Zkpilot wrote:I’ve had a lot of respect for you and your opinions over the many years, but frankly your views on your cabin crew colleagues is disgusting.
On to your points:
It is irrelevant whether crew are serving customers or “resting” (which isn’t really much of a rest - things like turbulence, noise etc). You are still at work, on duty and flying around in a pressurised tube with everything else that goes with that. Also there are many occasions where that rest is not possible for a variety of reasons.
You are correct in the level of first aid - it is a pretty standard level 2 workplace first aid with additional considerations, such as there is no ambulance at 33,000 feet and often no doctor either. It is rare that there isn’t a medical issue on a longhaul flight (often several) - altitude affects a lot of people along with stress and other factors. Compare that to most ordinary workplaces where the workplace first aider typically goes years without being needed.
As for fire, it is quite possibly the single most dangerous thing on an aircraft. Most workplaces don’t have any kind of fire training whatsoever.
Disruptive/violent passengers training - Actually, they are trained especially post 9/11. Again there’s no police car at 33,000ft.
Away from home - yes it is part of the role - and part of the reason for the pay! Again most job’s people get to be home most if not all nights. There aren’t too many jobs out there were people are away from home more than 50% of the time.
Health & Safety - overall the science acknowledges the issue but hasn’t be confirmed per se. That said, it does confirm the radiation risk (which is why pregnant crew must stop flying fairly early on).
https://www.businessinsider.com/airplan ... 015-11?amphttps://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... nd-aircrewHow does extra pay make it better? Ask anyone in a hazardous role why they get hazard pay.
The role needs to be done, so if someone is going to do it and risk harm to themself doing it then the least that can be done is to be compensated in some form for it.
I’m not sure where you get this high pay band thing from. The pay band is close to minimum wage. Crew do get allowances as per both industry and indeed common business practice for travelling workers. Both the company, and the IRD make it clear that these allowances aren’t and shouldn’t be considered pay (except when it comes to contract negotiation time the company does try to flip that - as do other airlines).
I’m going to leave it at that.
We all clearly have different views on things. I accept my views may come across as disrespectful but it's not intended to be so. It's a sensitive topic but if we're going to talk about it and if someone is going to disagree with it will become that, the down side to forums and social media is things can be interrupted in so many ways.
The arguments of why crew should get higher pay are weak in my opinion. Call that disgusting if you wish. There's plenty of pro's to being crew none of which get talked about, just a few common themes.
I've tried to keep my thoughts as factual as best I can basing it on skills & duties of the position description. Aligning it to 'on ground' positions. This is what happens in the HR environment when a position is created. Admittedly crew hasn't just been created but when you size up a position this is how the renumeration is set.
Being a first aider doesn't quantify for a higher band salary. Yes, being 33,000 feet in the air has it's serious challenges, but crew have access to dedicated medical support while in the air anywhere in the world, procedure is also to seek an onboard medical professional first as well. The vast majority of cases can be managed via these two means.
Fire is rear. Being trained in what to do in the event of a fire is SOP 101. Again - why would one be putting the hand out for more when there's been how many fires in the last 20 years?
As for calling it a hazardous role which entitled one to hazard pay, that's it's own minefield of considerations and I don't think any airline would be willing to label cabin crew as a hazardous workplace in the sense of paying crew based on that.
I completely accept working shifts, moving time zones, long hours takes it's toll. Where crew are working frequently, long hours, away from home etc they are being paid okay based on the skill and duties. Look up at my $80K example above. Where they're working standby, double bangers etc it's not so flash but many of those horrible work place conditions are reduced or gone. You're at home at night or at home full stop.
I do believe improvements can be made, I don't dispute that but I just think we need to remember what the core job is.
Clearly airlines see this is as I do as it's not just NZ in this position.
But let's leave it at that like you say.
aerokiwi wrote: Oh and save their lives in the event of an emergency, risk their own via mechanical/pilot error
This is what I mean by weak arguments.
They are trained in what to do in the event of an emergency, preforming these duties is NOT a routine task. If the argument is there's risk in flying, you need to be reminded you have people paying you to be there.