http://AircrewHealth.com/Papers/BAAS05.htm
To print this page, select File, then Print from your browser.
For some time, I have been studying psychosocial 'stress' in aircrews. Most of my work has been quantitative in nature; however certain subject matter can never adequately be described by quantitative data alone. In such cases, I have employed qualitative methods to obtain the in-depth information required to better understand people’s experiences, and the nature of their responses to stressful events.
My presentation today is based on qualitative data collected by means of focus groups, structured interviews with individuals, and a collection of autobiographical personal narratives written by respondents to an on-line survey. These data document the experiences of airline flight attendants working in the United States at the time of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 – hereafter referred to as "9/11".
As exemplars of stressful phenomena, the events of 9/11 and their sequelae are of transcendent significance for flight attendants. Let me illustrate what I mean by highlighting a few points.
1. By most accounts available to us, flight attendants were the first to be murdered by the terrorists aboard the planes that were hijacked on 9/11. Those who survived the initial struggles to take over the aircraft ultimately lost their lives a short time later when the planes were intentionally crashed.
2. When US airspace reopened several days after the tragedy, flight attendants were expected to return to work in the face of great uncertainty. No one knew what was going to happen, and it was impossible to guarantee their safety.
3. The US aviation industry, already in a slump, nearly collapsed in the months following 9/11, resulting in tens of thousands of flight attendants being furloughed, or losing their jobs outright. Those who remained had to accept massive cuts in pay and benefits in order to keep their jobs.
In a few moments, I shall elaborate on each of these points.
My report today focuses sequentially on individual flight attendants’ reactions and responses to learning of the terrorist attacks on 9/11; how they coped with the immediate stress; and how they dealt with returning to work in the days soon after 9/11 in the midst of national chaos and personal fear. I will then relate their descriptions of the changes in their lives -- proximal and distal, psychological and pragmatic -- that followed in the wake of the catastrophe. Context is provided by current psychological theory concerning human response to acute stress and mass trauma.
Attention will be given as well to temporally diffuse issues that are important for understanding flight attendants as a group, including media image, professional identity, and what they see as the devaluation of their profession both by their employers and the traveling public.
Hearing about the attacks
The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 rank as some of the most widely publicized events in recent history. Thanks to pervasive – some would say obsessive – media coverage, the images of that day are indelibly etched in the minds of people around the world. For Americans, “9/11” ranks alongside Pearl Harbor and the assassination of President Kennedy as exquisitely memorable: Virtually all Americans can readily tell you where they were and what they were doing when it happened, and how they learned the news.
This is an illustration of what psychologists term flashbulb memory. Flashbulb memories typically are extremely vivid and enduring, and are instantiated by events that immediately arouse intense emotions, i.e., events that are unexpected, novel, shocking, and consequential.
For flight attendants (and other aviation personnel) an “insider view” led them to conclusions about what was happening that preceded those of the news media. For example, early media reports suggested that the first aircraft to hit the World Trade Center was a small, private plane. Many flight attendants who were at their homes or in their layover hotels that morning were watching live news coverage of the events when the second aircraft appeared on their screens, moments before it crashed into the other tower of the World Trade Center. Many flight attendants who saw this tell of recognizing instantly that the aircraft was a large airliner, not a small plane, and almost simultaneously realizing that they were witnessing an intentional act of terrorism, not an accident.
They knew by their professional experience that normal air routes in the vicinity of New York City would not have brought one, much less two, large aircraft that close to the World Trade Center towers. The weather that day was clear and fine; no airline pilot would have mistakenly flown an aircraft that low over that particular location. Flight attendants knew that even if the aircraft had been in distress, normal emergency procedures would have led the aircraft away from lower Manhattan, not toward it.
Acute reactions to news of the tragedy
Flight attendants’ descriptions of their initial emotional response to the events of 9/11 exemplify what is referred to, clinically, as Acute Stress Reaction (ASR). The hallmarks of ASR are an initial dazed state, disorientation, agitation, and overt physiological signs of acute anxiety such as sweating, and increased heart rate. In their self-descriptions of their immediate reactions upon hearing of the attacks, flight attendants recount experiencing these classic symptoms of acute stress reactions. Statements reflecting disbelief and denial – “this can’t be happening!” -- also were prominent.
Primary coping
Once the initial shock and disbelief subsided, active coping with the immediate events began. Popular literature frequently cites the so-called fight or flight response to threat. This biobehavioral response is considered by many to be “hard-wired” as an evolved stress regulatory system. More recently, social psychologist Shelley Taylor and her colleagues at UCLA have proposed that although “fight or flight” may characterize the primary physiological response for both males and females, the behavioral responses of females are more marked by a pattern of tend and befriend.
According to this theory, tending involves “nurturant activities that will protect the self and one’s offspring, promoting safety and reducing distress.” Befriending entails “creating and maintaining social networks that may aid” in the process. Taylor, using an evolutionary frame, posits that the dynamics of women’s tend-and-befriend behavioral pattern draws on an attachment-caregiving aspect of human social dynamics that subsumes neuroendocrine involvement.
Strong anecdotal evidence for this tend-and-befriend stress response pattern is embodied in the personal narratives of the (mostly female) flight attendants about their earliest responses on 9/11. As soon as these flight attendants cognitively grasped what had happened, they immediately set about to connect with others. These affiliative behaviors were both literal (seeking the company of family or colleagues) and metaphorical (phoning or otherwise contacting and accounting for family members, colleagues and friends).
Those who were at home told of immediately contacting family members and close friends, and of engaging in behaviors such as going to collect their children from their schools, and asking their spouses to come home from work so that the family could be together. Others, especially those without spouses and children, reported going to the homes of (mostly female) friends or family members, or inviting others to join them.
Flight attendants who were away from their home bases, and especially those who were in layover hotels – many of whom were in the midst of preparing for their day’s trip at the time of the attacks – reported calling home immediately to reassure their families that they were safe. Some stayed on the phone, continuously, for many hours, with family members at home, or with close friends. Most ultimately gathered together with other crew members in one hotel room to monitor events on the television as they unfolded. No one reported wanting or preferring to be alone.
Active information-seeking
A common response to traumatic events is information seeking, as one tries to understand and make sense of what is happening. Attending to media reports on television or radio -- passive information-seeking -- was universally reported. A substantial number of flight attendants also reported engaging in more active forms of information-seeking. In many cases this behavior pattern was very focused and persistent.
Even before it was known which carriers’ planes had been hijacked, many flight attendants set about to discover this information for themselves, and to learn if someone they knew was aboard the planes. They reported making phone calls to their own companies, to their union representatives, to aircrew colleagues, and to friends who worked in non-flying jobs in aviation, in the hope that they could learn which airlines – and which crewmembers – were involved in the tragedy. Some told of calling radio and television stations and newspaper offices for any new information that might be available.
Once it became known that the hijacked planes belonged to United Airlines and American Airlines, flight attendants who worked for those carriers reported trying desperately to discover who was aboard. They repeatedly – sometimes frantically -- phoned their companies’ headquarters, and supervisors at their bases, and their union “hotlines.” They attempted to find the crew lists for those flights on their airlines’ internal websites. No information was made available to them.
Identification with the victims
If Americans in general were shocked and horrified by events on the morning of 9/11, for flight attendants, there was an added dimension of identification with the first victims of 9/11 – that is, the crews and passengers on the hijacked planes. They said that they could readily imagine themselves at work aboard one of the planes. They knew that, at that time, crews all were trained to be compliant if a hijacking took place. They said they hoped that the crews on the hijacked planes did not realize what was about to happen to them. They expressed feelings of professional kinship not just with the crews who perished, but also with the flight attendants who worked for the companies whose planes were hijacked.
Early days after 9/11
Stranding
On the day of the attacks, air traffic in the US, and indeed most of the world, was immediately shut down or otherwise disrupted. Barely one hour after the first hijacked plane, American Flight 11, crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initiated the first ever unplanned shutdown of US airspace. All aircraft were ordered to “land at the nearest airport as soon as practical.” In all, over 4,500 aircraft in the air on flight plans governed by Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) were affected.
Those planes already on the ground were forbidden to take off. Flights inbound to the US from overseas were advised to return to their departure cities, or were diverted to other countries.
Planes by the tens and hundreds ended up in places poorly equipped to handle such massive traffic. Passengers and crews found themselves in places they never intended to visit. There were thousands of crewmembers in airports, waiting to depart, and many more thousands on layovers distant from their bases. There emerged a frantic scramble to find accommodations and services for all who were stranded.
The situation for the flight attendants who found themselves stranded away from their home bases varied from carrier to carrier, and sometimes from base to base. Their descriptions of operational chaos vary in both degree and kind.
Those who already were at layover hotels were preoccupied mainly with following events on television, staying in touch with home, and trying to obtain what information they could about how long they would be stranded, and what would happen next. The airlines varied greatly in how much information they transmitted to crews stranded at out-stations, and how they went about maintaining contact.
In some cases, communication was orderly and nearly continuous. In many more cases, communication between the operational base and the stranded crews was erratic in frequency, and confusing in content. As more and more information emerged, messages were amended again and again. In a few cases, flight attendants reported hearing not much official information at all from their companies. Rumors proliferated, especially in the absence of orderly, reliable, information from official sources.
Crews who were in the air at the time of the attacks, and whose flights were then diverted, tell of staying for many days in improvised accommodations. In many instances where they either were cut off from communication with their operations centers, or were in places where their companies had no facilities in place, the crews had to fend for themselves. Those lucky enough to find space in a hotel often slept three and four to a room. Some crews were taken in to the homes of airport employees and ordinary citizens in the towns where they were stranded. Many were housed in public buildings such as schools, gymnasiums, church halls, and the like.
Later many flight attendants would learn that they were not paid for the days that they were stranded, presumably because they were not working! Neither were some flight attendants awarded any type of “per diem” allowance to cover their expenses. For some, at least, they were stranded in every sense of the word.
Meanwhile, back at the base
The situation at the various airlines’ bases was not much better. In the days that immediately followed 9/11, all of that disrupted air traffic had to be sorted out. Plans needed to be made to deliver passengers and freight to their intended destinations. Aircraft and crews had to be repositioned and provisioned. Many of the flight attendants who were off duty near their home bases at the time of the attack either were recruited by their companies or their unions, or volunteered, to assist in countering the operational chaos that emerged.
When stranded crews began to return to their bases, many were met at the airport and greeted by groups of their peers in a show of solidarity. In some cases this was carried out spontaneously: groups of airline employees showed up at airport ramps and gates, cheering and waving American flags in welcome. In other cases the returning crews were provided with a “critical-incident debriefing” by airline staff, or afforded union-sponsored peer counseling.
In some locations, government agencies and organizations such as the Red Cross also were enjoined to provide counseling and other services to crews to help them cope with their fear and their grief; however, the flight attendants’ narratives indicated a clear preference for the peer-counseling services offered from within their company or their union. The government and Red Cross counselors were perceived as “outsiders” who did not really understand, and could not fully appreciate, what the crews were feeling, and what they would face, emotionally, as they returned to work.
Returning to work
When US airspace was reopened officially, nearly a week after 9/11, the ground crews – air traffic controllers, dispatchers, mechanics, ramp personnel and customer service agents – worked heroically in the face of much confusion to disentangle the mess created by the unprecedented disruption of air service. But it was the aircrews – the pilots and flight attendants – who now felt as though they were on the front lines of some new war as they returned to work.
With the perspective of hindsight, it is well to say that there were no more hijackings of the sort that occurred on 9/11. At the time, however, no one knew what was going to happen as air traffic resumed; no one could guarantee the safety of the flight attendants (and pilots) who crewed those first flights. Some flight attendants (and pilots) were unable to cope with this tremendous fear and uncertainty, and resigned from their flying jobs almost immediately. Most did return to work however, showing remarkable courage and resolve.
Stories that flight attendants tell about preparing for their first post-9/11 trips give evidence of anticipatory stress -- tales of tears running down cheeks while dressing, of physically shaking while waiting for the crew bus, of voices cracking during pre-flight briefings. Again and again they say of their first flights following 9/11, “It was the most difficult thing I’ve ever done.”
Post-9/11 flying
As though merely stepping aboard a passenger plane barely a week after the carnage were not stressful enough, in and of itself, flight attendants were immediately given new security-related responsibilities. Flight attendants are accustomed to engaging in substantial emotional labor while carrying out their duties: smiling and being friendly (regardless of how they really felt) always has been a requisite part of their job. Now they were tasked with being ad hoc security agents as well; they were told to guard the cockpit and to prevent anyone from entering the flight deck “at all costs.” With no specific training in self-defense, and meanwhile knowing that barely a week before, their counterparts on the hijacked planes had had their throats slit, this was a whole new kind of emotional labor, indeed. They felt they had become accidental soldiers in the “war on terror” (sic).
Their early fear quickly metamorphosed into anger and disappointment. The proximal target of those emotions centered on the companies and unions that seemed not to care – or at least not to care enough – about their welfare. They felt unappreciated and devalued – “dispensable,” as one flight attendant put it. This feeling was soon amplified when, by FAA mandate, cockpit doors on US-based commercial aircraft were reinforced to obviate their being opened by force. Pilots were instructed to remain locked inside the cockpit no matter what sort of disturbance should erupt in the passenger cabin. Should another hijacking be attempted, the pilots’ instructions were to put the airplane on the ground as soon as possible, at the nearest suitable airport. This left the flight attendants with full and sole responsibility to defend themselves, the passengers, and ultimately the aircraft, with what wile and “weapons” they could contrive.
Post-9/11 flying
As though merely stepping aboard a passenger plane barely a week after the carnage were not stressful enough, in and of itself, flight attendants were immediately given new security-related responsibilities. Flight attendants are accustomed to engaging in substantial emotional labor while carrying out their duties: smiling and being friendly (regardless of how they really felt) always has been a requisite part of their job. Now they were tasked with being ad hoc security agents as well; they were told to guard the cockpit and to prevent anyone from entering the flight deck “at all costs.” With no specific training in self-defense, and meanwhile knowing that barely a week before, their counterparts on the hijacked planes had had their throats slit, this was a whole new kind of emotional labor, indeed. They felt they had become accidental soldiers in the “war on terror” (sic).
Their early fear quickly metamorphosed into anger and disappointment. The proximal target of those emotions centered on the companies and unions that seemed not to care – or at least not to care enough – about their welfare. They felt unappreciated and devalued – “dispensable,” as one flight attendant put it. This feeling was soon amplified when, by FAA mandate, cockpit doors on US-based commercial aircraft were reinforced to obviate their being opened by force. Pilots were instructed to remain locked inside the cockpit no matter what sort of disturbance should erupt in the passenger cabin. Should another hijacking be attempted, the pilots’ instructions were to put the airplane on the ground as soon as possible, at the nearest suitable airport. This left the flight attendants with full and sole responsibility to defend themselves, the passengers, and ultimately the aircraft, with what wile and “weapons” they could contrive.
Furloughs and pay cuts
While this was happening, tens of thousands of their colleagues were being shown the door as the airlines furloughed crews en masse in order to cut costs. Those who remained on the job were asked to take large cuts in wages and benefits. They felt they had no choice but to agree in order to keep their jobs.
As time progressed, the aviation industry was caught in a massive economic downturn. More and more cost-cutting measures were adopted. Superficially – although perhaps most visible to passengers – there was a reduction in the amount and quality of in-flight food service and other amenities. More meaningful to the flight attendants who continued to work is the new practice of reducing the number of cabin crew aboard a given flight to the minimum required by the FAA – essentially one flight attendant for every fifty seats on an aircraft. At the same time, crews’ schedules have been reformulated so that, in a given duty day, flight attendants at many carriers now routinely work the maximum number of hours allowed by law, with rest periods between flights at the legal minimum.
At present, many flight attendants are taking home pay that is the equivalent of what they earned in 1991. This is demoralizing and, many feel, insulting. There is apprehension about the future now, less for reasons of physical security than for financial security. The tragedy of 9/11 was not the sole cause of all this, but it certainly was a pivot point. Flight attendants fear that there will be no going back to the earlier times, when they were comparatively well-paid.
Neglect by the media and the flying public
Flight attendants have told me again and again that they feel “invisible” – unappreciated for what they do, unrecognized as the professionals they believe they are, and now uncompensated financially as well. This pervasive sense of disappointment -- of being slighted – was greatly amplified by 9/11 and its aftermath. " One senior flight attendant wrote:
“I always thought we were left out. The focus was on the firefighters and police – and then on the passengers, and how the passengers were able to get on those planes again. But how about the crews? No one seemed interested in how we were able to get back on a plane again."
Another said:
“Nowhere have I seen credit given to those who were actually on the front line defense of those aircraft, who were so brutally murdered. Lots has been said about those on the ground – and I don’t mean to take anything away from the police and firefighters. I’d just like to hear a little something to recognize the flight attendants – and the pilots.”
Sentiments such as these are expressed again and again when flight attendants reflect on their experiences in the aftermath of 9/11.
Aftermath
Mental health consequences
Post-9/11 surveys and other studies conducted with the general population in the US have found that, the greater the exposure to events surrounding the World Trade Center and Pentagon disasters, the poorer the person’s psychological well-being, even after controlling for demographic characteristics, other stressors, and social psychological resources. In line with these findings, flight attendants who were in New York City or one of its airports on 9/11, and those who actually knew someone who was killed that day (in a plane or on the ground) have had the most difficult time coping.
In the wake of 9/11, many flight attendants have received specific counseling for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, with mixed results. Some gave up their flying careers outright. Others returned to work for some period of time, only to resign after weeks or months because the anxiety was too great to bear.
Yet most flight attendants in the US have demonstrated considerable resilience, and have coped with the proximal outcomes of 9/11 remarkably well. They take pride in the fact that they are well trained to deal with “emergencies;” they know how to cope with all manner of in-flight incidents. It is the more distal outcomes – especially those that have produced conditions of unstable employment, greatly reduced incomes and financial insecurities – that are more difficult to deal with. As one flight attendant put it, “We still don’t know where all this will end – or when the damage will stop.”
Career changes
In the new climate of higher security requirements, flight attendants feel that they have more responsibility than ever to ensure the safety of their passengers. At the same time, they feel devalued and insulted by successive cuts in pay, benefits, and job security. Tens of thousands of older flight attendants who have spent all of their working lives aloft now have only meager retirement pensions to look forward to. Some will retire with no health insurance, save what they can pay for themselves, from their own pockets. Many younger flight attendants now are inclined to think of their work as a “job” for a few years, rather than as a lifetime career. This view is encouraged by the current and proposed pay structures at many carriers. Likewise, maximizing work hours while minimizing rest periods also serves to limit the attractiveness of being a flight attendant for more than a few years.
In fact, a prevailing view amongst flight attendants in the US today is that most of the gains in public image, professional status, and remuneration that took decades to accomplish have been undermined, if not repealed. They feel diminished, less appreciated, and more powerless than ever. They feel, rightly, that “nothing will ever be the same again.”
Copyright © 2005, by Bobbie Sullivan. All rights reserved