The latter are used to putting up with a lot. Salary-wise, they're near the bottom of the scale. Sold a life of relative glamor, they sometimes discover it isn't quite like that.
Yet United's latest contract proposal to its flight attendants appears to mine some difficult areas.
This is, perhaps, to be expected. Negotiations are, for many, all about what you can get away with.
Yet, having perused some of the highlights of the airline's current contract proposal to flight attendants, one clause may rankle basic human feelings: "Life insurance benefits not payable if Flight Attendant used disability benefits before death."
Please forgive me, but I read those words several times and could only think this: "What sort of human being even considers concocting this attempt at money-saving with a functioning heart?"
Naturally, I rephrased that question somewhat before asking it of United Airlines. A spokesman told me he couldn't comment on such details, but added: "We look forward to reaching a new agreement with the Association of Flight Attendants."
I also contacted the AFA and will update, should I hear word.
The mere idea that an employer would try and deny a dead employee's family life insurance benefits because that employee had died while receiving disability benefits may seem quite twisted to many.
It may even verge on offensive, even though -- or, perhaps, especially because -- the airline is offering to increase disability benefits, "but offset by all other benefits paid."
You want more pocket money? Pass these tests
Clearly, many flight attendants are extremely upset about such maneuvers on the part of the airline. (People often contact me when they're upset.)
Those who have been at the airline a long time believe that their quality of life and the levels of pay have dropped exponentially since more civil times. In that, perhaps, they share the feelings of so many customers who feel the flying experience hasn't exactly improved over the years.
But after details of the airline's proposal emerged, United decided to make things better.
An email to the flight attendants from John Slater, senior vice president of inflight services, offered a soothing tack.
It read, in part: "The company is offering industry-leading wages and improving sections of the contract that hurt productivity."
I'm not sure the word "improving" means quite the same to everyone concerned.
But then there was this. Slater offered the words of United CEO Scott Kirby: "The best airline in the world… is also going to be the place where it's the best pay. I will say that when we're at work, we're going to work. You know, we're not going to build featherbedding in and inefficiencies in. We're going to work."
You want negotiations or capitulations?
I know you'll tell me this is all part of the thrust and joust of employer union negotiations, but doesn't it come across as daddy telling a four-year-old they won't get any pocket money unless they get an A in all his school tests?
Indeed, I was given access to some private forum comments from United flight attendants, who read Kirby's words with deep disturbance.
Words and phrases that featured regularly were "robot", "quality of life," "rage", and "insulting." Some suggested that the only time they're doing nothing is when they're actually not being paid. Which bathes in a certain logic.
Many will have varying opinions on such feelings expressed. "What's wrong with working at work?" Some will snort. "Is the company really calling its own employees lazy?" Others will snort back.
Customers, too, may look upon this and believe it's just another day in labor relations. Or they might be shocked by the truths buried within the fuselage. It's odd, though, given that some airlines still claim they need more staff.