Despite doing essential work for the roughly 1 billion passengers per year flying in the United States, airport cleaners, baggage handlers, ticketing agents, caterers, concessions workers, passenger service agents, and lounge workers who make airports and flights operate smoothly are paid low wages with limited access to benefits.
New analysis from the Center for American Progress finds that wages in airport service occupations fall below the private sector standard and that more than 3 in 10 workers in some airport service occupations do not receive employer-provided health insurance. Low pay harms workers’ ability to afford basic necessities such as housing, and nearly half of passenger attendants—who assist passengers who use wheelchairs and provide other services to ensure passenger safety—are rent burdened. This disproportionately harms both workers of color—who make up a majority of workers in many air travel jobs—and the public, as low pay reduces the willingness of well-qualified workers to stay in the field.
Federal policymakers can raise wages for essential airport service workers while also delivering good value for travelers. Cities, states, and airport authorities across the country have successfully adopted baseline standards that ensure airport service workers are paid a fair market wage, have access to employer-provided health insurance, and can take necessary time off to deal with illness. Such standards also help to reduce turnover and increase quality of services for air passengers. Congress can do the same nationwide with a decent wage, benefits, and paid leave standard that keeps up with rising costs and covers all service workers at airports.
This column explains the scope of the problem of low wages for airport service workers, how these low wages adversely affect not only workers but the public as a whole, and the steps policymakers can take to uphold higher standards for airport service workers.
Air travel service workers are paid low wages
Service workers in the air travel industry are paid low wages, compared with the private sector as a whole, and have limited access to employer-sponsored health insurance benefits—a problem that disproportionately harms Black and Hispanic workers and leaves many households struggling with housing costs.
CAP analysis of 2018 to 2022 wage data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) for four service occupations in the air travel industry—aircraft cleaners, who clean aircraft after flights; passenger attendants, who assist with passenger needs such as wheelchair service; baggage handlers, who ensure luggage safely reaches its destination; and ticketing and check-in agents, who assist travelers at the front desk—shows that median wages for workers in each occupation are less than typical wages for workers in the private sector. While data limitations prevent comprehensive research on every airport service occupation, these four occupations can be restricted mostly to airport workers and allow insight into the experiences of service workers at airports. (for more details, see the Methodology section)
As shown in Figure 1, while the median private-sector hourly wage was $22.48 per hour over this time period, workers in air travel service occupations earned less—as low as $14.05 per hour for aircraft cleaners. These wages fall far short of a livable income, even in affordable cities. For example, a worker in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area would need to earn $37.91 per hour to support just themselves and one child, according to MIT’s living wage estimates, while a worker in Charlotte, North Carolina, would need to earn $39.10 per hour to support the same family, and a worker in Phoenix would need a wage of at least $42.11 per hour.
Many of these workers also lack access to health insurance through their employer. As Figure 2 shows, 18.5 percent of baggage handlers, 25.9 percent of ticketing and check-in agents, 32.9 percent of passenger attendants, and 35.9 percent of aircraft cleaners have no employer-provided health insurance. As a result, airport service workers face greater difficulties receiving adequate medical coverage for themselves and their families, increasing the likelihood airport service workers need to rely on public coverage options such as Medicaid. Even when workers can access insurance plans through their employer, high premiums can often make these plans unaffordable.
Because air travel service workers are much more likely to be Black or Hispanic, low wages and poor benefits in the air travel industry disproportionately harm workers of color. Figure 3 shows that from 2018 to 2022, a majority of aircraft cleaners, passenger attendants, and baggage handlers identified as Black, Hispanic, or both, compared with 30.3 percent for the private sector as a whole, meaning Black and Hispanic workers are overrepresented in air travel occupations that pay low wages. The low wages paid to airport service workers make it that much more difficult for Black and Hispanic workers to support themselves and their families.
Low wages for service workers in the air travel industry compromise workers’ ability to afford basic necessities such as housing for themselves and their families. Figure 4 shows the proportion of households with workers in airport service industries that are rent burdened, meaning they pay more than 30 percent of their annual income on rent and expenses such as utilities. More than 30 percent of ticketing and check-in agents, more than 40 percent of aircraft cleaners and baggage handlers, and nearly half of passenger attendants are rent burdened. Airport workers are also frequently burdened with high commuting needs, as airports are located far from housing in many cities.
The cost of low wages and benefits for service workers in the air travel industry is borne not only by working families but also by the public as a whole. Research has shown that low wages for airport service workers increase turnover and diminish the quality and safety of air travel. Low standards are also costly to the public, as federal, state, and local governments all contribute important funding for airports, and the low pay means workers must rely more on public benefits such as housing and nutritional assistance and Medicaid.
Wage standards improve the lives of airport service workers and benefit the public
Wage and benefits standards, such as a prevailing wage for airport service workers, would dramatically improve the lives of airport service workers and have been shown to increase service quality and reduce costs for taxpayers. Policymakers in numerous cities and states have established strong baseline standards for service workers at airports. Los Angeles, Seattle, and Chicago airports have all adopted pay standards that rise automatically with increasing costs. San Francisco requires employers at its airport to provide health care coverage for service workers and their families at no cost. Philadelphia’s airport standard covers concessions workers and includes a benefits supplement for health and welfare benefits that increases periodically. Airport workers in Chicago earn paid time off, and workers in Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, and Philadelphia have guaranteed sick time off due to state and local paid leave laws.
The federal government sets a contractor minimum wage—currently $17.75 per hour—and prevailing or occupationally specific market wage for numerous federally supported jobs. Yet federal wage standards do not apply to airport service workers, and many workers live in states and cities without strong local airport wage laws. The result is large numbers of workers who earn less than the minimum set by decent wage standards.
Figure 5 shows the percentage of workers in four different air travel service occupations earning less than the minimum wage of $17.75 per hour for federal contractors, all of whom would see increased wages if a similar minimum were established at their airports. With a wage standard set at the minimum level for federal contractors, 34.3 percent of ticketing agents, 43.5 percent of baggage handlers, 49.6 percent of passenger attendants, and 62.2 percent of aircraft cleaners would enjoy an immediate raise. Even higher-wage workers would see their paychecks improve if a wage standard were established because a wage standard moves the entire pay scale up, boosting wages for workers just above the new minimum as well.
Researchers who studied the outcomes of airport service worker wage standards found improved value for workers and the public alike: A study of the San Francisco airport wage standard found that wages rose for all covered customer service employees, aircraft cleaners, baggage handlers, fuelers, and security screeners by 22 percent—and by 33 percent for entry-level positions. In addition, annual turnover rates fell significantly, thereby saving employers about $4,275 per employee replaced in restaffing costs, and the reduction of turnover also helped improve detections of security breaches as well as workers’ performance and customer service.
Conversely, research has shown that low wages for airport service workers increase turnover, worsen service quality, and impose higher costs on taxpayers. Before it adopted a workplace standard, the Port of Seattle found that low wages, poor benefits, and other job quality factors drove high turnover rates for wheelchair attendants, cabin cleaners, and other occupations. High turnover means fewer experienced workers are on the job in crucial roles, reducing service quality. At crucial public infrastructure such as airports, this makes air travel more dangerous: A 2007 government report found that low wages and high turnover among baggage, catering, and fueling personnel contributed to ramp accidents and aircraft entering runways without permission.
The federal government has a role to play in establishing fair wage standards at airports. Airports receive government support in order to make air travel available across the nation, but as a result, the government subsidizes low wages for service workers and receives poor value for its spending. Moreover, research has shown that prevailing wages for service workers increase wages and rates of employer-provided health insurance coverage and narrow racial pay gaps by ensuring all workers, regardless of race, are held to the same baseline pay standard.
Federal policymakers should establish wage and benefits standards for airport service workers. For example, the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act would establish prevailing wages for service workers at airports that receive federal funding. A successful wage standard should extend to cover the wide range of service work at airports—including baggage handlers, porters, caterers, and other ramp workers; passenger attendants; aircraft mechanics and cleaners; airport security, screening workers, and janitors; ticketing and check-in agents; and workers at concessions, lounges, and airport warehouses. Such a standard should also require employers to offer health insurance plans and take steps to make these plans affordable, such as through a minimum health benefits supplement for workers. In addition, policymakers should guarantee a minimum amount of paid time off for sick leave and vacations that includes airport service workers. Guaranteed paid time off could help reduce the risk of illness—especially crucial for workers at facilities with thousands of travelers every day.
Read more
Conclusion
Airport service workers do essential work to facilitate travel for millions of Americans every day and deserve fair wages and benefits with guaranteed time off; but poor wages in the air travel industry make it challenging for these workers to support themselves, while also reducing service quality and value for the public. Lawmakers in Congress should establish strong baseline wage and benefits standards for airport service workers. These policies have been shown to not only raise wages for large numbers of working families but also reduce turnover, improve service quality, and reduce reliance on public benefits programs. Several jurisdictions have found success with airport wage standards. Innovative policymakers should consider applying these principles nationally to establish strong standards for airport service workers.
Methodology
For this analysis, the authors relied on data from the most recent five-year sample of the American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and published by IPUMS USA, covering 2018 through 2022. This survey offers earnings, hours, job classification, and demographic data on workers representative of the U.S. population.
The ACS classifies a worker’s occupation and industry using codes developed by the Census Bureau. Because of the occupation and industry classification schemes used, many service occupation groups with workers at airports—including janitors, concessioners, and others—cannot be restricted to airport workers alone and were thus omitted from this analysis. However, the four occupations analyzed here generally can be by restricting occupation and industry classifications to include only workers in the air travel industry. Ticketing and check-in agents are coded in a manner that makes it impossible to discern whether a given respondent works at an airport or another kind of transit facility, but they are still included here because all ticketing agents work in transit.
For this analysis, the private sector workforce includes all respondents who reported working 50 to 52 weeks the previous year in any industry classification except public administration or the military. Income data are adjusted for inflation using annual averages of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
The ACS asks respondents to describe whether they are of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, with a second question that lacks these options prompting a respondent to indicate their race. For this analysis, the authors refer to a respondent as Hispanic if the respondent stated that they are of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin in the former question and refer to a respondent as Black if they answered that they are Black or African American in the latter question. Because these questions are separate, they are not mutually exclusive, meaning some respondents describe themselves as both Black or African American and of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.