It is usually not something that happens by choice. Better looking flight attendants are of course more appealing, but either or gets the job done. The passenger usually just cares about the flight attendant taking care of their needs and providing them with the necessities. I personally have never flown on Singapore Airlines, but from word of mouth, I have heard Singapore is generally cleaner than the U.S. So, I would like to try Air Singapore some time and hopefully their seats have a little more room.

Another thing noticed- why does the man get to relax and recline in a bed-like seat, while the woman has her legs (in heels) primly crossed below her? Do women not feel the need to stretch their legs out?

I think this post is ethnocentric. It's unfair to apply modern western views of gender roles to a very different culture.

Also, I think the matching of the clothing to the carpet is coincidence. Both designs just happen to be in the Singaporean style, which seems entirely appropriate.

I've flown on Singapore Airlines once to go to Japan because we got a good deal (granted, this was economy class). The man at the counter you check in with and get your boarding pass from told us how the flight attendants were very pretty and the food was good, in a winking way towards my father. I'd say, based on this experience, that the flight attendants are framed in a way be part of the comfort they're selling.
I don't think this is particular to Singapore Airlines, however--there have been news stories about other airlines firing or laying off flight attendants for not dressing in a particular way or not wearing enough makeup. Singapore Airlines does seem more overt about it, though.
Also, the food was impressively terrible on our flight back.

A lot of companies tailor their ads for specific demographics. If this ad was running in a magazine like Forbes or Harpers whose main demographic is white males, then this ad is just factoring that into its portrayal. Perhaps in other magazines, they feature people of color sitting in the seats.

I also agree with Emma about how different modern western views of gender roles are in other cultures.

The ad ran in the New Yorker. And while I totally agree that gender roles differ in various cultures, I also think that ads that run in the U.S. are playing into what they believe will be attractive to consumers here. Yes. I'm sure they tailor their ads to various countries; I also think the image of the subservient Asian woman is common in many non-Asian countries that have exoticized women from the region, and that countries in Asia know this and may choose to play it up.

the point about the blatant racial bias is well-taken, but i'm not sure what i think of "emotion work" as a concept. it adds little value, given that all airlines (and in fact most companies) want their customers "to feel cared-for and special" in direct interactions with employees. as such, emotion work is basically just another way of saying "detail-oriented customer service". one term is used by business people, the other the sociologists, and both are purely descriptive. while we can't fault the capitalists for being non-analytical, shouldn't the academics offer something slightly more insightful than a restatement the obvious?

I think the interesting point about emotion work is the way we use things like race and ethnicity as part of this effort. ANYONE could make passengers feel "cared for." The use of WOMEN to do those jobs plays on the idea that a) we are used to women being nurturing and caring and b) women will put up with disrespectful behavior from customers more than men will, so they're more "appropriate" for such positions. For instance, fast-food managers will often argue that they put women in the front of the store where they interact with customers b/c they'll put up with rudeness where men won't. So b/c we assume women are more polite and willing to take bad behavior, they are expected to be better at the kinds of jobs where you have to act like taking care of a customer's problems is something you really enjoy doing. Similarly, you don't need to have an image of three Asian women kneeling around a customer to get across the idea "we have great customer service." That's a choice to draw on certain ideas of being served.

And I'd argue that capitalists are EXTREMELY analytical, they just analyze for a different purpose. Every element of that Singapore Airlines ad was carefully analyzed as it was constructed, and I'm sure tested with focus groups, etc. We assume the patterns we see are accidental, when I think they are used quite purposely, even if the users don't as openly elucidate the ideas behind them.

I also personally think it's fascinating that we expect people to not just do a job competently, but to act like they LOVE doing it, all the time, no matter how difficult or disrespectful customers are. The fact that businesses claim a right to workers' apparent feelings, as well as their skills, is quite the addition to what workers owe businesses, and one that affects mostly the types of jobs women are more likely to be hired for (the customer service desk vs. the warehouse, for instance).

Analysis to the point of absurdity from feminists to ivory tower pin heads...good grief. Lighten up and show appreciation for the cabin crew, the flight deck crew, and the airline for providing clean, competent, professional, and safe voyages.

girls image

I think its important to consider the setting in which this or Singapore Airlines ads in general are set. Their ads always feature the "Singapore Girl" and follow a general consistent style like the one here.

I'm from Singapore. In the early 1970s, Singapore launched the "Singapore Girl" ads. The Singapore Girl was supposed to be graceful, caring and warm.. and looking below the surface of the ad, she's young and sexy- it was decidely sexist. That strategy worked then in an era where males typically made up the passengers paying premium tickets.

Singapore's economy was on the beginning of a process of rapid development then. Now it is highly specialised and one of the most developed. There has been a big change in the attitudes of the people here from my grand parents generation then to mine (I'm 21). People here now are generally very conscious of gender issues, female participation in the workforce has increased almost exponentially and there are now more females among the senior management ranks in the government and the private sector- something nearly non-existent in early 70s Singapore.

In today's context, these ads are a symbol of quality. The Singapore Girl is no longer thought of a 'sex symbol'- come on, they've got their hair in French swirls, buns and such thick make up. Looks like my grandfather's idea of "sexy". They're now a symbol of quality and assurance. It was a branding strategy that worked and consistentcy is the key feature of SQ's ads.

The Japanese and Korean carriers have virtually no male cabin crew (or flight attendents as they'd be called in the US) but 30 to 40% of SQ's are male. On a recent flight with SQ, I saw more male cabin crew than female but there are no "Singapore Boys" featured in their ads.

I don't see this as sexist. It definitely was in the early 70s when they embarked on this branding strategy but that has receeded and today its simply an icon. They definitely aren't going to stray away from it as this image defines their brand and gave them the comparative advantage they have- Singapore's a dot on the world map, with no domestic routes but this airline has been the most profitable for the past two decades (and the only industry where a Singaporean company is seen as a market leader).

And yes, the motif on that Singaporrean dress, known a Kebaya, and the carpet is a floral design known as Batik- a design native to Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

"The Singapore girls (are)... there to make us feel pampered and to warm our hearts–to do the type of emotion work (constantly smiling, being extremely attentive, being at the passengers’ service and making it seem like a joy) that makes customers feel cared-for and special…and thus willing to pay high prices for those business seats."

As opposed to the crap service from rude, monosyllabic, couldn't care less shop attendants, taxi drivers and hotel staff I experienced last month in New York City. Sorry, I thought these men and women were examples of lousy service, poor training and an all-round bad attitude when I should have realised they were simply liberated socialist feminists.