United, Spirit offer higher pay to on board staff during January | Hacker News Reader

United, Spirit offer higher pay to on board staff during January

reuters.com

94 pointsjaredwiener110 comments

It saddens me that this is even necessary. On one hand I want to say "kudos!" for recognizing the inherent hazard to their staff, but the cynical side of me also says "is avoiding cancellations worth flight attendants risking their health or safety?"

I don't have an answer. Food for thought. For myself I don't think there's enough hazard pay available to get me on a plane with a bunch of stressed out people who just spent their maskless holiday travelling with strangers and to maskless family gatherings, whether masks are required on the aircraft or not.

> "is avoiding cancellations worth flight attendants risking their health or safety?"

It seems you are disproportionately concerned with Covid as opposed to other occupational hazards. There's a lot of jobs that are dangerous, and being a flight attendant isn't one of them.

I don't know if it's 'dangerous' but it is certainly extremely unhealthy.

https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/flight-at...

I'd trust that if it gave Business Insider gave a methodology that wasn't absurdly vague. And in the top three hazards listed for flight attendants is "Exposure to minor burns, cuts, bites, or stings." That's not threatening to the health of anyone familiar with bandaids and Neosporin.

Most dermatologists do not recommend Neosporin. https://www.newportbeachdps.com/polysporin-instead-neosporin...

Presumably flight attendants' jobs became substantially more challenging when so many Americans want to take off their mask, and it's the flight attendants that have to get them to keep them on.

Seems like it was left up to the flight attendants themselves (and union) to decide. They probably have a decent idea of what risk/reward ratio they're comfortable with.

Flight attendants are already significantly more likely to get cancer:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865289/

I wonder how the COVID risk compares?

Isn't that most likely due to radiation?

Seems likely, although as the paper points out, there are a few other possible causes too, like use of pretty powerful insecticides on many routes.

The air in a pressurized aircraft cabin is often unhealthy also, due to contamination with lubricants/hydraulic fluids in the engine bleed air.

Please call this “fume events”, as the risk is desperately concentrated on a few flights in a dozen years, and fume events are not yet recognized as events (“just renew the air and no-one will see” - while we have amateur testimonials that people get conditions for life after such events).

Where can I read more about this?

the unorthodox sleep schedules required to fit flight schedules is also probably a contributing factor. night shifts and irregular schedules have been correlated with negative health outcomes for a long time.

Sure, if I had to guess something that wasn't radiation, I'd guess stress, which I would guess could depress your immune system and make you more susceptible to C19

As far as I can determine, once you are vaccinated, the risk of serious illness drops down considerably. So much so that (from what I can assess), you are effectively back in range of "its just the flu". No?

For most people yes, and those who are high risk (elderly, obese, immunocompromised) are likely not working as flight attendants.

But many flight attendants will have high risk family members, friends, housemates, etc.

Who should also, hopefully, be vaxxed. And then in the case of them being severely immunocompromised, well, I’m not sure it’s the responsibility of someone to be required to do something because someone they interact with knows someone who knows someone who might be affected by it and may be among the 3% of Americans who are immunocompromised.

At that point perhaps a job that requires you being around people isn’t the job for you, or you should get and wear an N95 mask because if it’s not COVID you’re going to be bringing other germs and bacteria and viruses home anyway - for example I just got done recovering from the flu not long ago. Note that masks on a plane weren’t required prior to COVID to protect friends of friends of friends, even though the flu kills many also.

You could spread it to your vulnerable family at home

It’s still a nonzero risk of catching it and it being fatal. And there is the lost opportunity in being positive, having to isolate, and not having income above your base pay.

There is also a nonzero risk of catching the flu and being fatal.

There is also a nonzero risk of the plane crashing and being fatal.

...

Zero risk is not posible. It's about reducing the risks as much as possible and then managing them.

Same is true of H3N2 and other flu variants.

“Zero risk” is not a reasonable threshold for routine life decisions, IMO.

Zero risk isn't. But the risk picture right now is crummy.

I'm a teacher and 42 years old. I think the risk, if I catch it, being vaccinated and fully boosted, is about 3x the risk from infleunza. And I have a substantially higher chance of catching it than influenza in any given timespan with how high case counts are.

But even more than that: I can shoulder that risk. But when you stack the risk of all the disruption that would come with a mild infection, things are really crummy now.

Then there's the worst thing: my dad is immunocompromised. He's vaccinated and boosted, but one can assume the efficacy is even worse for him. So, effectively, while I'm teaching and case counts are high, I can't see him.

So I went rummaging around to see what the stats were for flu risk vs. covid-19 (w/ vaccine) risk.

Judging by the this website of historical data, looks like deaths per year seems to average around 15/100,000 a year. It's interesting to see how the number has come down quite a bit over the last 40 years. Check it out. Was quite a bit higher even in the late 90s!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184574/deaths-by-influen...

Now onto the fatality rate for covid-19 for those who have been vaccinated. Judging by the CDC's table here, looks like it is around 35/100,000 after the 2nd shot. I do think (hope?) the number will improve a bit thanks to post infection treatment protocols.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm#T2_down

> Judging by the CDC's table here, looks like it is around 35/100,000 after the 2nd shot.

Yes, so this is a different approach than I took, but it's yielding equivalent numbers. You have about 2x the risk of influenza after vaccination for the population as a whole. It's a bit worse at my age (influenza death rates don't rise much for age 42, but COVID death rates do a bit more). And now we have Omicron showing up and reducing protection from vaccination. So back of the envelope from these numbers it's reasonable to come up with an estimate of 3x, too.

Of course, this approach has myriad flaws-- better to take the conditional probability approach that I did and look at probability of infection and probability of severe illness given infection.

In any case: I can accept a 3x influenza risk. It's the cumulative effects of the others that is making me take every possible precaution. And even so, I can't really see my dad.

I think a bump in pay makes a lot of sense - but I sometimes get the sense that there's a large disconnect between what people _feel_ the risk profile is (with vaccines) vs. what the actual risk profile is.

From my standpoint, vaccines have transformed the risk profile back into the usual background noise of everyday life. It's perhaps slightly worse than the usual flu season, but nothing to be overly alarmed with.

It makes sense for organizations to have plans for a drop in staffing availability. But to charactertize that as putting people's lives at risk seems... over the top to me.

You're saying there's no amount of money for which you would do that? I am highly skeptical

If they are vaccinated and boosted their health risks are minimal.

Their normal pay is $13-$16/hour.[1]

[1] https://everydayaviation.com/spirit-airlines-flight-attendan...

Wow and I think as well they're only paid when they're actually on an aircraft?

At least in Canada, it is sometimes only when in the air. They do not seem to be paid for boarding time.

> It's industry standard for flight attendants' pay to be based on the time from wheels up to wheels down, although most airlines also provide some compensation for the time flight attendants spend at airports before and after flights. WestJet does not, and it's become a sticking point with flight attendants as minimum wages rise across the country.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/westjet-minimum-wage-cupe-c...

That is unbelievable. I am already furious when I am stuck sitting on the tarmac pre/post flight "do nothing". Cannot imagine how angry I would be if I was at work but not getting paid for it.

I am surprised that this is legal. I mean that would be like paying developers only if they sit in front of the keyboard and not for the meetings.

A lot of flight attendants are unionized. I'm sure flight attendants bake it into their effective wage and not worry about it.

I do wonder if this odd arrangement would work for non-union jobs since you're clearly working as soon as they want you at the airport.

Being unionised just means you can collectively ask for what you want. It doesn't mean you necessarily get it. I'm sure they're not massively happy being paid $12 an hour either, but by your argument they are?

My argument is that they're happy enough with "wheels up" pay because that's how things work, and if airlines started paying for time at the airport, they'd make the same, just at a lower wage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages

This seeps into the unskilled-adjacent industries (like foodservice, on the ground or in the air) because approximately ~anyone can be trained up to do the job.

I’ll fairly sure that this is illegal, but I guess anybody who pushed the issue would stop getting called in to work

Not even that, actually. It's usually "block hours", meaning the clock roughly starts/stops when the cabin door opens/shuts.

One big upside of the pandemic is seeing it disturb the labor supply so much that employers are having to negotiate pay in the lowest paid jobs.

So when they're standing greeting you and wishing you farewell at the door they're doing that for free?

At most airlines, yes. Also managing all the boarding angst, complaints about overhead bins, etc.

How is that legal?

Not sure, though there is more to it. There's also usually a smaller hourly per-diem that isn't bounded by block hours. And seniority drives pay. If you stick to it, it does eventually pay higher than many other jobs that don't require a college degree.

Spirit probably isn't the best example either. Some other airlines provide much higher starting wages, and things like profit sharing.

Some are only paid duty pay when on an aircraft with the door closed.

$50/hr after ten years. That's crazy! But I guess that type of seniority preference is typical among union jobs.

Making this a very easy decision for the airline, especially when you look at the total cost of flights.

If you told me to guess whether Hell had frozen over with flying pigs overhead or Spirit Airlines would somehow make a move like this, I would have bet the farm on the former.

But in all seriousness, friend’s mom is a flight attendant for a major carrier as a sort of “semi-retirement” career. I can’t believe the stories she has to share when we see her. They are so underpaid and overworked. She likes the free travel though so I guess that’s something. She also has a pretty sarcastic personality and does a good job rolling her eyes at bullshit.

Some horror stories:

- Having to stop a couple from actively fornicating in their row (not even in the restroom)

- Being handed a leaking poopy diaper for her to “do something with”

- Routinely being harassed, sexually/physically/mentally

> They are so underpaid and overworked.

Care to give any specifics? A quick Google shows flight attendant salry in the US can range anywhere from $17k/yr to $120k/yr, with an average answer closer to about $32k-$50k/yr

Can you define overworked? How many hours a week is your friend's mom working a week? 40? 50? 60?

If she's working 60 hours a week for $40k/yr, I would say she's partially to blame. It's up to you to not let your employer take advantage of you.

This comment is really lacking in compassion. I hope you realize eventually how crass it is to blame an employee just trying to feed and house themselves when they're faced with abusive or exploitive employers.

> They are so underpaid and overworked

If they were either, they would stop showing up.

Which is what happened, at one airline. Which is why the pay went up.

It's a little bit ridiculous to complain about low wages for a job in a thread about an employer tripling wages to ensure that the job in question is staffed.

> It's a little bit ridiculous to complain about low wages for a job in a thread about an employer tripling wages to ensure that the job in question is staffed.

It's a little bit ridiculous that their pay is so low that increasing it enough to keep it staffed means triple.

If your employer started getting desperate could they offer 3x your salary? Would they need to come anywhere close?

It is double pay through the next four days, so it's not like they're double salaries for new hires.

(It's also double pay; the headline has been corrected.)

3x my salary for a week? Definitely. In fact, I've gotten more than that as a end-of-year-good-job-we-did-it bonus.

Double pay is quite common over the holidays for any hourly role. Flight attendants are unionized so they're far from making minimum wage. This article is really not news, every decent company pays double time over the holidays.

At the time of the comment it was triple, not double.

Adding on, the aforementioned worker is semi-retired and gets travel perks as part of the package. I don't know what the value of their travel is, but it seems fair to consider that part of their pay (used or not).

The fair value of an unused travel perk would be $0, no?

Like health insurance that doesn't get used is valued well above $0, but it's providing risk mitigation. A travel perk isn't risk mitigation.

Sure but there are enough people who want & use the travel perk for it to be effectively part of the compensation. If you don't want that or can't use it then a career as a flight attendant is probably not very attractive.

You could make an argument that COVID has made it difficult/impossible to use that perk so perhaps that perk really is worth ~2x the salary.

Why assume a travel perk isn't risk mitigation, i.e. avoiding the spot price of a trip you wanted?

You're conflating common usage of "value".

An option contract on free travel would be worth significantly more than $0.

The travel is standby for flight attendants, so they don't go if flight is full. Though sometimes they take a folding seat.

A few years ago it was $10,000 a year to get added as pilot's family member for that travel perk. I don't know how that may have changed over the past couple years.

I did not understand why the carriers allowed that.

Oh, is that how they structure it?

It's not literally an option contract, but it's to point out something has value even if you don't exercise it.

Imagine if they didn't have a union representing them. I think it's about a 0% chance Spirit does this without it.

I would guess they are doing this entirely to keep people working through this crazy season. I have had 3 legs of flights cancelled (on different airlines) over the holidays due to lack of staff.

I think if this had anything to do with unions it would have happened a while ago.

> Coupled with the prospect of dealing with unruly passengers, many pilots and cabin crew are even forgoing overtime incentives.

I doubt their union had much to do with this beyond saying "yes" and passing on the good news. Spirit did this because they're desperate to not cancel more flights.

I would imagine that without unions, flight attended would probably earn much more today without the need for a raise.

The fact is that those flight attended are working at 1/3 of the market rate currently.

It's an interesting market because the job was historically glamorous, requires minimal skills (HS diploma) and training (10 weeks?), and has the perk of free travel. That's a recipe for low wages, and the reality is the job can be a slog, and the perks are only good if you're with a major carrier.

You also historically had to be female, white, thin, attractive, and basically look like a Barbie Doll.

Back in PanAm days it was a job you mostly did for five years post HS or college and then got married. I’m told the situation still somewhat applies in the big Asian carriers that get all the top ratings.

In which case, why do they got 3X raise? Did they increase the req for the job?

They also work for a budget airline known for cutting costs, so I doubt it's the union driving down wages, in this case.

why you doubt that? They are working at 1/3 of the rate, no?

if they can triple salary over night, it says a lot about how people are underpaid

it's same story as the new phones that drops -70% month after release

Airlines don't make money from flying.

What then?

Credit card points & loyalty programs.

If airlines did not make money from flying, then it seems like a no brainer for them to stop flying in order to avoid wasting time and effort for no gain.

I assume the people the operate airlines have at least some brains, though.

Peak vs average.

Flagging to change title to "double" since it's been corrected upstream.

For title changes, it's more effective to email the mods directly via the Contact link in the footer.

> "All flight attendants, regardless of how you have obtained your pairing, will be receiving 200% pay for any pairing that touches Dec. 28 through Jan. 4," the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA said in a statement.

I'm confused, is it triple pay or 200% pay?

Pretty sure it's just 200% / 2x. Here's the official MOU and FAQ from the union:

https://spiritafa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/AFA-2021-Ho...

https://afanewsletters.org/view/?id=30743

That "triple" word, though, is now in many news stories.

I really wish people wouldn't use terms like 200%. 2x (or 3x) is far less ambiguous.

It's not that ambiguous.

The actual statement was "flight attendants [...] will be receiving 200% pay", which means they'll be getting double their pay. If the statement had been "flight attendants will receive a 200% pay increase", then that'd be triple their pay.

The actual confusion was caused by the fact that pilots will receive triple pay through an overlapping period.

"Will be receiving twice their pay" would be even less ambiguous though. I'm always unsure about the parsing of statements like these.

"If the statement had been "flight attendants will receive a 200% pay increase", then that'd be triple their pay." I'd be very uncertain what the writer meant by this even if your interpretation is the technically correct one.

Yeah, seems someone is conflating "200% pay increase" and "200% pay". Not clear which one is right from the article.

Outside of a math class the latter is never what anyone means. Your manager won't frame an annual raise as "104% pay".

Just to say, it's odd how often people trip themselves up on this!

The headline was incorrect at publication, and has since been corrected to “double pay”.

Well, a 100% increase would be doubling, right? So an increase of your salary by 200% would in fact be a tripling?

The mixture of math and regular language can be a real head spin.

Headline thinks 200% + base pay. Even the line you cite supports that view. That sentence is ambiguous anyway. One can read it as 200% pay (including the base pay) or as bonus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com