21 ms·
United, Spirit offer higher pay to on board staff during January
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
- geocrasher 5y agoIt 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.
- generalizations 5y agoSeems 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.
- londons_explore 5y agoFlight attendants are already significantly more likely to get cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865289/ I wonder how the COVID risk compares?
- dnautics 5y agoIsn't that most likely due to radiation?
- londons_explore 5y agoSeems likely, although as the paper points out, there are a few other possible causes too, like use of pretty powerful insecticides on many routes.
- dnautics 5y agoSure, 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
- throwawayboise 5y agoThe air in a pressurized aircraft cabin is often unhealthy also, due to contamination with lubricants/hydraulic fluids in the engine bleed air.
- bobthepanda 5y agothe 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.
- laurent92 5y agoPlease 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).
- hammock 5y agoWhere can I read more about this?
- eej71 5y agoAs 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?
- yardie 5y agoIt’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.
- eej71 5y agoI 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.
- sokoloff 5y agoSame is true of H3N2 and other flu variants. “Zero risk” is not a reasonable threshold for routine life decisions, IMO.
- mlyle 5y agoZero 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.
- snuze 5y ago
- stepbeek 5y ago> You seem to think masks matter Do they not?
- spaceisballer 5y agoPeople in my county have given up with masks. We are maybe 60% vaccinated but I feel there is a false sense of security because of the low population density. It’s so easy to wear a mask and give yourself protection, but you also have the added problem that people don’t seem to understand how to fit a mask properly either.
- meling 5y agoNasal cleansing sounds interesting. Where can I read more about it? How often would you need to cleans and what’s the cost? Is this recommended in the US? How is it different from traditional nasal spray for stuffed nose?
- jazzyjackson 5y agoIt’s not recommended in US but apparently it’s big in Thailand, some 80% of the population making use of it as a part of traditional medicine (Hatha Yoga) - Thailand was famously doing very well for the first year (low case rates), but apparently they have since caught up. One article with lots of interesting stats (get your Adblock ready): https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/did-nasal-rinsing-help-asean-control-pandemic-or-swift-action-1703801-2020-07-24 https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/did-nasal-rins... General details on the practice: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_(Hatha_Yoga) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_(Hatha_Yoga)
- selimthegrim 5y agoUsually it is not recommended due to the risk of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naegleria_fowleri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naegleria_fowleri
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago> "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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 5y agoI don't know if it's 'dangerous' but it is certainly extremely unhealthy. https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/flight-attendant-unhealthy-job-risks https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/flight-at...
- ErikVandeWater 5y agoI'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.
- 813594 5y agoMost dermatologists do not recommend Neosporin. https://www.newportbeachdps.com/polysporin-instead-neosporin/ https://www.newportbeachdps.com/polysporin-instead-neosporin...
- michaelt 5y agoPresumably 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.
- tandymodel100 5y agoIf they are vaccinated and boosted their health risks are minimal.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- smabie 5y agoYou're saying there's no amount of money for which you would do that? I am highly skeptical
- cowpig 5y ago> "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?
- whynotminot 5y agoWell, 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.
- nonfamous 5y agoThe headline was incorrect at publication, and has since been corrected to “double pay”.
- spiderice 5y agoYeah, seems someone is conflating "200% pay increase" and "200% pay". Not clear which one is right from the article.
- hoten 5y agoOutside 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!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- perfecthjrjth 5y agoHeadline 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.
- tyingq 5y agoPretty 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-Holiday-Pay-MOU-December-2021-fully-executed.pdf https://spiritafa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/AFA-2021-Ho... https://afanewsletters.org/view/?id=30743 https://afanewsletters.org/view/?id=30743 That "triple" word, though, is now in many news stories.
- sharkweek 5y agoIf 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
- sneak 5y ago> 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.
- caminante 5y agoAdding 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).
- maxerickson 5y agoThe 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.
- flyinglizard 5y agoAn option contract on free travel would be worth significantly more than $0.
- Animats 5y agoTheir normal pay is $13-$16/hour.[1] [1] https://everydayaviation.com/spirit-airlines-flight-attendant-guide/ https://everydayaviation.com/spirit-airlines-flight-attendan...
- chrisseaton 5y agoWow and I think as well they're only paid when they're actually on an aircraft?
- MattGaiser 5y agoAt 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-cfau-1.4575681 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/westjet-minimum-wage-cupe-c...
- db65edfc7996 5y agoThat 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.
- sneak 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages 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.
- dehrmann 5y agoA 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.
- ssklash 5y agoImagine if they didn't have a union representing them. I think it's about a 0% chance Spirit does this without it.
- dehrmann 5y 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.
- streetcat1 5y agoI 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.
- dehrmann 5y agoIt'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.
- throwawayboise 5y agoYou also historically had to be female, white, thin, attractive, and basically look like a Barbie Doll.
- ghaff 5y agoBack 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.
- streetcat1 5y ago
- Shadonototra 5y agoif 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
- tpmx 5y agoPeak vs average.
- andromeduck 5y agoAirlines don't make money from flying.
- GekkePrutser 5y agoWhat then?
- andromeduck 5y agoCredit card points & loyalty programs.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoIf 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.
- otterley 5y agoFlagging to change title to "double" since it's been corrected upstream.
- grzm 5y agoFor title changes, it's more effective to email the mods directly via the Contact link in the footer.