American Airlines is changing its cabin service procedures for the end of the flight, telling flight attendants to be seated for landing earlier in order to reduce injuries from turbulence.
They’ll prepare for landing at about 18,000 feet rather than the previous 10,000 feet, and they’ll sit in their jumpseats by 10,000 feet. This will inconvenience passengers who have to stow laptops earlier, and could cost the economy up to $2 billion annually.
According to the flight attendants union at American,
Turbulence remains one of the leading causes of occupational injuries for flight attendants. Unlike passengers, flight attendants are frequently standing, walking, conducting service, or completing compliance duties when turbulence occurs.
The revised procedures are intended to provide additional time to prepare the cabin, improve communication regarding anticipated conditions, and reduce the time flight attendants are exposed to turbulence while performing required duties during descent.
The Inflight Manual reinforces that flight attendants should not jeopardize their personal safety during turbulent conditions and emphasizes that communication between the flight deck and cabin crew is essential to avoiding turbulence-related injuries.
Aviation watchdog JonNYC shares the memo:
— JonNYC (@xJonNYC) May 30, 2026
United made a similar change in 2023 and Southwest followed suit in 2024. Airlines already had ‘early sit’ airports where flight attendants were advised to sit earlier because data showed higher turbulence potential. It was specific to places with identified risk.
That doesn’t just mean that ‘service’ (such as it is) ends earlier. It means that seats need to be returned to their upright position, all cabin baggage must be stowed, and laptops need to be put away for the rest of the flight earlier than before.
As a passenger, I don’t like this. It means I have to put away my laptop earlier. That’s 15 minutes less work I get done on the plane. But if it’s genuinely necessary for safety, which is to say that the status quo procedure has been unsafe, then it makes sense. So I went looking for data. The best argument for this is
- NTSB research suggesting turbulence was involved in 38% of commercial airline accidents from 2009 – 2018.
- Flight attendants were 79% of serious injuries in turbulence. And 36% of those injuries occurred during descent with 65% of those occurring below 20,000 feet.
However, a new article in The American Surgeon looked at turbulence incidents from 2008 – 2023 and found 136 total turbulence-related accidents with serious injury. Most of these (126) were flight attendant injuries, but a majority were actually enroute not during descent.
And the American Airlines policy may not prevent most of the injuries that do happen during descent, because they’re generally happening between 18,000 and 10,000 feet not closure to the ground when flight attendants will actually be seated.
And we should put the actual risk here in perspective. It’s tiny. Looking at the NTSB dataset along with data on departures:
- There were 94 million departures during the period
- And 111 turbulence-related accidents, including 97 seriously injured flight attendants
- Descent/approach accounted for 56 of the accidents and half the total injuries
On a percentage basis, 0.000118% of commercial flights had NTSB-reportable turbulence injuries. 0.000103% of flights had reportable flight attendant injuries. 0.000060% of flights injuries on approach/descent. And 0.000034% of the time these injuries were occurring below 20,000 feet. That translates to reportable turbulence injury below 20,000 feet for every 2.94 million departures. There are about 7 – 10 serious turbulence flight attendant injuries per 100,000 flight attendant years – for all phases of flight.
While flight attendants do get injured – sprains and bruises are not uncomoon – they have fewer days away from work per 10,000 full-time workers (555) than A/V equipment installers (619), psychiatric aides (748), and dietetic technicians (1,500). For actors it’s 1,523 primarily due to overexertion. This does not mean we shouldn’t care about flight attendant safety.
In fact, there are plenty of things we could do that would technically improve onboard safety, but that we do not do because of the tradeoffs.
- Require every passenger to wear a shoulder harness or five-point restraint. That’s better in turbulence, rejected takeoffs, hard landings, and survivable crashes. It’s also uncomfortable, slows boarding, it’s harder to certify, and expensive to retrofit.
- Install rear-facing seats which are better for deceleration loads.
- Require passengers to remain belted any time they are seated.
- Eliminate all hot beverage service to reduce burn risk.
- Eliminate all meal service since that would mean fewer carts in the aisle, fewer hot liquids, fewer flight attendants standing, and fewer potential projectiles.
- Ban carry-on bags altogether to improve evacuations and reduce bin injuries.
- Require helmets for passengers during takeoff and landing to reduce head injuries in survivable crashes.
- Require passengers to pass a safety briefing quiz before departure so that more people would know how to brace, open belts, find exits, and leave bags.
- Place law enforcement on every flight to response to violent passengers and attempted cockpit breaches.
There are available safety improvements all around us. We don’t pursue them because the risk reduction at the margin is too small relative to cost, disruption, and comfort. Not every safety improvement makes sense.
This change costs about 15 minutes per passenger, or up to $2,000 on a full Boeing 737. American Airlines carries about 225 million passengers per year and if each passenger was working it would come at an economic cost of about $2 billion annually.
Take a nap.
@gary
UA already does this. My God heaven forbid that you have to put away your laptop! People need to relax. It’s not then end of your life!
From my 42 years of senior management experience in a Fortune 100 company and from experience working daily with corporate counsels of every size, shape and AORs, this response can be filed under the longstanding legal principle of “it only takes once to tarnish our record and possibly payout a lot of money”.
Nuance, relativity, practicality and probability was the side I had to argue with them.
I felt like Sisyphus sometimes.
Why would passengers pay $2,000 to fly on a 737? Are you counting the hypothetical loss of productivity? Figuring that every person has a laptop, every person has brought their laptop, every person is using the laptop, every person is doing work on their laptop, and that they are all maximizing their productivity seems a big stretch.
You’re missing that “additional cost” is often a proxy for risk of harm elsewhere.
For example, we could eliminate car accidents by banning cars, “saving” tens of thousands of lives a year. Superficially, you’d think the only reason to not do so is economic – but in reality, if you banned cars, you would simply have even MORE people dying from other causes – falling off horses, not being able to get to healthcare appointments as easily, etc.
The same goes with many of the safety “improvements” you’ve suggested. Will lives be saved by installing 5-point harnesses in every seat? Maybe you save a handful of lives/severe injuries, but you likely cause more when you factor in negative effects all along the production chain for the equipment you’re installing, up to and including marginal increased mortality from environmental impacts.
You can require passengers to remain belted when seated, but then your flight attendants are up and about more enforcing that, moving more of the risk from the person choosing to not use their seatbelt to the person required to enforce it.
You could eliminate meal service, but then you likely cause MORE harm over those millions of flights to people who have dehydration/blood sugar issues.
When you spend a dollar on something that doesn’t really do anything, that’s dollars (read: economic output) not available for something else. At scale, marginal economic costs kill people.
But to your original topic, before you got into hyperbolic silly extreme ‘examples’, what counts as a SEVERE injury? At least a day off work? 6 weeks in a cast? Paralyzed neck down for life?
If it means preventing life-time paralyzation, I’m happy to put my laptop away earlier.
Also, get a tablet. Or take a nap.
I fly frequently and I rarely see people using laptops on a flight. I think the whole issue is relatively unimportant.
What I found incredibly annoying was AA taking headsets away 45 minutes before landing, even in long haul First Class. Really?
I gather they’ve changed their policy now
Gary and View from the Wing are great but the $2B lost is just rubbish. That kind of logic has been used to justify high toll rates on some highways, justifying it as you saving a few minutes is worth a lot, like $20/hour in wages.
15 minutes of inability to use the laptop does not materially affect productivity. I can still work by thinking and jotting down thoughts on a sheet of paper.
Why are the two flight attendants seated in their jumpseats wearing gloves? During a cabin fire, melted and flammable gloves sticking to their skin can cause second and third-degree burns which can ruin their afternoon.
I’m more concerned with less time to use the lav. Also euro airlines seem to have an exemplary safety record, yet service starts much earlier on intra-Europe routes and ends later.
This just feels like something that FAs want, that AA can acquiesce to without losing out on money.
@Ken A: Food service. I assume in the event of an emergency they may take the second to remove them.
Now that the airlines have a dotted list of what to consider next, I wonder how many of the “suggestions” will be implemented in the next 20 to 30 years.
It’s more meaningful, to me, on redeyes. I preferred AA for that reason… I could get a few more minutes of sleep on AA, being permitted to keep my seat reclined until the double-ding. Now, I’ll just fly United on all flights, not just daytime.
@Gene — “Take a nap.”
…then fire the missiles!
IYKYK.
Ha, the rationale for AA’s no seat back screens was BYO Device, but now there is even less time where you are allowed to use said device
@ 1990 — Wait — buy some stock, tweet about it (PLTR), sell said stock, THEN fire missiles!
@Gary
15 minutes? You are actually crying over 15 minutes? Stop being a whiny little bitch.
80 plus percent of passengers don’t care what happens to the “hired help” as long as they get the service the feel they are entitled to. it’s a service industry thing where the served think they are so important and that working people are beneath their contempt. But god forbid they have to wait an entire 30 seconds to get their drink! lots of people, passengers, could use a dose of humility.
@ Jon F I’;m sure it doesn’t matter that they have to put those headsets away , and inventory them before landing. I’m sure it’s an incredible inconvenience to bring out your own headset and use that. I sure it would be better if you could use them until the door is opened , and they could just stay on the plane (unpaid) and do the inventory on their own time as long as you aren’t inconvenienced..
In your own words: “United made a similar change in 2023 and Southwest followed suit in 2024.” But you feel the need to write this massive article to crucify American. Because that’s what you do, time and again. Between this and the nonstop articles about bad pax behavior, this blog is now about 25% actual useful information. (Yes, I know I can go elsewhere for my airline news, and I do. I open about 25% of the VFTW emails these days.)
@Doug
I’m sure you don’t realize that the headsets they used at least in international long haul biz have a custom connector, so I couldn’t use my own headset. And yes, it is an inconvenience, because I like to pack away everything for the last hour for so, and finish up any movies that are left over. I know better now, but I was furious the first time this happened. And yes, there was a 2nd time too, but I resolved not to fly AA international F after that.
Furthermore, it seems to have escaped your brain that other international airlines, including UA do not take your headsets away on long haul biz, even in J class. As for F class, you seem to lack the imagination to realize that it’s meant to be about service. On the ME3 and other world class airlines, there would be absolutely no question of taking away headsets. AA clearly didn’t understand (just like you) that F is about service, especially on international and that’s why they’re winding it down.
Furthermore, you seem to be mathematically challenged too. On lang haul F (and on J), the staff to passenger ratio is supposed to be high enough that it should be simple to do so in the last 5-10 minutes, if they have to do so. I do remember UA taking away headsets in regular class in earlier years, but they would do so in the last 10 minutes or so. Not 1 hr before landing
As for your suggestions about inventory and the like, it seems you seem to think that airline service and policies, even on long haul F class should be about the policies of the airlines, not about service to the passenger. I’m sure you skip meals on long haul J/F because one wouldn’t want to put the airline to any trouble in providing amenities.
It seems that AA has changed its policies of treating its passenger like potential thieves. But I’m sure you can volunteer for a body search on airline exit (for yourself, not other passengers) since you seem so concerned about airline inventory.
To add — I was furious because I had around 30 minutes of the movie left, and AA took headsets away. I had deliberately left that much of the film for the final stage of the flight.
Also, AA forgot to serve me breakfast at end of an 17 hr flight, and when i asked, they said they couldn’t do it now as they were close to landing. I suppose they were too busy collectiing headsets!
@ Jon F — If you expect good service, don’t fly US Airways, I mean American Airlines. It’s sad.
Delta, United, Southwest, and most other major carriers have the exact same policy.
Yet you felt compelled to single out American and nail them to the cross, despite the fact that they’re simply following the same industry practice. Interesting.
Does Scott Kirby pay you for these takes?
I for one welcome the extra time to look for used condoms in my seat.
Silly I can use a iPad Pro from take off to landing, but the second air place a keyboard on it, you can no longer use it gate to gate….
I haven’t heard many situations of laptops injuring people as much as laptops being injured by seat reclines or spills. Let people use their laptops in their laps gate to gate and on the tray table at cruise. It’s really no different than allowing a tablet gate to gate.
Also, what does this mean for short flights where the altitude never crosses 20 thousand feet? I’ve been on hour long flights where we cruise at 15k.
Such a inconvenience Gary, poor man.
I don’t fly American Airlines and I rarely take out a laptop during flight so this sounds like a good policy to me.
“That’s 15 minutes less work I get done on the plane.”
Stop it, Gary. Plane time should be me time, not my boss’s time.
I agree with you regarding the 15 minutes.
Where are you getting this 15 minutes earlier BS from Gary? You’ve completely made it up. Changing the prepare PA from 10K to 18K will result in it happening 4-5 minutes earlier, not 15. You should really learn to keep your mouth shut unless you know what you are talking about.
the idea that CUSTOMER TIME has any economic value at all is fetch
gatehouse arpeybonus rolling 30-minute delay revenue retention loss prevention did away with that after 9/11
Ok, so other airlines have already implemented this policy, yet you also claim that this is an AA thing, and it is also tanking the US Economy because of lost productivity by the narrow margin of people that have to stop working minutes earlier during landing? I get it, you hate American Airlines for some reason, but seriously? There’s a million things to complain about, but this? You sound petty and desperate. As Will Shatner once said: Get a life.