Hang on. The flight attendant in the blue Delta Air Lines uniform has an unmistakable Dublin accent, akin to that of her green-clad colleagues on the Aer Lingus Dublin-JFK flight. Either 100 years of Irish immigration to the US have failed to alter speech patterns or airline alliances are taking a new direction.
In fact, this apparent anomaly is not uncommon. Aer Lingus crew will don the uniforms of their Delta counterparts on the carriers' codeshare flights to cover for sick leave. Indeed, Delta is the most aggressive proponent of crew sharing, pioneering the concept on selected routes with all of its codeshare partners, except Singapore Airlines, Korean Air and new partner, Air France.
At the same time, United and Lufthansa are leaders in establishing overseas crew bases. Both crew sharing and overseas bases create potential conflict between management and the workforce, as airlines seek a more flexible approach to solving the complex matrix of cost, productivity and service issues.
Delta says its crew-sharing strategy reflects a belief that passengers have become increasingly aware of codeshare operations. 'Some airlines use codesharing as a way of increasing market access without paying attention to maintaining their brand or their [own] level of service,' says Andrew Lobbenberg, Delta's manager international strategy for Europe and Asia. 'But we're proud of the alliances and market them aggressively.'
For its block-seat deals with partner carriers, Delta will typically have one or two attendants in Delta uniforms on partners' flights, working in the premium cabins after identifying Delta's passengers on the aircraft. Lobbenberg says the staff provide a closer link back to Delta by providing information about the airline's schedules, connections and frequent flyer programme, as well as 'speaking in their mother tongue and providing a comfort factor'. These crews also help to monitor the performance of the alliance and improve Delta's own service. 'It's very positive in terms of learning best practice and bringing it home,' he says.
Volunteer attendants staff the relationship and Lobbenberg says there has been positive feedback from passengers. The system is reciprocated by partner carriers on Delta flights.
The most obvious downside of crew sharing is cost. 'It is expensive to do,' concedes Lobbenberg. 'The staff have to be trained in the safety procedures of the aircraft, the requirements of the host country, and the service procedures of the partner airline.' The partners pay for their own crew on each others' flights but, while it balances out for the others, Delta's larger number of flights mean that its crew costs are higher. There are one or two crew on board each partner flight depending on the alliance and the number of block seats. Lobbenberg admits there have been pressures to cut the number, but maintains the concept is now integral to Delta's alliance strategy.
Crew sharing has, however, met with union opposition, citing concerns over possible job losses and effects on working practices as well as the safety implications of differing airline procedures and languages.
Aer Lingus staff threatened to strike last year when the airline said a Delta representative would replace one of the 11 contractually agreed cabin crew. The Irish labour court ruled in favour of the staff, so the Delta attendant is now an extra. Des Hughes, who represents cabin crew for the Irish union Siptu, says the issue was jobs rather than conflicting work practices. He says there are no objections to a reciprocal arrangement.
In terms of working practices, the most extreme example is the Vienna-Geneva-Washington DC service operated by Austrian Airlines with extra cabin crew from Delta and Swissair. All three have different criteria for crew rests on transatlantic flights: one allocates a spare seat where available, another provides a segregated area, and the third allows crew to lie across seats. While some fear that airlines would seek to trade down to the lowest standards, Pat Friend, international president of the US Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), concedes non-unionised Delta crews have benefited since Delta has tended to adopt the practices of the host European carrier.
But it is the language issue which worries union officials most. 'There is a common problem on a ongoing basis,' says Friend. 'The common language is supposed to be English but in reality it is whatever [the crew member] is most comfortable with. We're concerned about what would happen in a very stressful situation.' Lobbenberg dismisses safety concerns: 'The cabin crew are professionals and are required to be proficient in the necessary languages.'
Ironically, the Japanese majors have pioneered the use of their attendants on partners' flights precisely to overcome the language barrier. For example, Japan Airlines has one to three staff on its codeshare flights with Air France, Air New Zealand, Canadian Airlines, Thai Airways and Varig.
The unions also see the language issue as a problem with United Airlines' Tokyo crew base, which employs between 500 and 800 local attendants. Friend says that while the airline obviously wants the additional Japanese language capability on board, there is no set level of English. The AFA is lobbying the Federal Aviation Administration to establish a minimum level of English language skill for US airline crews.
Alitalia also ran into the language issue with its wet-lease arrangement with Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services (Awas). The lessor hired largely UK crews and the airline admits the lack of Italian language capability led to customer complaints.
Delta stands alone among the major alliance adherents in adopting shared crews. While other partners - such as KLM and Northwest and United and Lufthansa - do cite union and regulatory opposition, most stress that they seek to cement their relationship in other ways.
However, there is support for the sharing concept from the marketing community. 'At worst it can be a branding nightmare and at best a positive customer experience,' says Robert Kahn, vice-president marketing with design consultants Diefenbach Elkins in New York. 'In any situation where you have two brands coming together, the whole objective depends on whether they have a parallel or appropriate relationship.' As an example, he points to Virgin and Delta: 'Virgin benefits by association with a larger airline while Delta appears fine and hip and not that conservative.'
Kahn also reports anecdotal evidence of a positive impact among frequent flyers and notes that sharing crews is a much more honest tactic than simple codesharing in solidifying the link between alliance partners, and is a more effective example of co-branding. 'In terms of sending a signal of serious intent nothing beats a three-dimensional example,' he says. 'That makes a better impression than, say, a joint logo.'
KLM and Northwest - which have, of course, opted for a joint logo - claim that their objective of seamless service on each others' flights obviates the need for representatives of both on board. Moreover, KLM crews can be licensed on only three aircraft types which would reduce operational flexibility. Lufthansa and United also avoid sharing representatives beyond occasionally placing them as additional crew for promotional purposes. 'It's too much of a training effort to make it worthwhile, [but] it would be nice to have them on board,' admits Eva Neuman, Lufthansa's manager for regional flight crew.
For Dave Grizzle, Continental's senior vice president corporate development, the concept of seamless service no longer holds true as passengers become more sophisticated in their understanding of codesharing. 'We try to approach our alliances from a branded product perspective,' he says of the services operated on behalf of Alitalia and planned with Air France. 'We looked at [crew sharing] and decided it was not the way we wanted to do it. Our unions would have some concern with that and they would be right to do so. It's less to do with who does the [passenger] recognising than the type of recognition.' Continental's approach to co-branding with Alitalia involves joint meal design and Italian language capability, signs at the airport, and - a low-tech touch - removable Alitalia panels in the Continental aircraft.
At the other extreme, Sabena has given up its brand almost completely on Brussels-London/Heathrow, which is now operated by Virgin Express. Sabena concedes the loss of branding, but says this is of limited importance on such a short route and is outweighed by its return to profitability.
A global labour pool?
Airline unions regard the Delta concept as the thin end of a wedge, with the industry moving towards a global airline labour pool with the attendant risk of staff being left unprotected. The concerns are driven by the increase in wet-leasing and, above all, by the spread of overseas crew bases.
The establishment of overseas bases by United in Tokyo, London, Paris, Santiago, Hong Kong and Taipei is proving a core issue in the often messy industrial relations with its flight attendants. 'United's strategy is creating all sorts of problems which the airline is not dealing with,' says the AFA's Pat Friend. 'They are blindly trying to apply a collective bargaining agreement negotiated under US law. They are hiring people who are not eligible for a whole package of US benefits and we have spent a lot of time trying to find out what benefits and cover they are entitled to. They are trying to be a global company without taking the responsibility this entails.'
United points out that US pay levels benefit employees in lower cost countries such as Chile and argues that the AFA knew its insistence that overseas crew be union members could exempt them from local benefit coverage, a claim the union denies. Friend contends the process was far from transparent and negotiated. 'I will concede that given the extent of their network a European and Pacific base made sense, but the others are excess and an attempt to undermine the collective bargaining agreement. We view it quite simply as a matter of job exportation.' United and its attendants remain in negotiation and Friend says the carrier may compromise by placing a cap on overseas employees.
Stuart Howard, head of civil aviation at the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF), is concerned that staff could be left effectively stateless in terms of representation and benefits. He points to the legal confusion of two cases brought by separate London-based United crew over eligibility to maternity rights. The first case, brought last year, ruled that the employee was not covered by UK (or US) law. The second found in the employee's favour.
Lufthansa has opened two overseas bases since reaching agreement with its two attendants unions to limit overseas staff to 10 per cent of permanent and seasonal staff. Delhi and Bangkok were opened last year and employ 180 permanent staff plus 300 to 400 seasonal attendants. 'The cost side is a factor - we make no secret of that - but we would not do it unless there was a positive quality impact for our customers,' says Eva Neuman. Staff in Delhi typically earn a third as much as their German counterparts while those in Bangkok earn around 25 per cent of the German level.
She says the airline plans to add 50 more staff to the existing bases and the union deal leaves room for an additional 200 overseas employees. Lufthansa is looking to open an additional base in Beijing and/or Hong Kong. 'It is sort of exporting jobs but we only have a limited number [of overseas employees] - three out of 15 on each flight,' says Neuman.
The staff are not represented by the German unions but are free to join local organisations. Salaries and social costs are fixed at local rates - with a premium over those offered by the local national carrier - while agreement was reached with the German unions for equivalent working practices.
Howard points to British Airways' strategy of expanding its franchising as another way of lowering labour costs, including using CityFlyer Express to take over some Deutsche BA routes.
The most extreme example of delocalisation is Sabena's revival of former chairman Pierre Godfroid's plan to relocate its entire flight crew from Belgium to avoid that country's high social costs. Godfroid's plan to shift the crews to Luxembourg was thrown out by the union and the government. However, the new management has reached agreement with its pilots to relocate them, most likely to Switzerland, by 1998 in a move which would save $30-45 million a year. The proposal still requires government clearance in Belgium and Switzerland.
Stuart Howard says there has been a marked change in the climate of management seeking more flexible working practices and in the response of employees. 'The airlines are clearly looking at a global labour market,' he says. 'This raises all of the questions we've already seen in the maritime business, with the loosening of ties between the company's real place of business and where it is legally registered. The ITF aims to maintain the link between the nationality and sovereignty of carriers, and if the airlines give up on this we will have to look at industrial strategies to meet this challenge.'
However, the overseas base issue threatens to create tensions in the international labour movement. 'We believe that if a carrier is flagged in a particular country then that is where the jobs should go,' contends Pat Friend. However, the AFA's opposition to United's overseas employees effectively threatened their jobs.
Howard says the ITF plans to launch a campaign during 1997 to build on the inter-union links created around existing alliance groupings. 'We're not against flexibility per se,' he says. 'Our concern is that airlines don't use [overseas bases] to displace staff which have achieved certain terms and conditions with others which haven't reached those standards. We are concerned about conditions, the right to union representation, and collective bargaining.' Howard concedes that the more sensitive subject of relative pay scales has yet to be addressed.
Stateless crews
Howard says his fears of the process leading to stateless crews are already being realised. He cites the example of when Icelandic wet-lease operator Air Atlantic flies summer charters out of Manchester, it hires cabin crew through a Guernsey-based employment agency, and officially has no cabin crew on its books. Air Gabon is following a similar path.
The cost implications of transferring operations and staff overseas have already caught the eye of regulators in Brussels. In fact, the European Commission launched an official study in late January to assess the social impact of liberalisation in Europe.
The simmering disputes over overseas crew bases are an inevitable result of the industrial relations cycle which follows the airlines' own financial fortunes. Record profits are, perhaps for the first time, being met with a reluctance by management to compromise on costs. Branding and flexibility play their part, but management and employee groups may have to find a new compromise to enable them to live with this reality.
Source: Airline Business
