Safety versus Passenger Service: The Flight Attendants’ Dilemma

The article “Safety Versus Passenger Service: The Flight Attendants’ Dilemma” written b y  Diane L. Damos ,  Kimberly S Boyett  and  Patt Gibbs   in 2013, discusses the impact of the changes in flights standards after the 9/11 on the service of the flight attendant and their performance both on domestic and international flights. The new security measures were implemented to enforce safety. The changes made in the in-flight duties after 9/11 demanded a reduction in air travel that prompted various American air carriers to decrease their operating costs, which led to the exclusion of most of the on-board amenities, which also meant a reduction in flight attendants. The duties for cabin crew are grouped into three, including the passenger, security, and safety service. However, with the new security procedures prompted flight attendants to dedicate most of their time in carrying out the security and safety processes. The implemented security and safety tasks included checking to ensure the passengers have fastened their seat belt when an aircraft experiences turbulence. Turbulence can result in loss of balance to any person walking or standing. Therefore, the cabin crew is required to perform a safety compliance check to ensure everybody is safe. Also, the flight attendants were tasked to carry out inspections of the lavatory every 2 hours to ensure there are sufficient supplies and check for foreign items and smoke.

Moreover, the flight attendants were needed to check each cabin every 15 minutes, when passengers were not having beverages or meals. Attended cabin is another security and safety task whereby one of the flight attendants is required to oversee the activities taking place in every cabin all the time. Furthermore, the flight attendants were required to serve as guards to protect the access of the cockpit. Consequently, the flight attendants were required to conduct safety compliance checks, whereby they check to ensure the passengers have fastened their seat belts when the aircraft is about to land. These security and safety duties were time-consuming and thus affected the specified standard of airline performance. According to the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), every U.S airline carrying passengers should have at least three to six-cabin crews. 

The minimum number provided by the FAA is perceived as a safety measure. The increased workload posed a challenge in executing the security and safety duties promptly and accomplishing the standards of performance. Evidence reveals that troublesome passengers, limited time spend at home, long working hours, and unbalanced working timetables often result in job dissatisfaction, affect mental health, and work-related pressure. The new security and safety measures failed to take into consideration the rest of the flight attendant needed, which caused them to miss on the security and safety tasks and failing to meet the performance goals. The provision of high-quality service to passengers offers an economic edge for an air carrier. It makes it distinctive from other air carriers and creates customer loyalty.

This study used both transatlantic and domestic flights to conduct research. The selected three transatlantic flights for the study include the New York-Paris, London-Chicago, and the New York-London. The study findings indicate that it was challenging for these transatlantic flights to achieve the set standards of performance, especially the one that operates during the evening time. Most of the security and safety duties were not performed within the required time. The crews in all the three flights did not have an in-flight rest. If the flight attendants were to claim rest breaks, it means the in-flight schedule would fall behind, fail to accomplish the security and safety duties, and fail to meet the performance deadline. 

Findings indicate that the new security and safety measures negatively impact on the service performance of flight attendants, which in turn affect customer loyalty to the aircraft. For instance, the 15-minutes inspections were carried out only one time during the flight, which does not meet the set security measures. The slow performance or omission of these security measures is an indication that there is no clear trade-off between the security tasks and passenger duties.

In comparison, the domestic flights revealed a decreased performance as opposed to the transatlantic flights. On the other hand, domestic flights had more in-flight security and safety tasks than domestic flights. Evidence reveals that flight attendants guarding the cockpit were interrupted from time to time to serve passengers with meals. These incidents offer a perception that serving passengers was of more significance over security and safety activities. If the flight attendants fail to provide passenger services, they may face disciplinary actions, and at the same time, they must enforce the established security measures. The increased workload is mirrored in the low performance of the flight attendants in the aircraft. The study findings reveal that the flight attendants were unable to meet all the security duties promptly while meeting the standards of performance of each carrier as required. 

Failure of both the domestic and transatlantic flights to meet the performance standards and the security and safety tasks indicates that most of the service activities are happening in the evening flight. Putting in place some changes such us serving the second meals earlier, changing the times at which these tasks are carried out, or getting rid of some of these tasks could contribute significantly towards easing the workload in the evening flight. Moreover, the disciplinary actions that are put in place may cause the flight attendants to prioritize passenger services over security and safety activities, due to fear of the possible consequences they may have to face if they are reported. 

Reference

Damos, D. L., Boyett, K. S., & Gibbs, P. (2013). Safety versus passenger service: The flight attendants’ dilemma.  The International journal of aviation psychology ,  23 (2), 91-112.