Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 39): But how else am I going to get the attention I deserve?

Who says you deserve it?

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 47): Just wanted to say thank you to those of you that have honored Mr. Reardon with your positive comments and serious questions. He could be quite the ham and I think he would have enjoyed the attention (all the while saying he hated it). I am attaching a link that will show your some pictures of Bob and remembrances by some of my colleagues that knew him well.

I'm an agent , but enjoyed reading this about Mr Reardon. Cool, detailed information from you, and nice tribute, well done.

Quoting european742 (Reply 48): For those who said they think crew being there for your safety is bull **** then well done, all cabin crew on here hate you now! If that was not true there would not be any on board, there would just be vending machines. If you were involved in an air accident, who would you want to rely on to get you out of there and save your life? Think before you speak morons!!

While it is stupid to deny the safety aspect, it is equally stupid to deny the other aspects of being a flight attendant entails.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 52): While it is stupid to deny the safety aspect, it is equally stupid to deny the other aspects of being a flight attendant entails.

I don't think anyone is denying it, but while the FAA requires the F/As there for safety, they DO NOT require them there to serve meals, drinks, etc.

Quoting mayor (Reply 53): I don't think anyone is denying it, but while the FAA requires the F/As there for safety, they DO NOT require them there to serve meals, drinks, etc.

Nobody here denies that, but all too often many FAs hide behind the poor excuse of "primarily for your safety" and dont give a damn about pax. I dont know of any airline that hires FAs only for safety, they are there also for providing service and are the face of the airline. Let's face it, most pax and FAs will never experience any safety issues, so in the end they will mostly be there for other things than safety.

RIP Indeed, and excellent tribute.
Curiously, with Bob's passing, I wonder who is the oldest actively flying flight attendant?

Quoting B747forever (Reply 54): I dont know of any airline that hires FAs only for safety, they are there also for providing service and are the face of the airline. Let's face it, most pax and FAs will never experience any safety issues, so in the end they will mostly be there for other things than safety.

I'll bet you money that an F/A that fails any safety criteria when being hired, it won't make any difference if they can serve meals and drinks............they'll be gone.

I've tried to bite my tongue out of respect for Mr Reardon, but some of the ignorance in this thread is truly astounding.

Quoting mayor (Reply 56): I'll bet you money that an F/A that fails any safety criteria when being hired, it won't make any difference if they can serve meals and drinks............they'll be gone.

You're right on the money, you can be so-so at the service you provide, but the moment any of the safety criteria can't be met and retraining is unsuccessful, you WILL lose your job.

---

I don't think people realise the ongoing training and assessment that cabin crew go through. It isn't as simple as sitting in a classroom for a month and then flying. Even after they're 'qualified' to fly without a trainer, they are still assessed at set intervals on their ability to evacuate an aircraft, deal with different emergency situations, first aid, crew resource management, etc. Crew are assessed both on the ground with no passengers around and also during normal flights - there may be feedback regarding 'issues' in the service, but they generally won't be so detrimental that you would fail the examination. On the other hand, if it is something safety related you very likely will.

In the last 12 months alone, I have had to undertake the following examinations/certifications that have little to nothing to do with passenger service:

2x line checks (assessed on operating procedures in flight)
1x emergency procedures examinations, including written and verbal examinations, having to simulate both emergency landings and ditchings and that I know the difference in procedures between the two. Involves having to shout, word for word, what I'm expected to shout at the passengers in a real emergency. Also involves being assessed on how to check and use every piece of emergency equipment and how to tell the difference between different brands of, say, fire extinguishers. Need to know the exact durations and operations of every piece and demonstrate it successfully. We also need to demonstrate how to shut down the engines in the event the pilots are incapacitated, how to fit their oxygen and how to operate their seats in the flight deck. For our crew that are endorsed on more than 1 aircraft type, they need to repeat this course each year for each additional aircraft type.
1x mock water drills, including having to simulate using a life raft and its safety features even though they are generally not even used on our aircraft.
1x crew resource management refresher.
1x dangerous goods training, how to identify the different dangerous goods labels and how to deal with each type in the event that a hazard is created.

By all means people, tell me I'm not there for your safety. If cabin crew were there solely to provide a service, what would you do if there was a fire in the cabin? What if there was a decompression or a medical emergency? How would the pilots be contacted for any issues? What if the aircraft crash lands and no one knows how to open the doors? If I'm only there for service then why should I be helping out with any of those things? I take pride in my job and the service I provide, but I do take offense when people try and say I am not there for their safety.

A life of 90+ years should be respected regardless, that is a longer life.than most can hope to expect. It's impressive that he did so without senility or ill health until the end. I especially admire anyone who can maintain their passions for their entire life as Bob has done.

Quoting mayor (Reply 53): but while the FAA requires the F/As there for safety, they DO NOT require them there to serve meals, drinks, etc.

True but with the rather obvious qualification that the FAA do not employ them: the airlines do.

While the customer service expectation varies from airline to airline, on full-service carriers the position involves more than just being on the aircraft to ensure the doors are armed, passengers have seat belts fastened, overhead bins are securely fastened and respond to medical emergencies that occur much more often than aircraft ditching into the sea or overshooting a runway. Safety is vitally important, yes, but many airlines like to stress the level of in-flight service while others make it clear that they offer no frills.

Whatever the level of service it is part of the job description (even forming part of the brand image of the airline) and crew will be assessed on it as well as the very important safety aspects. It goes without saying, the higher the cabin class, the higher the service expectation as it forms one part of product differentiation. How many airlines advertise using images of caring cabin crew offering meals or assisting passengers compared to those showing how safety aware the crew are, despite the importance of safety? This will surely affect the way passengers see the role of crew.

Whether cabin crew hide behind "primarily for your safety" will also depend on the airline's approach to customer service. While it is true that being unable to pass recurrent training will result in dismissal, an airline that places high emphasis on customer satisfaction may be just as ready to terminate someone for poor service, particularly if they have received written complaints (think ME3, for example). Interaction with fellow crew members will also be an important consideration.

Back to Mr Reardon, I think it great that he was able to continue in his vocation for so long. It sounds as if with his dedication to the job, his interaction with fellow crew members and consideration for others he will be missed.

I'm really, really frustrated, mad and most of all really sad that a thread (I had started with the best of intentions among aviation enthusiasts) about a former flight attendant - safety AND service professional!!! - who showed exemplary dedication to the job for almost 63 years and who deserves a little attention and a huge amount of respect quickly evolved into a fight if wether flight attendants are primarily there for safety or not!!!

SERIOUSLY!!!???

I mean really? Seriously? A discussion like that in a thread like that?! What's wrong?!

It took seven replies to hijack this thread and turn it into a "warzone" !!! Thank You Mr. Michael Kramer alias ikramerica for that! You must live a very sad, boring and frustrating life since you couldn't resist not even out of respect for Mr. Reardon who was an airline professional and enthusiast long before you were on this planet! No respect whatsoever! You couldn't hold it back not even out of respect for a 92 year old gentleman who dedicated his entire career which span over six decades to making sure the passengers on his flights - whom he respected and looked at as paying customers - were safe, comfortable and received great service and motivated his fellow crew members by being a role model.

Mr. Reardon was an airline professional for over 60 years, he recently passed away, it's his thread to commemorate and honor his career, his service, his life in a forum concerning civil aviation on a site which is called "AIRLINERS" from aviation enthusiasts for aviation enthusiasts! And a great deal of those who call themselves exactly that "aviation enthusiasts" are trying to ruin this entire thread with a POINTLESS, STUPID and IGNORANT discussion! Unbelievable! How disrespectful can people actually be?!

Can we please just ignore the "haters" in this thread from now on? Please? Can we just ignore them?

The discussion is absolutely pointless! Everybody with a brain and a basic knowledge of aviation (I'm not talkking about Joe Average) knows that Flight Attendants are primarily there for safety and security reasons. A quick look into how the job was actually created and developed over time recons that, a quick look into current laws, regulations and requirements confirms it! PERIOD! And yes Flight Attendants face the safety and security aspect on each and every single flight no matter if they encounter an actual emergency or not! Because with all the safety and security related duties before, during and after every single flight they make sure their planes are safe and ready to go and will stay safe! And yes every now and then Flight Attendants encounter real emergencies, what happens quite often are medical emergencies for instance! We've all had our share! And yes every Flight Attendant has to requalify in recurrent safety, security, CRM and first aid training - regardless of age and seniority - once a year!

At the same time however everybody with a brain knows just as well that being a Flight Attendant is more than just safety and security and is a customer service role. Airlines hire Flight Attendants to be friendly, attentive and provide all kinds of services to their customers in addition to the safety role.

It's a combination of safety, security and service aspects! What's so hard to comprehend??? What's so hard to understand about that?

Yes the Flight attendant serving you a meal, a beverage, duty free, finding you another seat, hanging your coat, picking up your trash, and making sure the washroom is in tolerable state is the same person that has some sort of authority over you, can give you orders and can tell you what you're allowed to do and what not and will be the one you'll be looking at for some sort of direction and advice when things go wrong! Deep inside you all know that - even you Mr. Michael Kramer alias ikramerica! And Yes the people Flight Attendants have authority over are paying customers who rightfully expect to receive a friendly service, from a professional crew, with smiles and a positive attitude!

Mr. Robert Reardon was the epitome of the perfect Flight Attendant! He absolutely epitomized both the safety and service aspect of a demanding job he loved and professionally worked in for over 60 years. A job which the public has the most distorted and skewed image and mental imagination of! Why people on this forum who call themselves "experts" are often stricken by the same distorted image is beyond me?!

I'd like to thank everybody who so far contributed to this thread by giving vital information, telling interesting stories, sharing personal accounts of their interaction with Bob Reardon.

Special Thanks to DTWPurserBoy! Your contribution to this thread was highly appreciated and well liked!

And I'd like to thank everybody who showed their respect to a true professional, great Flight Attendant and amazing personality. Keep that coming! And all the haters please stay away and if they don't then all others please just ignore them out of respect for Bob Reardon.

Thank You!

Best regards
L1011Lover

[Edited 2016-06-12 04:54:16]

***************************************************************
S E A T B E L T S, P L E A S E
***************************************************************

Quoting L1011Lover (Reply 60): I'm really, really frustrated, mad and most of all really sad that a thread (I had started with the best of intentions among aviation enthusiasts) about a former flight attendant - safety AND service professional!!! - who showed exemplary dedication to the job for almost 63 years and who deserves a little attention and a huge amount of respect quickly evolved into a fight if wether flight attendants are primarily there for safety or not!!!

I am a little surprised you are surprised. The topic of older Flight Attendants comes up a lot, and it raises a few questions. Whether those questions are vaild or not is irrlevant, this is a public forum and everyone has the right to ask those questions or express those opinions.

Look at your thread heading .... WORLD'S OLDEST Flight Attendant Dies. Not the "world's best". not the "most loyal" not the "most seasoned" not the "funniest" ... you started the thread off from the start noting the man's age. I think if you had said "NW F/A Bob Reardon Passes Away", that would have got the job done. I know he was Delta Air Lines, but I always remember him with his stories about the DC-4 and Boeing 377 ... not the DL B777.

I met him a few years ago in Palm Springs beside the pool at a meeting of the National Gay Pilot's Association. He was (and still is) an honorary member. I was thrilled by his stories of aviation in the 1950s that no book could ever match. His wit and charm were still sharp at any age. I am sure right to the end he was a fine Flight Attendant and did Delta Air Lines proud, like he did for years at Northwest.

You noted his age ... and people asked about his age. Valid questions. I am glad Gentlemen like DTWPurserBoy took the time and effort to set the record straight.

You think questions about older Flight Attendants and their capabilities shows disrespect to Bob Reardon ... I say the opposite. Everyone thinks it, but it gave the opportunity to show that for the most part, age is not a gauge of how well one does their jobs ... the safety and service of being a Flight Attendant included.

Quoting mayor (Reply 56): I'll bet you money that an F/A that fails any safety criteria when being hired, it won't make any difference if they can serve meals and drinks............they'll be gone.

Quoting L1011Lover (Reply 60): Special Thanks to DTWPurserBoy! Your contribution to this thread was highly appreciated and well liked!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 62): You noted his age ... and people asked about his age. Valid questions. I am glad Gentlemen like DTWPurserBoy took the time and effort to set the record straight.

Gentlemen, I thank you on behalf of Bob Reardon and all of my DL colleagues for the kind acknowledgements.

L1011Lover got it right when he said this thread was there to honor the man and his years of service.

Bob, of course, began his career with Northwest Orient and eventually morphed into Delta. Shortly after the merger was announced, all flight attendants from both carriers had to attend something called "AQ"--meaning aircraft qualification. The Pre-merger NW folks had to learn the MD-88, MD-90, B737, B767, B777, B757 differences and all of their company polices, rules, uniforms and procedures. The pre-merger DL f/a's had it even harder--the had to learn the DC-9, A319/320, A330, B747-400 (which seriously unnerved some of them), B757 differences and DL chose to adopt many of our emergency evacuation procedures which were totally different from theirs. Delta early on wisely decided on using a "best practices" method of deciding things and we in turn learned some great ideas from them. Things like having the Purser/Flight Leader sit in the 1L inboard seat rather than the outboard so they had a complete view of the cabin on take-off and landing and having the aft f/a's make announcements so the leader could concentrate on boarding, greeting and directing passengers to their seats.

It so happened that I was in ATL for the days that Bob completed his transition training and it was hysterical to all of us "red tails" that the Delta f/a's were in absolute awe of him. They posed for pictures in the hall between classes and in the cafeteria at lunch. We all thought it was a hoot because Bob obviously enjoyed the recognition and meeting his new coworkers. The ladies just loved him. He was as nervous as the rest of us as we did our one-on-one emergency door/window exit drills with an instructor. Delta requires strict, non-negotiable responses from us in shouting commands, evacuation procedures and the proper methods of opening emergency exits and how and when to begin an evacuation. The MD88/90 gave us all fits as the aft emergency tail exit is VERY hard to operate and requires a very specific order in which things are done. Bob joined us at the hotel as we laid towels on the floor of a hotel room (to simulate the barrier strap in the back of the aircraft) and practiced with each other and as a result, he sailed right through AQ. But we had a lot of fun, laughter and perhaps a little wine MAY have been consumed.

Mayor's comment is correct--initial training is now 7 weeks, is very difficult and has a significant washout rate. Some choose to leave when they realize how much heavy work is involved, some just cannot hack it academically and some are asked to leave because the instructor staff decides that they are just not what DL wants (read: ATTITUDE). So many of my friends are there now proudly pinning the wings on their daughters and sons as they graduate and it is a real joy to see their happiness. Bob loved it when he had a mother/daughter team working his flights. It is so rewarding to see the continuity in the Delta family pass from one generation to the other.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 62): I am a little surprised you are surprised

Not surpised at all! Disappointed would be a far better description! Disappointed that people use this thread to rant about flight attendants hiding behind the "primarily for safety" attitude. And that has nothing to do with the age of flight attendants. Which brings me to:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 62): Whether those questions are vaild or not is irrlevant, this is a public forum and everyone has the right to ask those questions or express those opinions

I never complained about people asking questions - relevant or irrelevant, stupid or not stupid... Of course people ask questions when they hear about a 90 year old flight attendant. And everybody has the right to do so. I never criticised that nor have I even brought up the issue. So I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me? I'm frustrated about the ongoing POINTLESS discussion if flight attendants are safety or service personell. It'll never stop I know... but I find it rather disturbing and disprespectful to start the same old, pointless, stupid discussion in a thread about an honored senior flight attendant that recenetly passed away and that it only took seven replies for it to happen. Maybe you wanna read my entire post again?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 62): Look at your thread heading .... WORLD'S OLDEST Flight Attendant Dies. Not the "world's best". not the "most loyal" not the "most seasoned" not the "funniest" ... you started the thread off from the start noting the man's age

It's the most distinguishing fact! It's simply a fact and it's THE fact that sets Bob Reardon apart from ALL the other flight attendants. There are other great, dedicated, hard working, funny, professional, loyal, classy flight attendants. So even he belonged to the group of all the top-notch flight attendants, what really distinguished him was the fact that he epitomized all the aforementioned flight attendant qualities and attributes while at the same time being the oldest of them all! So I really don't understand why you're criticising the words I used for this threads headline. Even more so because I never made an issue out of the questions regarding his age. I do understand that people ask those questions... Joe Average has no clue about the fact that regardless of seniority, age etc. every flight attendant has to pass annual recurrent training which includes fighting fires, opening doors, and lifting the heavy overwing exits... simple question, simple answer no big deal! By the way the headline I used was along the phrases the media used.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 62): I think if you had said "NW F/A Bob Reardon Passes Away", that would have got the job done.

Sorry, but you obviously have no clue how headlines, eye catchers, teasers work... Who - even on this forum - would have known who Bob Reardon actually was? Except those who really had the pleasure to meet him or at least reading about him or hearing stories. I know all the names of the senior flight attendants who made headlines, but I (along with a few others) even on this forum am an exception. So if I would have used the words you suggested all that would have caught people's attention would have been the words "passes away"! The guy was 92 years old. This thread is not really about the fact that he died (we all die and most of us won't even make it up to his age) it's foremost about honoring and commemorating his dedication, long career and life! I do agree however that the headline should include his name out of respect. He's a legend and legends have names that everybody should remember.

Finally what actually does surprise me however is the fact that - in a thread honoring veteran flight attendant Bob Reardon, someone you actually met in person! - it took you 62 replies to actually contribute something substantial, interesting and respectful to the actual topic. What surpises me even more: You actually met him!!! But in your first reply all you do is bragging about how you tricked your (obviously in your view lazy) cabin crew to provide the full service to passengers on a delayed flight out of London! Completely off topic! You actually met Bob Reardon and you go completely off topic with your first reply! Only after trying to put me in place with rather unqualified, unobjective (because out of context) arguments you have something to say about and are showing your respect to Bob Reardon - a person you actually met!!! And you expect me to take that serious? Sorry but all I can do is shake my head in disbelief and disappointment.

Best regards
L1011Lover

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 21): at the end of the first service Bob said to me "Now we will change our shirts." I said "Change shirts? In the middle of the flight?" I got a withering look and he said "You DO have a clean shirt with you, don't you?" Well, of course I did but it had been stuffed in my garment bag so he told me to get it and out came his little travel iron and he pressed out the wrinkles in my heavy starch.

Such a nice story from another time and one I apperciate, when service ment service, would have loved to have flown under him.

Quoting L1011Lover (Reply 64): Sorry, but you obviously have no clue how headlines, eye catchers, teasers work... Who - even on this forum - would have known who Bob Reardon actually was?

I think you missed my point, and trust me ... I "have a clue".

The bottom line is that had you mentioned the man's name, or even his historical significance, and not made headlines of the man's age ... the one's that mattered, and recognized him would have clicked and acknowledged his passing.

But ... if as you state, you are looking for "headlines", "eye catchers", and "teasers" to get more people looking. Then don't be surprised that people are in fact reacting to YOUR "headlines", "eye catchers" and "teasers".

I requested the headline to be changed to a more appropriate and honoring one!

Additionally - since the way you argue is so amazingly twisted - allow me to refer to your very own "signature" longhauler  

Best regards
L1011Lover

[Edited 2016-06-12 11:20:08]