work then, Mister United Sates Air Marshall.

I can just envision a lifeguard who is afraid of the water or a police officer who is afraid of confrontation, or an Army infantry dude who is afraid of firearms...kinda ridiculous, isn't it?

You are no more a FAM than I am Ozstamps. Get a life.

I do have to remark on this. I was coming back from the Philippines through Tokyo to Busan (PUS) on Oct. 7th. In WBC there were 2 flights attendants. There may have been a Japanese based national, but she was not in WBC. There was a Chinese flight attendance and another person (young man). The man had some experience, he served quickly, but the Chinese person seemed a little clueless. She only managed to serve the first 6 people in WBC while the man finished the rest in the same amount of time. I don't have any problem with this. I think in the long run the service will be better. I'll be flying again in December.

Well I won't make any comments about the individuals but the Union Seniority system will certainly push towards keeping the FAs with the longest Tenure. Again, no comments about their age or physical situation but I'm worried because of the attitudes. I'm guessing all my flights will be staffed with FAs who are steaming over the loss of the international routes and take it out on us.

Oh - and I'd like to come right out and admit my embarrassed foolishness for taking the OP seriously. The posts on the United thread pretty much make that poster out to be a troll/farce.

Exactly my nightmare scenario... I've seen it in the past on USAir after they made the FAs take concesssions they were the most obnoxious people in the skies. I've actually been suprised that the domestic NWA FAs have taken it all so well. I can truely see this happening though... scarry. CO is too expensive for me to fly on out of SAN... AA is closer to NWAs prices... I dont WANT to switch but I can't put up with those crab-bags from x-atlantic and x-pacific on my domestic flights.

I agree it's not the FAs looking bad that upsets me, its all about the attitude. However having some nice young fresh babes up there would be a bonus I must admit. While they're at it they can bring back the miniskirts :^)

This statement's a little disingenious, since most American products are made overseas. So if they design, make, sell, buy, and service overseas, they don't much need Americans at all, do they? Except, these days, to "manage" the whole process and take the profits.

I'm not saying everything is made in the USA; that is certainly not happening. What I am saying is that the Levi's, Harley Davidson's, McDonald's and innumerous other "global" brands that are based/founded in the US would stand to gain. True, the laborers and others who aren't price competitive won't see any gains, but then putting up barriers to protect them ultimately hurts competitiveness. Goes back to my original post, gotta be adaptable and flexible. It's not disingenious, but a simple summary of what it means to be a U.S. company in a global marketplace.

I'm getting way off topic.

Levis are now made entirely overseas. They closed their last manufacturing site sometime in the past two years, and they're also progressing ahead with plans to close all their own private label outlets and only sell through other chains. Who in the US stands to gain from that?

McDonalds doesn't make a good example, since most of the jobs in the US are
minimum wage, low skill jobs. Most of the jobs in the US have a higher barrier to entry, since it would be cost prohibitive to pay someone $2.00/hour, then fly and host them in the US when you can just pay someone here $5.25/hour for the same work. I don't believe you're suggesting paying the majority of the US population $5.25/hour? And with regards to their overseas precense, again, most of those workers are locally hired. In fact, I would anticipate that the purchasing of ingredients and any "assembly" would happen on a regional basis as well. I wouldn't expect them to import cows to the US and export frozen beef patties to other countries to sell as the ever popular "Royale with Cheese".

Even with Harley Davidson, it's important to look across the supply chain to see where the revenue gets distributed to understand just how much the US gains by the improving well-being of the brand.

In all these cases, any gains in the "prestige" of these brands are and should be irrelevant to most US workers unless the corresponding gains in profits are distributed throughout all the layers of society (note I didn't say equally - this shouldn't be mistaken for support of communism. A wide income distribution range, however, is not a positive for a society). Gains made from shifting to cheap labor due to the lower cost of living in other countries does nothing for employees in the US.

In NW's case, like most, they are just responding to competitive pressures and leveraging the incentives that exist behind using offshore labor. The FAs are, like many workers before them, caught in the crosshairs simply because they live in an economy with a high cost of living, relative to others.

Am I the only one thinking how sad to see the disparaging remarks about physical appearence/age of FAs? Come on ... we all age, and most of us put on a few pounds in the process. No... I'm not advocating obesity or slovenness, or crankiness, but calling FAs fat, old, haggard, menopausal grouses is not really appropriate. There is plenty of blame to go around for the changes in NW service ... and not all of it can be put on the FAs or their union. And ... no, I am not one! I'm not sure what the OP is.... I'm guessing he is a FAM from my impression of the other thread. (Or not?) I think he does state some issues that worry me, despite the dramaqueenieness (yes, I could get out the thesaurus, but I won't!). Seems many of us are disposable in today's world. I'm not so sure this will make the world a better place. Given the current situation that NW is in, change is inevitable. Does that mean we should take pleasure in the disruptions of the careers/lives of NW FAs? I don't think so.

RWW

I was flying NRT-MSP, and every FA (expect 2) were well over 55. And several of them, it was quite clear they were in their 60's....that's old. I don't see anything inappropriate about calling them old, it's a fact. It's sad, when the negative attitudes start.....that people don't opt to find a different job/career....instead they choose to stay in their unhappy comfort zone for years and years, and just complain. We have all lost jobs.....but life goes on, we find other ones.

IMHO this is absolutely not about age. It's about attitude. You run into senior FAs on the domestic services who are just great. On overseas longhauls, though, their attitude is frequently poisonous.

I don't care how old they are as long as they can pass the safety drill and appear to be enjoying their jobs and my presence on their airplane. Crone-ism is a state of mind.