Wondering why a global superpower, the US, can't seem to match the service of other foreign carriers.

-High profits/aging fleets
-Lack of or outdated wifi/IFE
-Haggard/rude flight crews in very casual attire
-Lackluster meal service if any
-Reduced seat pitch
-Inferior First/Biz class cabins

I don't know why these companies can't pull it together and why anyone would want to fly a US carrier internationally. I will personally never step foot on a US intl flight and take connections just to avoid doing so.

Example- Flew a Swiss CS300 in business from NAP-ZRH. Was treated like royalty with an attentive flight crew, served a beautiful meal of roasted duck breast. Recently flew AA DFW-LAX on a very worn out (interior/exterior) 738. Rude very inattentive flight crew, served a small dish of warm nuts, and given the choice to pick a bag of chips,pretzels, and cookies from a basket.

Walking thru TBIT at LAX and seeing the diverse and beautiful flight crews from all over the world it's embarrassing to see our flight attendants look like waitresses at Chilis.

Does anyone think the US legacy carriers can ever pull it together and actually compete culturally with foreign carriers or will they always be the plain Jane basic options?

You get the service that you are willing to pay for. You can say whatever you want about the US legacies but they are profitable right now which is all that matters.

Aaaaand Americans are not known around the world for being the most obliging people of the world. For them a flight is just another trip, not an experience

nine4nine wrote:

Wondering why a global superpower, the US, can't seem to match the service of other foreign carriers.

-High profits/aging fleets
-Lack of or outdated wifi/IFE
-Haggard/rude flight crews in very casual attire
-Lackluster meal service if any
-Reduced seat pitch
-Inferior First/Biz class cabins

I think part of the reason is that airlines in the US actually pay their employees a decent wage.

As for aging fleets, outdated WiFi, and inferior first class cabins, none of that is really the case. AA, DL, and UA and constantly going through a cycle of fleet renewal. It’s unrealistic with any airline anywhere that has a fleet of over 700 aircraft to update instantly. Also the fact that the can complete 99.8% of their flights and arrive on time 80% of the time with a near flawless safety record in such a complex environment is something to marvel at. But hey they have ugly flight attendant uniforms so why try, right?

geologyrocks wrote:

You get the service that you are willing to pay for. You can say whatever you want about the US legacies but they are profitable right now which is all that matters.

I would say mostly due to consolidation. Less options mean higher fares, little competition and monkey see monkey do between what's left of US legacies. Who can match whom to the bottom of service the fastest.


You'd think being one of the greatest countries on earth the US legacies would pride themselves on offering unmatched service but retaining profitability.

In the US there is a perceived competition between the airlines but there is really very limited/no competition due to some anti-competitive measures from the airlines.

- benefits for alliance membership play a big role, non-alliance members get the worst seats and have to pay extra for luggage, therefore most people are enrolled in either star(United), oneworld(American) or skyteam(Delta) alliance
- since there is only one carrier per alliance, people have no choice but to fly with that airline to get their points and a decent seat (nowadays called economy plus)
- there is great geographic segregation between the airlines as they gobbled and monopolized hubs. United got Newark, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston etc. Delta got Detroit and Atlanta, American got Chicago and Boston etc(and others).

There are very few clearly competitive routes(through the same hubs) that are a one-for-one competition between several carriers.
This allows American carriers to get away with:
- oldest planes
- highest fares (from my area a two-hour flight can easily cost $400-500 while in Europe this is less than 150 Euros)
- less competitive service.

The only bright elements are Southwest, Frontier and Jetblue, but they do not offer the same routes.

nine4nine wrote:

Wondering why a global superpower, the US, can't seem to match the service of other foreign carriers.

-High profits/aging fleets
-Lack of or outdated wifi/IFE
-Haggard/rude flight crews in very casual attire
-Lackluster meal service if any
-Reduced seat pitch
-Inferior First/Biz class cabins

I don't know why these companies can't pull it together and why anyone would want to fly a US carrier internationally. I will personally never step foot on a US intl flight and take connections just to avoid doing so.

Example- Flew a Swiss CS300 in business from NAP-ZRH. Was treated like royalty with an attentive flight crew, served a beautiful meal of roasted duck breast. Recently flew AA DFW-LAX on a very worn out (interior/exterior) 738. Rude very inattentive flight crew, served a small dish of warm nuts, and given the choice to pick a bag of chips,pretzels, and cookies from a basket.

Walking thru TBIT at LAX and seeing the diverse and beautiful flight crews from all over the world it's embarrassing to see our flight attendants look like waitresses at Chilis.

Does anyone think the US legacy carriers can ever pull it together and actually compete culturally with foreign carriers or will they always be the plain Jane basic options?

Not sure what an aging fleet has to do with anything; it all depends on what the carrier puts into that aging fleet. I fly DL 757's quite often and if the aircraft has been refitted with one of the newer interiors you'd think you were on a brand new and modern aircraft. But I do note you're comparing a CS300 to a 738, which isn't exactly a fair comparison.

Also, I've yet to see any foreign carriers' Wifi/IFE system match some of the ones on American carriers (AA/DL specifically).

As for foreign carriers, I've flown LH, AF, and KL in recent years and, frankly, I'll take an American carrier over those any day of the week and twice on Sundays. My flight experience was, at best, on par with American carriers and, at worst, far worse.

I've heard rave reviews of certain foreign carriers and whenever I've done a price comparison they were always more expensive than American carriers. So I suppose it does come down to what one is willing to pay for, or able to pay for. Would I like to get served duck confit and fine wine on a 2-hour flight by flight attendants that look like they could turn a rubber hose into a steel rod? Of course. But am I willing to pay a premium for it? Nope.

The average passenger has no idea how old a plane is. They only judge it based on how it looks. If you've updated the cabin and slapped a fresh coat of paint on the outside then they'll be happy. The sheer size of the fleets of some airlines make it impractical to keep them brand new. Even FedEx has a larger mainline fleet than British Airways. Just think about that.

Because apparently the model of offering poor service, old airplanes, sell overpriced tickets, treat their passengers like garbage (cof United cof) don't seem to bother US customers, who are willing to keep paying maintaining the profit level while management thinks about ways to increase their greed payslip and keep their endogamic status quo, while blaming others/competitors for any issue. Hey, but their profitable! Shut up or the cops will break your nose and kick you off the plane.

geologyrocks wrote:

You get the service that you are willing to pay for. You can say whatever you want about the US legacies but they are profitable right now which is all that matters.

actually you pay the same or more and get less

EU at least seems to have healthy competition which has brought fares down and service levels up on legacy carriers, while they somehow keep making money (even Ryanair)

US is low competition due to consolidation, that's where profit comes from

Part of it I think is US culture (and I'm a US citizen). Seems as if in the US it is all about space, size, lots for cheap. That's true in cars, in housing, in warehouse stores.
In Europe as an example (and perhaps other parts of the world), it is about refinement and quality. Again - in housing, in cars, in items for purchase. The purchase items are smaller, more expensive, and usually more artistic/refined.

And on the airline level, this translates. Other than the really LCCs, you see international flights of refinement and service from non-US carriers. US carriers are about cheapest and cut costs. Only with profits high do we see some of the US majors at least making some attempts to improve. But I wonder if that will last when the next recession hits?

-WIth the amount of new metal US carriers have been bringing on their fleets are not really aged anymore, unless you only consider carriers that turnover their fleets in ~12 (which are outliers and not norms)
-US carriers are actually ahead of the curve when it comes to WiFi (benefit of being a large country) and streaming content, and about equal with most foreign carriers in regards to hard IFE
-Seat pitch isn't really any worse on US carriers than most other carriers. In some cases the US are better.
-The hard J product on US carriers isn't really any worse than most other carriers, and in some cases better. Soft product I cannot comment, but I will say your beautiful meal of roasted duck breast in Swiss Euro business is more of a outlier than the norm for routes like that.

To be honest this list seems more like a running list of standard US airline stereotypes than an actual reflection of reality. The grass is not actually always greener on the other side.

When it comes to service delivery, there is almost zero discipline, training, or accountability with the US majors compared to their international peers. Very little time is spent on with initial and ongoing actual service training be it with things like of how to pour wines, cook and plate foods on board, to strict uniform appearance standards to cultural etiquette training.

The whole service delivery paradigm and focus is very different at major global airlines, where not only hiring standards are quite tight, but training is much more in-depth. For example, SQ FA training is 15-weeks and that is for basic training, not additional required training to work in premium cabins, nor ongoing compulsory training over the years to come. This compares to UA FA training which is 6-weeks from start to finish.
Beyond training its also matter of maintaining standards and holding employees accountable to maintain expected standards, something we again seem to be largely complacent about here in the US.

nine4nine wrote:

Wondering why a global superpower, the US, can't seem to match the service of other foreign carriers.

-High profits/aging fleets
-Lack of or outdated wifi/IFE
-Haggard/rude flight crews in very casual attire
-Lackluster meal service if any
-Reduced seat pitch
-Inferior First/Biz class cabins

I don't know why these companies can't pull it together and why anyone would want to fly a US carrier internationally. I will personally never step foot on a US intl flight and take connections just to avoid doing so.

Example- Flew a Swiss CS300 in business from NAP-ZRH. Was treated like royalty with an attentive flight crew, served a beautiful meal of roasted duck breast. Recently flew AA DFW-LAX on a very worn out (interior/exterior) 738. Rude very inattentive flight crew, served a small dish of warm nuts, and given the choice to pick a bag of chips,pretzels, and cookies from a basket.

Walking thru TBIT at LAX and seeing the diverse and beautiful flight crews from all over the world it's embarrassing to see our flight attendants look like waitresses at Chilis.

Does anyone think the US legacy carriers can ever pull it together and actually compete culturally with foreign carriers or will they always be the plain Jane basic options?

For FAs: Try having all those selective criteria in terms of "beauty" or look or whatever in US, you'll get hit with a tons of lawsuit in no time on discriminative hiring practices.

For Fleets: You just have to realized how much larger US carriers are in general compare to the rest of the world. Let say, LH has 262 planes total, while, let say, UA has 749. The only carriers around the world that has a comparable size in terms of fleet are the Chinese carriers (CZ, for example, has 543 planes). And quite frankly, are US carrier fleets really THAT old? LH/AF/KL/BA fleets are not exactly spanking new, either. For CN3, their fleets are relatively new b/c most of the expansion in fleet are fairly recent.

Not to mention, you're comparing a brand new Airbus CS300 (Sorry, can't help) to a regular Boeing 737-800. Of course the CS300 looks a lot newer. Hack, I rode of DL MD-88 and MD-90 back-to-back one time, even that feels different (And neither are exactly "new").

Reduced Seat Pitch: Umm...US3 is not exactly that much worse than the rest of the world. It's pretty standard 30-31in in economy everywhere in the world (for legacy), and 28-29 for LCCs.

Lack of IFE: Umm...LH/BA/AF intra-Europe flights are not exactly full of IFEs either. Try flying, let say, domestic JL/NH (both suppose to be "top" carrier of the world) you'll see the same thing.

Inferior First/Business Cabin: Seriously, have you ever fly "business" in Europe? Now that's inferior business cabin (or lack thereof).

Ultimately, I usually put US3 legacy carrier somewhere in the middle - it's not all that great (compare to, let say, CX or SQ or JL/NH long-haul), but not as bad as most people make it out to be.

zakuivcustom wrote:

For FAs: Try having all those selective criteria in terms of "beauty" or look or whatever in US, you'll get hit with a tons of lawsuit in no time on discriminative hiring practices.
For Fleets: You just have to realized how much larger US carriers are in general compare to the rest of the world. Let say, LH has 262 planes total, while, let say, UA has 749. And for the most part, EU "legacy" carrier planes are not exactly spanking new, either. You can compare to the like of CN3 (Which are the only carriers in the world that have a fleet size somewhat comparable to US3), but their fleet expansion is a lot more recent than US3.
Reduced Seat Pitch: Umm...US3 is not exactly that much worse than the rest of the world.
Lack of IFE: Umm...LH/BA/AF intra-Europe flights are not exactly full of IFEs either. Try flying, let say, domestic JL/NH (both suppose to be "top" carrier of the world) you'll see the same thing.
Inferior First/Business Cabin: Seriously, have you ever fly "business" in Europe? Now that's inferior business cabin (or lack thereof).

Excuses of why the US carriers give the poorest service in the industry, but that is justified.

A decade ago I'd have agreed with you, but the US3 have made strides to improve. I don't really think there's an appreciable difference between them and the major EU carriers. The likes of ANA, Singapore, etc are still ahead, but also comparatively expensive.

You compared LX's newest and most modern aircraft, a type which only recently entered service, to one of AA's oldest and tiredest. Making sweeping generalizations about the service levels on both carriers based on these two experiences makes you look foolish.

I also noticed you failed to mention the seat...and I know for a fact your domestic F seat on AA was more spacious. European business class is a different product from US3 domestic F, and the upgraded perks over economy are different. Sure, your meal was better on LX, but you ate it in a standard 31'' pitch 17'' width seat with the middle seat blocked.

zakuivcustom wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

Wondering why a global superpower, the US, can't seem to match the service of other foreign carriers.

-High profits/aging fleets
-Lack of or outdated wifi/IFE
-Haggard/rude flight crews in very casual attire
-Lackluster meal service if any
-Reduced seat pitch
-Inferior First/Biz class cabins

I don't know why these companies can't pull it together and why anyone would want to fly a US carrier internationally. I will personally never step foot on a US intl flight and take connections just to avoid doing so.

Example- Flew a Swiss CS300 in business from NAP-ZRH. Was treated like royalty with an attentive flight crew, served a beautiful meal of roasted duck breast. Recently flew AA DFW-LAX on a very worn out (interior/exterior) 738. Rude very inattentive flight crew, served a small dish of warm nuts, and given the choice to pick a bag of chips,pretzels, and cookies from a basket.

Walking thru TBIT at LAX and seeing the diverse and beautiful flight crews from all over the world it's embarrassing to see our flight attendants look like waitresses at Chilis.

Does anyone think the US legacy carriers can ever pull it together and actually compete culturally with foreign carriers or will they always be the plain Jane basic options?

For FAs: Try having all those selective criteria in terms of "beauty" or look or whatever in US, you'll get hit with a tons of lawsuit in no time on discriminative hiring practices.

For Fleets: You just have to realized how much larger US carriers are in general compare to the rest of the world. Let say, LH has 262 planes total, while, let say, UA has 749. The only carriers around the world that has a comparable size in terms of fleet are the Chinese carriers (CZ, for example, has 543 planes). And quite frankly, are US carrier fleets really THAT old? LH/AF/KL/BA fleets are not exactly spanking new, either. For CN3, their fleets are relatively new b/c most of the expansion in fleet are fairly recent.

Not to mention, you're comparing a brand new Airbus CS300 (Sorry, can't help) to a regular Boeing 737-800. Of course the CS300 looks a lot newer. Hack, I rode of DL MD-88 and MD-90 back-to-back one time, even that feels different (And neither are exactly "new").

Reduced Seat Pitch: Umm...US3 is not exactly that much worse than the rest of the world. It's pretty standard 30-31in in economy everywhere in the world (for legacy), and 28-29 for LCCs.

Lack of IFE: Umm...LH/BA/AF intra-Europe flights are not exactly full of IFEs either. Try flying, let say, domestic JL/NH (both suppose to be "top" carrier of the world) you'll see the same thing.

Inferior First/Business Cabin: Seriously, have you ever fly "business" in Europe? Now that's inferior business cabin (or lack thereof).

Ultimately, I usually put US3 legacy carrier somewhere in the middle - it's not all that great (compare to, let say, CX or SQ or JL/NH long-haul), but not as bad as most people make it out to be.

I mean, US long haul just isn't up there like the Asian carriers, or many others too.

nine4nine wrote:

Wondering why a global superpower, the US, can't seem to match the service of other foreign carriers.

-High profits/aging fleets
-Lack of or outdated wifi/IFE
-Haggard/rude flight crews in very casual attire
-Lackluster meal service if any
-Reduced seat pitch
-Inferior First/Biz class cabins

I don't know why these companies can't pull it together and why anyone would want to fly a US carrier internationally. I will personally never step foot on a US intl flight and take connections just to avoid doing so.

Example- Flew a Swiss CS300 in business from NAP-ZRH. Was treated like royalty with an attentive flight crew, served a beautiful meal of roasted duck breast. Recently flew AA DFW-LAX on a very worn out (interior/exterior) 738. Rude very inattentive flight crew, served a small dish of warm nuts, and given the choice to pick a bag of chips,pretzels, and cookies from a basket.

Walking thru TBIT at LAX and seeing the diverse and beautiful flight crews from all over the world it's embarrassing to see our flight attendants look like waitresses at Chilis.

Does anyone think the US legacy carriers can ever pull it together and actually compete culturally with foreign carriers or will they always be the plain Jane basic options?

What about the scale of the US3 vs these other carriers? Swiss as your mention has a fleet of 75 aircraft. UA has ~75 777s. Swiss has around 50 narrow body aircraft. AA has what, 2500 737-800s? The stats are dizzying how much larger the operations are for the US3 vs other carriers.

But most of all. If any of the metrics that you listed really mattered, they wouldn't be this larger, they wouldn't be profitable. Can they improve? Yes, and they are.
There are many instances with their hard product is leading or at least on par with the market offering.

So while you place a value on the things listed, the thousands of passengers who fly in the premium cabins daily show that it might not really matter.

For comparison, if what the legacy carriers in EU for example were offering a product that people loved and paid more for, they would be growing. Fact is Ryanair is the largest airline in Europe by passengers. Now you want to compare Ryanair to US3 / WN?

So to answer your question, sure it would be great to have all seats be like the old Midwest Express and all first class, but reality competing "culturally" is a terrible business idea and all the other world wide legacy carriers are growing their low cost arms, not premium.

I have internationally on US and foreign carriers. The experience is 99% the same regardless of the carrier. Only two things really stand out in my mind, both about Air France. First, the seat was horribly uncomfortable. Second, I liked that they left the booze cart open in the back of the plane during the flight and you could help yourself. Neither of these memories would sway my decision one way or the other in terms of choosing a carrier ... cost is really all that matters.

Polot wrote:

-WIth the amount of new metal US carriers have been bringing on their fleets are not really aged anymore, unless you only consider carriers that turnover their fleets in ~12 (which are outliers and not norms)
-US carriers are actually ahead of the curve when it comes to WiFi (benefit of being a large country) and streaming content, and about equal with most foreign carriers in regards to hard IFE
-Seat pitch isn't really any worse on US carriers than most other carriers. In some cases the US are better.
-The hard J product on US carriers isn't really any worse than most other carriers, and in some cases better. Soft product I cannot comment, but I will say your beautiful meal of roasted duck breast in Swiss Euro business is more of a outlier than the norm for routes like that.



To be honest this list seems more like a running list of standard US airline stereotypes than an actual reflection of reality. The grass is not actually always greener on the other side.

FYI not an American stereotype. I live in the US and travel quite a bit. This is the reality of the domestic US market. Granted yes most passengers who fly once a year to go to Disneyland wouldn't know that the 757 they are flying on is a refurbished build from 1985 but believe it or not frequent flyers do know the difference.

And having a decent meal in business or an outlier as you say is not just the norm on that route. Flying business class frequently and even coach I've been offered better meals and drink options on an international airline in coach than I have in a first/biz on a domestic US carrier.

airzona11 wrote:

What about the scale of the US3 vs these other carriers? Swiss as your mention has a fleet of 75 aircraft. UA has ~75 777s. Swiss has around 50 narrow body aircraft. AA has what, 2500 737-800s? The stats are dizzying how much larger the operations are for the US3 vs other carriers.

As we have more aircrafts we have no other option than to offer a worse service for the same price or even more? Interesting logic/justification, indeed....

TVNWZ wrote:

Do European airlines actually fly? Strike here. Strike there. Monarch here, Air Berlin there. Yep, all those new planes at Monarch are killing it.

Using the US airlines as model of companies that don't go to bankruptcy is a hilarious argument, to say the least...

Do European airlines actually fly? Strike here. Strike there. Monarch here, Air Berlin there. Yep, all those new planes at Monarch are killing it.

Come back to this in 10 years and you will see a whole load of different answers. Profitability will drive an improvement in service.

Oh and another thing...while I was on seatguru making sure I wasn't wrong about my comment on the LX Cseries business class, I clicked on the seat map for their 77W, and noticed two things immediately:
1. They've gone 3-4-3 in economy, which has unfortunately become standard. Delta, on the other hand, remains a holdout.
2. There's no premium economy. Unlike the US3 which all offer you some form of upgraded economy seat, your choices on LX are a crappy 10-across economy seat, or pay thousands for business class.

No damn wonder the US3 are making money hand over fist- they finally started offering the consumer some choices.

"United Polaris earned Global Traveler magazine's "Outstanding Innovations" award at the Global Traveler's fifth annual Leisure Lifestyle Awards."

Guess you should give United's Polaris a try.....

The US carriers were decimated during the "lost decade" and are still rebuilding. There is slow but steady progess in fleet renewal and they they are also adding service back in.

With regard to the people part of the equation, there does seems to be a lack of progress there. Organized labor, no retirement plans (people have no other option hit to keep working), many other possible causes, not the least of which is the TMZ culture where people stick a cellphone in your face and hope to get on TV or be an Internet sensation.

I have long wondered about this. I don't know, maybe its a cultural issue?

But agree, viewing and having experienced US crews they just seem sloppy. From poor uniform standards to seeming uninterested service ethos. They just don't seem to have that discipline or snappiness of being sharp and willing to serve.

Maybe flying in the US ones does not notice as much, but internationally these differences become very stark. Maybe much of the world is spoiled by top quality airlines in Asia, ME3, etc, but it clear US majors are not in the same league.

Jayafe wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

What about the scale of the US3 vs these other carriers? Swiss as your mention has a fleet of 75 aircraft. UA has ~75 777s. Swiss has around 50 narrow body aircraft. AA has what, 2500 737-800s? The stats are dizzying how much larger the operations are for the US3 vs other carriers.

As we have more aircrafts we have no other option than to offer a worse service for the same price or even more? Interesting logic/justification, indeed....

The complexity of the operations between the airlines are massively different. The personal touch and service is harder to replicate the larger you get. It is not linear either, it is exponential.

Are these smaller airlines more profitable? Even on a margin basis? Nope. So is there a business value, numbers say there isn't. Around the world the LCCs and ULCCs are proliferating. The legacies are all growing their LCC brands. That is where the money is. On-board planes have less premium seats.

At the same time, the gap between the US3 and other majors is narrowing. The once stand out jewels for service such a CX and SQ are in the pits financially, relying on their other brands and cabin reconfigs to fix their finances.

Air travel is a commodity.

CriticalPoint wrote:

"United Polaris earned Global Traveler magazine's "Outstanding Innovations" award at the Global Traveler's fifth annual Leisure Lifestyle Awards."

Guess you should give United's Polaris a try.....

I do look forward to an experience with UA Polaris and the new DL sky suite on the A350 in the near future hopefully. It is nice to see some improvement with US carriers, but they still have a ways to go. AA did a decent job with the first and business class product on the 77W but the service I received in business absolutely killed the experience for me on at least 4 consecutive occasions over the past two years.

Service is the main area thay US airlines are deficient and its a mix of training/union/labor laws that make it easy for that area to slip and to hold accountable flight crew for the lack of service.Although more recently fares have had slight increases air travel in the US is still incredibly inexpensive compared to the past. Hard product investments, especially in premium cabins but US carriers on par or better than many international fleets on updated aircraft. At this point Us carriers are doing an admirable job of offering a multitude of products and differnet price points on the same airplane allowing people to choose to either go as cheap as available or pay for better stuff. For example, AAs 77Ws will soon have F/J in full lie flat, W, Y+, and Y, along with basic econimy for those who want to pay the least, so 5 physical products and 6 economic products one 1 plane.

US carriers fulfill the product and service requirement expected of them predominantly by the US market, and your average American traveler cares about safety, price, and schedule, often in that order. Per J.D. Power's 2017 North American Airline Customer Satisfaction Report, they're doing a pretty good job of it given that "overall customer satisfaction with airlines has reached its highest level ever, continuing a trend that now stretches five consecutive years."

mercure1 wrote:

I have long wondered about this. I don't know, maybe its a cultural issue?

But agree, viewing and having experienced US crews they just seem sloppy. From poor uniform standards to seeming uninterested service ethos. They just don't seem to have that discipline or snappiness of being sharp and willing to serve.

Maybe flying in the US ones does not notice as much, but internationally these differences become very stark. Maybe much of the world is spoiled by top quality airlines in Asia, ME3, etc, but it clear US majors are not in the same league.

Doesn’t having a hot FA bow to you as she hands you your coke really matter that much? At the end of the day it’s transportation. An airplane isn’t the place to go to get fake attention from a pretty girl. I’d rather have a FA that remains calm and knows how to respond during a medical emergency or any other disruption, rather than acting hysterically, which often seems to be the case when some Asian airlines run into emergency situations.

Look at the difference in crew behavior between Cactus 1549 and AirAsia QZ535, or worse QZ8501.. That's what matters.

Fake 'attentiveness' from a 25 year old pouring diet coke is something i'd look for in an escort, not an airline.

B737900ER wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

I have long wondered about this. I don't know, maybe its a cultural issue?

But agree, viewing and having experienced US crews they just seem sloppy. From poor uniform standards to seeming uninterested service ethos. They just don't seem to have that discipline or snappiness of being sharp and willing to serve.

Maybe flying in the US ones does not notice as much, but internationally these differences become very stark. Maybe much of the world is spoiled by top quality airlines in Asia, ME3, etc, but it clear US majors are not in the same league.

Doesn’t having a hot FA bow to you as she hands you your coke really matter that much? At the end of the day it’s transportation. An airplane isn’t the place to go to get fake attention from a pretty girl. I’d rather have a FA that remains calm and knows how to respond during a medical emergency or any other disruption, rather than acting hysterically, which often seems to be the case when some Asian airlines run into emergency situations.

Nobody says you have to look like a runway model. Just at least pretend you like people and like your job. If I ask for another drink or a glass of water don't treat me like it's an inconvenience.

nine4nine wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

I have long wondered about this. I don't know, maybe its a cultural issue?

But agree, viewing and having experienced US crews they just seem sloppy. From poor uniform standards to seeming uninterested service ethos. They just don't seem to have that discipline or snappiness of being sharp and willing to serve.

Maybe flying in the US ones does not notice as much, but internationally these differences become very stark. Maybe much of the world is spoiled by top quality airlines in Asia, ME3, etc, but it clear US majors are not in the same league.

Doesn’t having a hot FA bow to you as she hands you your coke really matter that much? At the end of the day it’s transportation. An airplane isn’t the place to go to get fake attention from a pretty girl. I’d rather have a FA that remains calm and knows how to respond during a medical emergency or any other disruption, rather than acting hysterically, which often seems to be the case when some Asian airlines run into emergency situations.

Nobody says you have to look like a runway model. Just at least pretend you like people and like your job. If I ask for another drink or a glass of water don't treat me like it's an inconvenience.

Unlike the rest of the world, drinks on US carriers are still free nearly everywhere. This results in tens of thousands of requests as opposed to a couple dozen 'purchases' on someone like FR.

sagechan wrote:

Service is the main area thay US airlines are deficient and its a mix of training/union/labor laws that make it easy for that area to slip and to hold accountable flight crew for the lack of service.

I don't believe that US labor laws are holding back US airline service.

In France/Germany/Brazil, firing a bad flight attendant is hard because of labor laws and union rules.

In the US/Canada/Australia, firing a bad flight attendant is had because of union rules.