I am sure that many will find this to be a bizzare question, but I just gotta know.....

I am sure that everyone in a while a FA will decide to have a baby, but it just dawned on me that I have never seen a pregnant FA. I asked Mrs Gamecock and she has no memory of seeing a pregnant FA either.

I know that many women hide their pregnancies very well, but at some point during their 9 months I would think that they couldn't perform their duties very well. After all, with an increasing abdominal girth, they just couldn't move around very well, especially in the event of an emergency.

So the question is, do they have some type of early maternity leave? Or are they assigned to some type of non-flying duty? Or are they out there and I have just never seen one?

Here is one.

It depends on the Company and contractual rules. Some companies allow "desk" work. Some allow only the 12 weeks of FMLA and others allow the 12weeks plus 6 months leave. As long as she can do the job then there aren't any restrictions. You may see some being overly cautious but nothing major.

Here at RAH we have 30 that are pregnant. Two are having twins and one is having triplets. They range in age from 20 to 40. Some are on leave and others aren't yet. The one with triplets is in here late 30's and is in her last few weeks and is still working. She had recurrent last week and has able to get the door open from the buckled seated position to full slide deployment in 15 sec. so it is doable.

I have definitely seen visibly pregnant FAs.

Typically in the US it is covered by disability (12 weeks) in Europe by maternity (6 months or more) - so benefits depend on where you are based.

Most EU countries don't allow lay-offs of pregnant women - that's why you saw a wave of pregnancies at LH when lay-offs were announced some 7 or so years back.

Many insurance carriers now have provisions that forbid pregnant crew members (pilots or cabin crew) from operating commercial flights that they insure due to additional liability.

My last airline's policy was that you are required to declare your pregnancy as soon as you are aware of it and you receive full pay for "ground duties" from that point until 3 months after the child is born.

But your crew were ALWAYS pregnant. Must have been something in the water/Air?

Interesting post, thank you Gamecock. I had never thought about this, but reading this thread by accident made me realise that I had never seen one.

Thanks to all the other posts. ^

Isn't there an increased risk to the fetus with the radiation on flights (deformity, miscarriage)? I would have thought that in itself would make airlines want to ground pregnant crew, for the health of the unborn baby. As in, if they know there is a risk (and I pretty sure they do), and they let their staff continue working in an increased risk environment, aren't they liable in some way for the outcomes? I know when I worked as a manager and had a glut of pregnant women, I had to do a risk assessment for each of them - I don't know how they can do such an assessment and conclude flying is ok?

I have actually seen a number of pregnant FAs. I particularly notice, because I had a miscarriage after having done some long international trips. I was in the gyn/ob's office when the miscarriage was diagnosed and was feeling very guilty about endangering the baby with so much travel.

The gyn/ob told me, very distinctly, that there was no reason to feel guilty. "After all, flight attendants fly pregnant and have beautiful babies. I have plenty of patients who fly for business or are flight attendants. Please believe me."

I felt better right away. Since then, I have particulary noticed pregnant FAs which validates what the gyn/ob said all those years ago.

The FAAs documentation on it suggests the routes flown and duration are very significant, and that a flight from North America to Europe (ie over / near the poles where radiation is highest) gives over 300 times the radiation exposure than a short intrastate domestic flight. I was told years ago by a doctor that a transatlantic flight was about the same as a chest x-ray. Looking online now, it seems it is about the same as 2 chest x-rays each way (I am guessing maybe chest x-ray technology has improved in the intervening years?). Given that a couple of years ago, a hospital declined to x-ray me (instead fetching an ultrasound and technician to scan the injured area that way) as I might have been pregnant, there seems to be a disconnect. Either radiation is safe or it isn't, and if the medical team chose not to x-ray me 'just in case' even tho I was injured and it would have given the best image of the injury, not to mention an x-ray wouldn't have hurt but the ultrasound did, I am inclined toward the latter.

In reading, it seems that several countries have maximum limits that pregnant flight crew can be exposed to, and they don't let their pregnant crew fly over that. 10 return transatlantic flights during pregnancy would put them over that 'safe limit' for several countries policies, and it would take fewer e.g. asia routes to put them over.

Last I checked, it was neither the water nor the air that got them pregnant!

Sadly though, its a reality one has to live with when one hires young, attractive women as cabin crew!

Well, you hired them (and very good they were too)

Interesting observation.....come to think of it - I have never seen one either. The odds seem to favor at least one sighting in all the flights of my lifetime.

Yes, indeed. Some airlines prohibit pregnant crewmembers from flying polar routes (like North America to/from China and India) because of the high levels of radiation exposure.

An added variable is that in the event of an emergency landing in polar regions, the conditions would be hazardous (extremely cold temperatures, ice and snow, wind, etc) and the wait for rescue and medical assistance might be a long one. Neither of these factors would be good for a pregnant woman.