American Airlines Flight Attendants Decry 787 Staffing Reductions

The Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), which represents 28,000 flight attendants at American Airlines, has come out strongly against attempts by American Airlines to certify its 787-9 jet with a minimum staffing of seven flight attendants (instead of eight). Does the union make a reasonable point?

American Airlines Flight Attendants Fight Against Minimum Staffing On New 787 Jet

American plans to staff its latest 787-9, featuring a premium-heavy 244-seat configuration, with nine flight attendants, but wants to certify the plane to operate with only seven flight attendants. This would merely match what other carriers, like United, have done:

This week, American management made clear their intention to work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to certify new 787-9P aircraft with a minimum of seven (7) Flight Attendants, moving our minimum requirements on this aircraft closer to our US competitors who have similar equipment and seating configuration.

This minimum staffing is in alignment with other carriers 787 minimum staffing, namely United Airlines, who have the ability to staff their 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series with an FAA minimum of seven (7) Flight Attendants.

But as noted by JonNYC the union is unwilling to sign on, saying it represents a grave threat to safety:

This is yet another unacceptable erosion of Flight Attendant staffing. It is unrealistic and unsafe to expect that seven Flight Attendants can adequately serve and ensure safety under the new configuration of the 787-9P, especially with an increase to 51 private Business Class Suites, with each seat bringing added Flight Attendant workload in an already understaffed cabin.

Further, the FAA mandates that suite doors remain locked open during taxi, takeoff, and landing, which adds a critical new safety task for Flight Attendants. It is impossible to perform these additional duties without compromising safety and service standards.

APFA categorically rejects the changes to the minimum crew requirement on the new 787-9P. Our safety, workload, and working conditions are non-negotiable.

Here’s a screenshot of the memo:

AA 798 FA staffing pic.twitter.com/kZfCfJEYmp

— JonNYC (@xJonNYC) December 5, 2024

I Tend To Side With The Union Here…

I find this an interesting situation. One Mile At A Time says he’s pro-union, but the union is out of line here. I’m generally far less pro-union (not because I am against unions providing a necessary bulwark against corporate greed and much-needed safeguards for employees, but because I find them ineffective, far too focused on protecting senior flight attendants at the expense of junior flight attendants, perpetually griping about service improvements onboard, and dwelling too much on divisive political causes), but find myself siding with the union here.

And I take this position even with the stipulation that the motives of the union are not necessarily clean. Think about it. If the union is successful in blocking this change, if a crewmember gets sick, the flight cannot operate. As a result, the other flight attendants will be paid for not working. And if the delay messes up their downline schedule (due to minimum rest time between flights) they could be paid for several days of not working. Therefore, there is a pecuniary incentive for a crewmember to take a sick day, even if just suffering from a common cold.

Even so, am I the only one who finds it ridiculous to operate a 787 with only seven flight attendants? Flight attendants remind us over and over that they are “primarily here for our safety” and that most poignantly includes facilitating a hasty evacuation in case of an emergency.

Do we really want a flight attendant having to open two doors during an emergency on a widebody jet?

I’m not saying it is impossible…indeed, United’s minimum staffing on its 787-10, which have 30% more seats (318 versus 244), is seven. And I recognize it would be in very rare circumstances (two crewmembers would have to fall ill or become injured).

But is this really the sort of cost-cutting that is wise? Is it really worth potentially jeopardizing the safety of the aircraft to save a few hundred bucks…or even tens of thousands of bucks? While the “free market” is a wonderful theoretical concept, I don’t want a minimum baseline of safety sacrificed. And yes, I’d hate to have to evacuate a United 787-10 with only seven flight attendants…

So I guess I see this differently. I think seven flight attendants are too little on a 787, period. And yes, I think senior and junior flight attendants should not have such a wide disparity in pay and flight attendants should be terminated for being rude onboard…so don’t think I’m a union shill here. And yes, I know the A319, for example, has six exits and only three flight attendants…I’m just not convinced on the 787, but open to being convinced. I’d love to hear from flight attendants here.

Do you agree with my assessment of this matter?

image: American Airlines