HOW should the Supreme Court’s verdict be defined when it decrees the retirement of the PIA’s female flight attendants after they have reached the age-mark of 45 years? Discriminatory? Biased? Retrogressive? Most definitely for it is against women’s right to work on equal terms with men. In Pakistan, the sociological rationale is certainly different, if not partial.
The counsel for the PIA calls it a non-discriminatory rule, ‘as it is not against a particular woman or some women, but applied to a class or cadre of employees’. The same airline’s spokesperson comes up with an emaciated (and rather shocking) plea that passengers wish to be served by younger women, as they ‘do not approve of aging air hostesses and find it culturally inappropriate that an old lady should serve them onboard’.
“If it’s a case of customers’ desire then I should put in my bit as well. How about the Supreme Court passing judgment to let us be served by 20-year old only? If you ask a majority of male passengers, they’d love to have beautiful young girls as stewardesses. If age is a criterion, then 45 is also too old. Does that mean that if we file a petition to have only teenage girls serving us, it’ll be decided in our favour? That’s nauseating! Employment should be about good service and efficiency. Passing a verdict like that means it’s obviously not about all that,” lashed out a 48-year-old frequent flier.
On November 6, the Supreme Court of Pakistan passed a verdict reducing the age of retirement of airhostesses to 45 years. The verdict was passed overturning the decision of the Sindh High Court, which had, earlier on, decided in favour of nine PIA air hostesses, who had filed a case against the organiztion for retiring them. They had challenged their retirement and called it discriminatory and gender-biased because the same rule did not apply to their male counterparts who could remain in service for 15 years longer. The Sindh High Court had ordered the national carrier to take back the nine hostesses on duty. But PIA took the matter to the Supreme Court and appealed against the ruling.
PIA’s justification sounded too regressive to be taken as a serious, counter cost productive reason. In a press statement, the PIA spokesperson, Imran Gardezi denied the discrimination factor and said that the air hostesses were retired within the rules of the airline. “In other airlines air hostesses are hired only for contracts of two to three years,” said Mr Gardezi.
The Sunday Magazine tried in vain to get the state carrier’s side of the story. Mr Ahmed Saeed, the airline’s Chairman (a chairman is considered to be a misnomer in an age of politically correct language and has long been replaced by chairperson), had no time in an Iftar-suffused month to give his opinion on the matter. And it was too demeaning for Mr Gardezi to come upfront to discuss the rules of employment and retirement. The SC’s verdict had put the organization on the defensive, making it a matter of ‘less said the better’ for the PIA till the debate lost its intensity.
This information is strictly for the PIA’s consumption, so that its future press releases tally with the international statistics.
According to the Association of Flight Attendants, women over 40 now account for 43 per cent of flight attendants. There is no mandatory retirement age and the oldest flight attendant with United Airlines is 78.
If anything the industry, at least the international aviation industry, prefers ‘women of a certain age’ because they are reliable, are not likely to get pregnant and would probably remain in the profession till time of retirement. All major airlines have increased the retirement age to 55.
After nearly 50 decades of staying in operation, the PIA has suddenly woken up to the cultural bindings of our society. The ‘culturally inappropriate’ card played by the airline’s administration should be greeted with a resounding round of derision. It is (sic) culturally inappropriate for the PIA to have its passengers served by an aging, 45 years old air hostess. That suggests, it finds it perfectly alright to have young, nubile girls waiting at the seats of onboard passengers.
“You said it! That’s what the profile of an air hostess should be. Young, attractive and appealing. We don’t want wrinkled, hard-faced women walking up and down the aisle. The airline is faced with tough international competition, a beautiful woman is the best way to lure passengers,” revealed a ground employee of the PIA working at the newly built Lahore airport.
Building on that information, it is only fair to give concession to an organization competing to meet tough international standards. But the profile of the PIA is just as bad as its aging female flight attendants. “There is no such thing as merit here. After this verdict do you know how many of us will be laid off? Right now PIA’s total female flight attendants’ strength is nearly 2000. Why should there be two different policies for men and women? The airline should try to improve its training procedure instead of relying on women’s looks alone to get business,” said a PIA air hostess on borderline retirement.
Begging to remain unnamed she targeted the airline’s highest authorities for deteriorating standards. “How can any business make profit when it’s recruitment and promotion policy revolves around personalities and high connections? Fifty per cent of our first-class passengers travel gratis. Revenues don’t match expenditure. I really can’t go on any further without compromising myself. It’s extremely disgraceful to our honour as women and as working women to be treated as perishable commodities,” lashed out the air hostess.
In August 2001, the Bombay High Court, in neighbouring India, ruled that the air hostesses of Air-India should be allowed to fly till the age of 58. In December 31, 1978 a senior flight service director challenged Air Canada’s age 60 retirement policy. Two years later, the flight attendants won the right to work to age 65, with the normal retirement age remaining at 60. The Air Asia had recently increased the retirement age of both its male and female flight attendants to 55. And Malaysian Airlines is considering extending the age of its female cabin crew to 55 years.
These international comparisons are not to make a Pakistani stewardess feel upbeat. They are there to show the PIA that maintaining international standards is not just about physically fit and appealing women. It is about strict discipline and comprehensive inflight training for both men and women. “It is so humiliating to presume that only women can’t keep up with fitness requirements. Our stewards are not exactly spitting image of Greek gods. The PIA should have regular physical examinations to ascertain fitness of flight attendants and somebody is not active to work onboard that person should be appointed on ground,” commented another regular flier.
Human rights activists have come down heavily on the Supreme Court’s decree calling the judgment ‘a black law for the women of Pakistan’. Asma Jehangir finds the cultural part of the justification for retirement not only hypocritical but humiliating as well. She has called for a review of the Supreme Court’s decision. “Women carry out all the household chores regardless of age while men, shamelessly are served by them,” said Asma Jehangir in a formal statement issued to the press.
If the Supreme Court decides against review, this verdict is likely to become a part of a long set of ‘black laws’ passed against women. Among the PIA’s less than laudable landmarks, discrimination on the basis of sex is definitely going to get top ranking.
HOW should the Supreme Court’s verdict be defined when it decrees the retirement of the PIA’s female flight attendants after they have reached the age-mark of 45 years? Discriminatory? Biased? Retrogressive? Most definitely for it is against women’s right to work on equal terms with men. In Pakistan, the sociological rationale is certainly different, if not partial.
