James Fallows

The second weapon Southern senators had at their disposal was their longevity. Control of Senate committees went by seniority and because the South was a one-party state, Southerners were invariably the ones who had been there longest. In the 1920s, when the Democratic Party was being battered by Republicans in national elections, the South was immune. During this period, 67 per cent of all Democrats in the Senate and 72 per cent in the House came from the South. When a new raft of Northern and Western Democrats were returned on FDR's coat tails in the 1930s, the same Southerners were still around. So it didn't matter whether the Democrats were down or up, the South still ended up on top. When the party was down, Southern representatives were the only ones standing; when the party was up, Southern representatives were the ones with all the experience. There was no way for a Democratic president to legislate without letting the South get its fingerprints all over his bills.

Katznelson's argument is that the distinctive character of the postwar American state was determined by the compromises that riddled the New Deal from its outset until its demise under Eisenhower. The result was a 'Janus-faced' politics: outwardly assertive, interventionist, crusading, moralising, always looking to take the fight to the enemy; inwardly constrained, laissez-faire, decentralised, protective of private interests, reluctant to uphold the public good. Katznelson sees this dual state - mixing nearly unconstrained public capacity with nearly unconstrained private power - as both enduring and pathological.

>>I'm 58 years old, a 2 million mile flyer with United, at the 1K level for 10+ years.  Although we live in Australia now, my wife and I are both Chicagoans originally and we still have a condo there.

I've stuck with United thru the bankruptcies, merger with Continental (which actually helped us as CO and now United fly into [the city in Australia] where we live).  What you've described is employee malfeasance - a problem that all the airlines struggle to address.

And it should be noted that most frequent flyers have, since 9/11, severely moderated their personalities WHEN ONBOARD THE FLIGHT.  I had routinely seen passengers chastising flight attendants and even arguing with them prior to 9/11.  After?  Pilots and flight attendants have clearly formed a "pact" where the pilots are used (willingly and unwillingly) to "get square" with passengers.  As a result passengers have become meek as sheep onboard.  And I would anecdotally opine that the ground agents are getting more abuse than before, because of this and other capacity-related issues.

In October of 2010, I boarded a UA flight from Geneva, Switzerland to Dulles.  I had been upgraded to business class (along with two other colleagues who had been at the same engineering conference).  As is my custom, I changed from my business casual clothing to dark, knee-length shorts and a t-shirt.  This was, for any frequent traveler, a "sleeping" flight.  

Shortly after I had changed my wardrobe (in the lavatory), a pilot came up to me and said "you can't travel dressed that way".  I turned to him with a stunned look and of course asked "why not?".  He said it was inappropriate and walked away.  A flight attendant came up shortly afterward and said "you'd better change back because the pilot isn't going to let you travel that way".  I asked her why that was, and she just rolled her eyes - which told me this pilot might be trouble.  There were what looked like elderly Europeans in business class, dressed for travel like it was 1960.  They may have lodged the complaint, I don't know.  I sat down in my seat, used my blanket to cover my legs, and waited.  

The pilot returned, and was clearly agitated.  During his diatribe he poked me, which I considered assault.  But what does one do about this kind of incident in a foreign country?  Should I stand my ground and likely be ejected from the flight at a port where United had no employees (only contract staff)?  Even my colleagues witnessing this incident were cowed into silence.  I was unsurprised.

I changed back into my boarding clothing.  

I toyed with returning to my shorts after departure, because I thought it would be much harder for the pilot to explain a diversion disrupting 250 passengers.  And I'm a "Type-A" person, who worked on film production as a sound engineer for 20+ years, where my tactlessness was honed to a knife edge.  I'm usually not loathe to speak-out, even on behalf of others.  

When we arrived at Dulles I used my express card to race thru immigration, and found a police officer.  I explained briefly what had happened onboard the plane, and said I wanted the pilot identified and perhaps a report filed for assault.  As the pilot came out of immigration, three police officers stopped him and ID'd him for me.  (His name is XX).  He saw me standing with another officer 20 feet away and shouted "you'll never fly on United again".

I of course notified United Airlines via the "1K Voice" email address, and as I would be staying in Chicago for a week or so I drove out to their headquarters building in Schaumburg.  I eventually told the story to both the customer service rep that I had been in contact with previously, as well as the chief pilot.  United also interviewed my colleagues, so they were clearly satisfied that the story I told was accurate and even more importantly, I DIDN'T CAUSE A RUCKUS. And subsequently I was provided with upgrade and discount certificates. But of course I never was told what happened, if anything, to this pilot or why he had acted so irrationally.

So why are these things happening?  

Let's use as an example Singapore Airlines, who's onboard staff are among the best in the world.  These flight attendants are given one five year contract, and then except for a handful who move up to management, they're out.  They are paid much less than US legacy carrier flight attendants, can be fired easily, and more importantly aren't there to make a career.  

The US legacy carriers in particular are saddled with many long-serving flight attendants.  These (mostly) women were sold on the idea that this job was a career, and a "glamorous" one at that, with long layovers in exotic places, traveling with intelligent, wealthy people.  But this idea flies in the face of what the job actually is.  A job that requires no education, not even any computer skillls, and has little pathway for advancement.  And a job that is protected by still powerful unions.  I've spoken to hundreds of flight attendants over the years, and have a good understanding of their thinking.  A great many are angry - angry at themselves for thinking this was going to be a career, angry at the airline for going bankrupt and stripping them of wages and benefits.  This anger manifests itself exactly as you've described - telling white lies to avoid any further work, reporting passengers as "disruptive" to the pilot, and even more egregious behavior. Many flight attendants refer to vacation-destination flights as "the flying Clampetts".  If they hate their job and their passengers, they should go.  But they can't, or don't.

If you look at what was Continental Micronesia, a separate company owned by Continental prior to the merger, and their labor situation it's like night and day.  This company was based in Guam, which while ostensibly the USA is more akin to the Philippines.  The Continental (and now United) flight attendants based in Guam are largely Chamorro or Filipino, and look at these jobs as a tremendous opportunity given their low educational level.  I've never heard a cross word or seen a scowl from these flight attendants.  They weren't sold a "dream" to be a "flight attendant" and see the world!  They were offered a great job, provided with the skills to do it, and pay that is much above what their fellow Guamians would receive under similar circumstances.

The legacy carriers; United and American especially, have a difficult situation.  They have a large number of angry flight attendants - the worst of which, because of seniority rules, get the longest, most profitable international routes where UA has to compete with happy flight attendants.  For the first time after the merger however I am sensing that UA management is now working to weed out the real troublemakers, something I can't recall them doing at all the last ten years.

This photo, UA 483 on October 23, 2012 from LAX/SFO had a purser who sat in this position the entire 80 minute flight, leaving only one of his colleagues to serve the full business class section.  I reported this incident (with photo) to UA, who for the first time in many years seemed generally concerned about fixing this problem.




As for the inappropriate programming on the video.  I was successful in getting the "survival in the wild" show with Bear Grylls removed from the entertainment system - the bug eating during meal time was I thought a bit over the top.  However I know who to lodge a complaint with.  I'm quite convinced that a complaint to the general email complaint line gets barely a look, and usually a "pat on the ass" response.  This more than anything is something that United should consider fixing.  Jeff Smisek would discover a lot about his employees if they actually read and processed the complaints properly.<<

Related Story

Early in his career he lived in Paris for a decade, and in 1997 he published a memoir, "Paris in the Fifties." A nostalgic reporter's notebook of life among the cafe philosophers, berated [??]** musicians and pseudo-revolutionary artistes, it danced with digressions about taxes, restaurants, the guillotine, Hemingway, Charles de Gaulle and the Devil's Island penal colony.

In its range, learning and appetite for fun, Bernard Kalb, the former CBS reporter and Mr. Karnow's friend since Vietnam, told The Associated Press in 2009, the memoir was vintage Karnow. "Stanley has a great line about how being a journalist is like being an adolescent all your life," he said.