Originally Posted by fromYXU

Are suggesting that $33,000 is below a living wage. (average flight attendant's pay comes from NWA AFA).

Originally Posted by Seahawk_6

And they are perfectly free to find another job, are they not?

Originally Posted by youngbru

BTW, according to salary.com, the median wage for a firefighter is $37,737 and for a cocktail waitress, $13,925.

Any other interesting comparisons?

-Bruce

Originally Posted by Bear96

Yes.

But they are ALSO perfectly free to take advantage of other legal rights they have under labor law.

It's their choice.

Originally Posted by MSP2SEA

Ummm... yes I do? Most of us on this board receive mileage redeemable for free travel when our employer buys our plane tickets, no? Pretty much the same idea.

Overall I agree the points made: This is an overpaid profession relative to the skills required. This appears to be due to union leverage, and federal regulation.

I believe in the open labor market, the airlines would not have trouble recruiting FAs at $20 - $30K per year plus the travel benefit. The travel benefit, and the nature of crew scheduling, would continue to be attractive to a portion of the population (maybe not the portion currently working the position now). Similar to the job of ski lift operator... you aren't doing the job because you love loading people onto a lift, or because it will make for a fat 401K.

Originally Posted by Bear96

Yes.

But they are ALSO perfectly free to take advantage of other legal rights they have under labor law.

It's their choice.

Originally Posted by troyintn

I have often thought the same thing. Maybe on internationl flights they need a seperate pay scale then domestic, because of languages, but that would then require every FA to know a second language.

Originally Posted by NWAFA

LOL! That will never happen. You see, the job of most everyone here is waaaay more important than any Flight Attendant job on any day of the week.

But the funny thing is, that big important plane full of big important people cannot get off the ground without the useless Flight Attendants.

True story: I was boarding a flight one night, greeting passengers, answering questions... a woman with a baby comes aboard looking all discombobulated.
She hands her baby to me, not a problem. I've held more babies than I can count, and she disappears. I'm assuming that she's gone to her seat to get settled and come back for her child. All the while I'm having a little fun with the baby and joking with passengers. Future Flight Attendant in training. Who is more senior? Bring your grandkids to work day, etc. I'm even making my announcements with this baby on my hip.

Now it's getting close to closing the door. The mother never returned. The other Flight Attendants working upfront during boarding couldn't remember what she looked like. So I had another Flight Attendant take over for me at the boarding door.

I went to look for the mother. I found her nice and comfortable reading a book. I smiled and said to her "I think we might have forgotten something."
Her response: "You don't expect ME to hold that baby for the entire flight do you?" I said. "Yes I do. It's your child." Her response: "It's YOUR job to take care of the baby." Still being pleasant, I reminded her that we don't offer babysitting services on board our flights. With each of her responses, she was getting louder.

Her next response: "The nanny couldn't make this trip and I am not going to hold a child all the way to Europe."

The other passengers had noticed by now that this woman was refusing her own child. Some were even commenting upon her lack of mothering abilities.

Now play time was over. My final response: "Madam, you will take your child and care for it on this flight. If you refuse, I will contact the Gate Manager who will decide for you."

She took the child. She wasn't happy. She also didn't bring diapers, milk or all the little extras that one needs when traveling with an infant.

Luckily for this woman, the Flight Attendants were able to locate parents who were willing to give this woman diapers, milk, bottles and extra baby blankets for the baby. One other mother was so digusted with this woman that she offered to hold and change the baby while her husband held their child.

The woman with the problem of taking care of her child, complained to the company about the poor service on the flight. The whole crew was called in to explain what happened. None of us recieved any negative feedback in our files and left the manager shaking her head at the whole situation.

Originally Posted by Bear96

Serious question: How does one determine the "economic value" of any job? Yeah yeah yeah, "the market" determines it. But isn't that what is happening right now with airline jobs (pilots, mechanics, F/As) -- "the market" is working through a period of transition and at some point the "market value" of these jobs will be established? So does it matter what any of us think the market value of the F/A job is, if we can just wait a while for the dust to settle?



Another question: Could all of the participants on this thread please post their job title and yearly gross income? That way we can all chime in as to whether or not we think you are "overpaid" based on our understanding of your "economic value."

Originally Posted by Seahawk_6

If you have some education and you're convinced the company employing you is out to get you...... are you hanging around for? Would you? I wouldn't...I'd be LONG gone. As others have written...just because something's legal doesn't mean you should do it. Save yourself ("yourself" being an FA) the agravation of working for such a "bad" company at a job that few people respect where the people you come into contact with regularly (passengers) are so stupid, spoiled, etc.

The "well I don't want to give up" sentiment is a load of ....e. Look at what FAs consider their job and quality of life to be (read through the threads with significant contributions from MPF, NWAFA, etc.)...why are these people sticking around? It takes a truly sick person (IMO) to continue to work a job they dislike for "slave wages", employed by "morons" to cater to "spoiled brats".

Originally Posted by youngbru

The comparison with a firefighter is somewhat more interesting as a firefighter job is much more physically demanding and involves a much higher element of danger. But both have a primary responsibility of protecting public safety and both are "1st responders" (albeit for specialized circumstances for an FA) requiring specialized training and very long work shifts away from home separated by significant blocks of time off.

BTW, according to salary.com, the median wage for a firefighter is $37,737 and for a cocktail waitress, $13,925.

Any other interesting comparisons?

-Bruce

Originally Posted by channa

The job requires what, a high school diploma and 2-3 weeks of training? The cost of the training is paid for by the company, so it's not like a skill that the company has to pay a wage premium for.

Seems to be very similar requirements to any sort of service job -- restaurant server, cashier, sales clerk at a dept. store, etc.

Originally Posted by MarcoPolosFootprints

While it is true in today's market, all that is required to become a flight attendant is a high school diploma and several weeks of training, to become a true professional requires far more than even a bachelor degree, a masters degree, an MD or a PHD can prepare you for. To perform the job to a true professional standard, it requires the ability to effectively perform the foillowing duties, often simultaneously:

For those of you good folks who think this is equivalent with the duties of the fry cook at Burger King, I challenge any of you, regardless of current postion, to be able to perform the above duties on a regular and acceptable basis. It is not as simplistic as you all like to make it sound. Many of you who post here would not be able to do so simply because of your egos.