Women in flight

Corporate India seems uncomfortable with mixed workplaces

The place of women in the workplace in India is not an enviable one. Social pressure continues to push women away from seeking employment - one reason, perhaps, for the otherwise odd finding in national sample surveys that, in many areas where income is increasing, the female participation rate is declining. For a poor woman, work is a necessity; for a richer woman, it suddenly becomes a luxury, one that needs an explanation for indulging in. Naturally, this leads to severe imbalances in various workplaces. The new head of the Tata group, Cyrus Mistry, said as much in a recent address to the shareholders of Tata Global Beverages. By not hiring enough women, Tata companies "were missing out on 50 per cent of the talent pool," Mr Mistry complained, adding that women "bring rich and diverse perspectives to the workplace".

Mr Mistry is, of course, right. It is darkly amusing, however, to note that some professions are nevertheless still considered the domain of women - not just nursing, but also in-flight crew in most airlines. In fact, The Times of India reported on Friday that one major Indian airline, GoAir, is considering hiring only female flight attendants from now on. Recognising that this would be seen as blatant sexism unless the company provided some further reason for its decision, the airline claimed that it was a cost-cutting measure. Women, so GoAir argues, are lighter than men, perhaps by 15 kilograms. Given that, if only women flight attendants are on a plane, there is less weight to carry; if there's less weight to carry, the airline has to spend less on ever-more-expensive aviation turbine fuel. The airline claims this would save it about Rs 3 crore a year - but the logic behind that claim looks shaky. After all, if an extra kilogram on board a plane costs Rs 3 per flight hour at current fuel prices, and the average flight is just under two hours long, then it means the airline is saving just about Rs 90 per flight for replacing one male attendant with an air hostess. It could well be argued that this is merely a fig leaf to cover up the desire to ensure that only women enter what is considered a traditionally female preserve, just as the cockpit is a traditionally male preserve. As such it is a regressive step.

Indeed, how flight crew should be hired has always been a question that has been on a front line of sorts between progressive and regressive points of view. After all, it is deeply ingrained in the airline industry that flight attendants should be both female and personable. The late and unlamented Kingfisher Airlines made something of a selling point of that. But there is little doubt that keeping a raucous cabin of Indian travellers in order, having them turn off their mobile phones, and so on is a tough enough ask without adding the possibility of sexual harassment to the mix. Air India, for its cabin crew, has notably privileged experience over youth or attractiveness - but that, too, might be changing, as the airline announced last month that it would tighten medical restrictions for its cabin crew. Most critics believe that the qualification tests are less to do with fitness and more to do with ensuring a particular aesthetic mix for flight attendants. If so, that's another sign of regressive workplace ethics being concealed behind high-minded corporate rhetoric.