News
Fly the (politically) friendly skies
Air hostesses (or, as they are now more favourably known, flight attendants) have had a colourful history.
In the early days of commercial flight, the flight attendant was portrayed as a young, attractive woman, whose purpose was to act as waitress, care-giver and party-host in the sky.
To put it bluntly, it was a blatantly sexist image. But, of course, in the context of the times, it was acceptable (along with such other seemingly incongruous female roles such as cigarette girls in bars).
But what about nowadays? Is it acceptable for an airline to recruit – and market – a bevy of young attractive women to work as its flight attendants. A woman in Australia is attempting to argue that it is not.
In 2001, Australia's Ansett airline collapsed. As a result, there was both a sudden gap in the Australian aviation industry – and an instant surplus of experienced flight attendants.
One of the flight attendants made redundant as a result of Ansett's demise was a 52 year old woman, Theresa Stewart. Stewart had 27 years' experience in the industry.
Taking advantage of the turmoil in the aviation market, Richard Branson’s airline, Virgin Blue, sought to increase its market presence. As a consequence, it looked to hire new employees – including flight attendants.
Stewart applied for a job with Virgin Blue. Along with a significant number of other applicants, she attended an interview at a Virgin Blue "assessment centre". Stewart said that she was not asked about her experience, but was instead required (along with other applicants) to perform a "ditty", which was intended to give her an opportunity to demonstrate whether or not she had "Virgin flair".
Apparently, the airline was not impressed with Stewart's flair, and declined to offer her a job. Stewart responded by making a claim to the Australian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. She says that the process undertaken by the airline was intended simply as a means of recruiting young attractive staff. In hindsight, Stewart described the assessment centre as a "cattle yard: a one-hour holding area" designed to allow Virgin Blue's recruitment managers to assess the looks of applicants.
In support of her complaint, Stewart has referred to an edition of FHM magazine (euphemistically described as a "men’s interest publication") which featured some of the successful female applicants on the cover under the headline "Brace yourself for travel turbulence: real life cabin crew without uniforms".
In essence, therefore, Stewart's claim is that she was discriminated against on the basis of her age and looks. In this way, her claim is that the airline acted unfairly by preferring attractive women.
Presumably, the airline could have a number of different defences, one being that it did not prefer women on the basis of age or attractiveness – and another being that these traits were consistent with a genuine occupational requirement for the airline (for example, an image that it wished to portray).
Remarkably, this is not the first time that such issues had been raised in the context of the airline industry. In 1981, an American airline attempted to justify a preference for attractive female flight attendants on the basis that such employees would "personify the airline's sexy image and fulfil its public promise to take passengers skyward with 'love'".
Under New Zealand law, it is most likely that the Employment Court would find it difficult to accept such arguments as legitimate grounds for discrimination in employment. Put simply, it is unlikely that a Court would accept that a genuine requirement of this particular job is the need to be good looking and young (which, to offer some distinction, might be if the employer was seeking to hire models for a photo shoot). On that basis, therefore, Stewart may have a chance of succeeding in her claim (but only if she can show that the airline did prefer young attractive women).
The decision of the Tribunal is pending.
