Lufthansa faces summer staffing concerns from flight attendants' union

The German flight attendants' union Ufo has voiced strong criticism of Lufthansa's staffing plans for the upcoming summer season. Ufo Vice Chairwoman Sara Grubisic warned that potential staff shortages could negatively impact passengers, leading to disrupted flight schedules, missed connections, and last-minute cancellations. Grubisic argued that Lufthansa's "premium promise" is incompatible with its lean staffing strategy.

The union specifically criticized the integration of the regional subsidiary Cityline in April, stating that its approximately 800 cabin crew members are either idle or in uncertain transitional situations. "With the closure of Cityline, flight operations were shifted to Lufthansa without having the people for it. It's already clear: this calculation is not working out," Grubisic said.

“

Staff shortages can lead to flight schedules not being kept, connections being missed, or flights being canceled at short notice.

Ufo claims that operations are being run on a tight margin, with protective measures against overload being temporarily relaxed and personnel reserves further depleted. The union pointed to voluntary appeals for staff during June as evidence of the strained situation. They also questioned the quality of onboard service, particularly if long-haul flights are operated with reduced crews.

Lufthansa, however, rejected these accusations. A spokesperson stated that the company is "very well positioned" for the summer and can reliably operate its flight schedule with its usual quality. The company also countered the claims about crew numbers, asserting that all flights are operated with crews whose personnel count significantly exceeds the minimum requirements set by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Lufthansa also reported positive feedback on its new onboard service, which launched last month.

“

With the closure of Cityline, flight operations were shifted to Lufthansa without having the people for it. It's already clear: this calculation is not working out.