[VintageKrug]

Actually I don’t really see a link between remuneration and good service.

For the employee, satisfaction with remuneration is much more closely related to expectations and needs, as well as operational management and performance appraisal.

Take the Asian and Middle Eastern carriers. They pay much less than many carriers, yet are renowned for service.

This is because they hire many (not all) younger employees, who see the opportunity of “seeing the world” as a benefit, rather than a hassle. They have few commitments (family/mortgage) and so their needs are less. And not having had a job for twenty years they are not jaded by it.

Operationally, managers are left to manage out poor performers without meddlesome intervention from the Unions, and the preservation of employment for poor performers is not tolerated.

Many students aspire to a McJob as it’s not bad money as a student and can teach you many skills, even if you go on to be a CEO that could be seen as a valuable role at the time. Aged 40, having a McJob is less good if you need to support a family and retirement off the back of it. Again all is relative.

I think that we have seen a structural shift towards commoditisation of airline travel and the roles (and remuneration/progression) within that industry must change to accommodate that.

There are still areas where you training and skillset as cabin crew are valued and appropriately remunerated, but you would need to change jobs to sustain that in the long term.

A tough message, I am sure, but a realistic one.

[EU_Flyer]

Thank you whatever6719.

The points you raise are entirely valid. Indeed I have acknowledged them myself!! (perhaps go back and read them, they’re in the quotation marks).

Indoubtedy, casualizing an entire workforce would potentially have a significant impact on staff morale if handled badly and indeed no corporate management can claim to never handle change badly.

However, professionalism and employment status (casual vs permanent) don’t have to be entirely linked. I am sure that there are many CC (and ground staff) who are casual employees who provide excellent service and make their employers and customers proud. These staff would be retained and indeed probably rewarded under a casual structure where an incentivization scheme was also incorporated. It’s only the lazy ‘public service mentality “oh I’m SOOO over my job and wish I was still at the pool”‘ staff that have anything to fear. In those cases, it would benefit the airline to be able to sack them.

Fair point?

[NTarrant]

This is interesting as I think Alex you are really commenting on human nature. Look around the cabin of your next business flight and see how many people fit in the “I’m an important business person who would rather read the FT than listen to the safety demo as I have seen it a million times!” attitude. Is that not the same as the crew who want to lounge around the pool?

Part time and full time crew work together on most airlines, but I doubt the use of “agency” crews would work on a permenant basis. I have used agency staff alongside my own on various projects and the quality does vary so much, to those that oushine my own to those that can’t be bothered to get there on time if at all.

VK makes a very good point in comparison to the Asian crews.

[whatever6719]

AlexUpgrade77 I agree with you about some of those crew that really should not be flying and that bring the rest of us down.
If only airlines were able to manage staff on the level you are suggesting, i.e incentive schemes that reward the really good staff and give them an opportunity to gain full time employment. It is so sad to see some of those really good people you speak of, those that do care, not given the recognition they deserve. Unfortunately these days, the types that do get the accolades, do so by using less than honourable means, for instance, getting high tier frequent flyer members that they may know, to write in for them, along with associating with the “right” people in the right departments!

Now VintageKrug, Id like to question your logic in comparing those carriers from the Middle/Far East you speak of to the other major carriers from the West. I really dont know where or how to start on that one. There are way too many cultural/economic/societal differences to tackle why it is not a fair comparison. And finally on your point about them hiring “younger, less jaded” staff being a good thing, well, I do beg to differ. Some of the best examples of customer service inflight has been provided by a flight attendant of many years seniority and along with that, some of the worst I have ever seen displayed by a fresh young new recruit.
I think we need to keep a bit of perspective here!!

[EU_Flyer]

Thanks you VK and NTarrant for sharing your views.

The comparison to the Asian airlines is a telling one although the service culture that exists in Asia is very different to that of the West and impossible to replicate in my opinion and that’s not a bad thing. The homogeny on service on Asian airlines can sometimes lack personality and can also be a disaster where there is unexpected change and the crew have to come off autopilot.

However I disagree that a passenger’s right to not watch a safety video, whilst foolosh, is within his or her rights as a fare paying passenger. A CC right to be ‘SOOOOO over it’ is neither within their job description nor is it professional. As passengers we should always treat fellow pax and CC with utmost respect, but watching the video arouses no such obligation!

Western CC can still maintain their individuality and personality whilst simultaneously providing genuine professional customer focused service regardless of whether they are full time permanent or casual.

As for the use of agency staff, I’m not suggesting this. Surely, as with the retail industry, you can still maintain a cache of airline specific trained casual staff that only work for that airline?

[VintageKrug]

I think the point about cultural/economic/societal differences is that aviation, even more than most industries, is globalised.

That means they can source staff from almost anywhere in the globe – as Qantas has done with London based crews etc.

So while there is probably a pre-requisite for languages, apart from that there are few restrictions on hiring staff from wherever is least expensive, and also under the terms of the least expensive country’s labour laws. Ultimately, if locally based staff want to compete with these other airlines then they must either be competitive from a cost perspective or offer unique and differentiated services.

I agree that age really isn’t the issue here, but demographically younger employees are likely to be more satisfied with lower pay and the stresses of travelling constantly than a more experienced employee. Not an absolute link but certainly not disconnnected.

[Author]

Posts