Gender and Aviation

Gender and Aviation JANE M. FERGUSON The Australian National University, Australia For over a century aviation—or the systemic organization and coordination of machine-powered flight—has been increasingly embedded in modern political economies of war, capitalist expansion, mobility, and neoliberal supply chains. These applications shape the material and cultural practices of the machines’ design and operation as icons for and drivers of global interconnection. As such an assemblage, aviation is often symbolic in the service of the nation-state in situations both of patriotic wonder and glory as well as of uncanny terror and destruction. The various functions of these apparatuses and the contributions of workers and consumers are imbued with gendered expectations; some of their most visible participants have become paragons for gendered modernity and national identity. To explore these political histories and ethnographic presents, this entry discusses some of the ways in which the relationships between people and heavier-than-air machine-powered aircraft and their networks can contribute to anthropological research about gender. Discussion is organized according to two themes: (1) the symbolism and ideological implications of aviation workers in history; and (2) the ethnography of aviation labor and representation of aviation work. A methodological caveat should be entered: the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–21 may give rise to compelling new problematics in relation to the raison d’être and viability of commercial passenger aviation, questioning the foundation for the current research problematics about aviation, especially for the future of locally based participant observation. Since the twentieth century, anthropologists of the global North have come to depend on commercial passenger aviation for their research and professional careers. In critical terms, the lockdowns during the pandemic have served to illuminate some of the former hubris of classed perspectives and assumptions about aviation and mobility norms, questioning previous notions of privilege that may have been taken for granted by elite discourses about aviation and its participation, particularly in a discipline that often prides itself on its critique of inequity. The current situation accentuates the need to explore aviation and its networks from critical gendered perspectives and to interrogate some of the particular power dynamics that have historically framed its study. Most of the written work about airports has been produced from the perspective of visionary architects or cosmopolitan travelers, their gaze gendered, raced, and classed as dominant but often presented at face value as neutral. As such, the symbolic dimensions of design, flow, and metastability are emphasized over the perspectives of those who work in them on a daily basis; this elite perspective is largely skewed toward specific privileged optics and uses of the space. For example, Marc Augé’s (2008) theory of the “non-place,” or the purpose-built architecture of supermodernity, which is argued to be The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Edited by Hilary Callan and Simon Coleman. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2457 2 GE ND E R A ND A V I AT I O N devoid of organic society, posits that the airport terminal is such a location. This model, however, denies airport workers agency in creating their own cultures and senses of place within the terminal (Ferguson 2014). Outside of applied social science discourses about human factors or crew resource management, studies specifically about gender and aviation workers have tended to focus on flight attendants, though they are just one sector in a much broader system. For some perspective on aviation’s employment proportions, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2019 indicate that 121,900 people were employed as flight attendants, 127,100 as commercial pilots, and 160,000 as avionics technicians (http://data.bls.gov), while 1.2 million people were employed at the 485 commercial airports throughout the country. Therefore, when focusing on gender and aviation work, it is crucial to bear in mind not only which sector is under scrutiny and how it operates within the broader network but also the extent to which focusing on the hypervisible aspects of some aviation workers potentially renders invisible the work of many others. There is a highly political process to the construction of these very gendered aviation icons, which can refract and encode other forms of social identity, including sexuality, race, class, and ethnicity. Flight: Making History and Historical Operation Machine-powered flight emerged in the context of colonialism, imperialism, and capitalist expansion. The ephemeral wonder of planes in the air was mobilized for ideological purposes and served to create a new social phenomenon which has been referred to as “airmindedness”: a representative, affective, and visceral complex relating to aviation technology (Adey 2010, 83). Airmindedness is a technically oriented form of patriotism targeted at male youth, creating the figure of the aviation enthusiast, from the boy who builds model airplanes to the heroic pilot. Aircraft design and operation have historically been male dominated, with both often seen as modern examples of masculine performance. Within military and civil pilot culture, bravado, swagger, and an enthusiasm for machinery are dominant. Aircraft pilots, especially, are seen to embody ideal forms of masculinity: courageous, single-minded, and having “the right stuff” (Batteau 2001, 202). As a cultural icon, the daring aviator emerged as a new and modern paragon of patriotic machismo. Pilots who engaged in aerial dogfights were mythologized through reference to medieval battles of knights on horseback. These kinds of performance ideal, seen in conversation with hegemonic masculinity (Connell 2005), created an important trope in the trajectory of military nationalism. Aviation stunts acquired glory for the country and led to new competitions and nationalist simulacra. Following his solo Spirit of St. Louis Atlantic crossing in 1927, Charles Lindbergh became an American hero, representing the nation in both its modernity and its masculinity. His stunt set a new standard for patriotic achievement. Where the masculine figure of the Euro-American empire-building (male) aviator was raced as white, other countries’ elites sought to harness the same bravado in the service of their nation. In 1933 Chang Huichang flew from Berlin to Nanjing in an aircraft named The GE ND E R A ND A V I AT I O N 3 Spirit of Canton. In 1935 a popular Burmese movie fictionalized a story of two aviators completing the first nonstop flight from Tokyo to Rangoon in their aircraft, Spirit of Myanmar (Ferguson 2018). In addition to actual or fictionalized stunts, popular Hollywood movies promoted the macho aviator to aspiring youth; many pilots today recall being first inspired by action movies such as The Right Stuff (1983) or Top Gun (1986). Such symbolic and cultural work around war aviation and pilot bravado perpetuates airmindedness within tropes of hegemonic masculinity adapting to new technologies. The masculine act of controlling an aircraft drew its gendered cultural foundations from other forms of transportation command, especially military seafaring practices. Women workers had historically been seen as peripheral to transportation history. However, women aviators started to become more visible in early aviation history, though not for reasons that would necessarily pioneer gender equality. While early US pilots were seen as macho and daring, this did not aid the transition of aviation from a daring activity of war into a profitable commercial endeavor. For the public to willingly send parcels by air or purchase air tickets, let alone buy aircraft, they needed to be convinced that the mode of transport was safe and reliable. By publicizing the activities of women pilots, the aviation industry sought to present flying as easy and safe; operating a plane was simple enough that “even a woman could do it.” In other words, prejudice begat opportunity (Corn 1979, 560). In the early days, however, women pilots, as the exception, were seen as special women but not necessarily manly women. The figure of the female aviator was admired as feminine and glamorous (Bhimull 2017, 80). For example, in the 1933 Dorothy Arzner Hollywood film Christopher Strong, the title character has an extramarital affair with Cynthia, an aviatrix. Cynthia is independent and courageous, luring the man away from his wife, though the story concludes with his return to monogamous marital devotion (Penley 1988, 8). Nationalist history has incorporated some female heroes into its narrative but only in ways that reinforce, rather than critique, the empire they were building. Similarly, these narratives overlook the ways in which white women participated in the segregation tactics that marginalized racial others (Bhimull 2017, 92). While women pilots in the 1930s were seen as avant-garde, by World War II, women’s material labor was being harnessed for the purpose of wartime manufacture. Production needs drew more women to heavy industrial jobs, work that had previously been largely the preserve of men. In the United States, aviation manufacture saw the largest proportional increase in women workers. Propaganda posters created the heroic figure of Rosie the Riveter, with her strong bicep and empowering phrase, “We Can Do It.” Her icon has been assumed to represent young, middle-class, white housewives leaving the kitchen to join assembly-line work, although historical data show that the majority of wartime manufacturing working women were working class, of various ages and ethnicities, who had been engaged in paid labor for much of their adult lives. Nevertheless, for groups of 1960s and 1970s feminists in the United States, the enduring icon of Rosie the Riveter continued to signify women’s strength and competence to break into male-dominated work sectors and to accomplish what they choose to do without the input or assistance of men (Gluck 1987, x). While these manufacturing jobs represented a form of empowerment through work and wages, what of the very objects they produced? Once they were off the assembly 4 GE ND E R A ND A V I AT I O N line, US aircraft during World War II and the Korean War were resignified by their male crews. Military aviators not only named their aircraft but also commissioned artists to paint “nose art” images on the planes’ fuselage. The majority of these images were of pin-up models; many featured scantily clad women in sexually suggestive positions. Two examples include the C-47 named Ready 4 Duty with a painting of a blonde, large-breasted woman wearing nothing but a pair of red high-heeled shoes, and the B-25 named Yellow Rose with a painting of another blonde, large-breasted woman, this time wearing nothing but a cowboy hat and a pair of cowboy boots with pictures of yellow roses on the sides of the boots (Valant [1987] 1997, 109). Beyond the sexualized icons, there is the obverse point that the finished products of these industrial assembly lines were the harbingers of destruction and the extension of the United States’ aerial empire during the Cold War. Ethnography of aviation work Early applied social science approaches to the study of aviation work, specifically the management and coordination of flight to minimize risks, fall under the industry monikers of “human factors” and “cockpit resource management,” which later became known as “crew resource management.” The latter constitutes a methodology to understand pilot behavior to “avoid error, to trap errors committed, and to mitigate the consequences of error” (Helmreich, Merritt, and Wilhelm 1999, 19). In this approach, the complexities of humanity are adapted to the technological system and the analytical focus is on efficient and effective use of the machinery (Batteau 2001, 201). For engineering discourses, new approaches to considering the interface and understandings of the “end user” were incorporated into research and design; rather than designing systems according to the problems presented to engineers, aircraft developers increasingly studied how pilots used the machinery—including the mistakes they made—so that more “foolproof ” systems could be designed. In relation to human–aircraft operation systems are studies that have focused on gender dimensions in the work environment. In relation to pilot behavior and work, applied research has largely focused on two major themes: attitudes relating to gender and identifiable differences in pilot behavior due to gender (Reynolds et al. 2014, 98). Through work groups and accident investigations, specific gendered aspects of crew behavior were identified as risky, for example, pilot overconfidence, lack of willingness to accept feedback or criticism from other crew members, and, conversely, established hierarchies that would tend to make subordinates reticent about voicing contrary opinions. In a collated comparison of pilot behaviors between genders, it was noted that women pilots are slower to gain confidence in flying, less likely to engage in showing off (hotdogging), avoid flying into bad weather, and rarely fly when intoxicated (Neal-Smith 2014, 194). In contrast, men were more likely to engage in these risky activities and were less approachable or willing to have their decisions questioned. To mitigate the risks, management consultants designed and implemented training programs to encourage systems of checks that would reduce ambiguity in communications between crew or with tower communications. Aviation governing bodies have GE ND E R A ND A V I AT I O N 5 changed aspects of operating procedure, such as allowing any crew member (including flight attendants) the right to cancel a take-off; previously only a captain could abort take-off, but the captain would not necessarily be in the best location to notice other potential dangers such as snow on the aircraft wings. Even when they were shown data that pilot overconfidence and unwillingness to listen to subordinates’ advice had led to dangerous situations, some pilots denigrated these training programs as “charm school.” In other words, they were confident in their own piloting skills and resented having to spend time being told how to do their job by nonpilots (Helmreich, Merritt, and Wilhelm 1999, 21). As a form of applied anthropology, these training programs for crew resource management are also guided by superstructures of legal responsibility: assigning causation for an accident determines who is at fault and therefore whose insurance must pay compensation. As such, there is an orientation toward studying the human operator in terms of the biases that can lead to a disaster rather than their humanity in its complexity. Furthermore, the principal goal of these applied approaches, together with human factors discourse, is the effective operation of aircraft and the reduction of legal liability for the employer, not social equity in the world beyond, let alone critical discussion of the structural role of aircraft in war or empire. Relative prestige and gendered labor are necessarily recalibrated by the sociocultural context in which they operate, but one of the main aporia (stumbling blocks) to studying gendered labor in aviation is the tendency to organize analysis according to the nation-state. Further, it presumes and accepts a gendered and ethnicized “majority default” within that national culture. In commercial aviation in the United States, for example, this would create a spatiality where the flight deck was assumed to be a white (male) space while the cabin, where flight attendants worked, would be predominantly white women’s space. When African Americans enter these spaces, they must contend with racist framings of them for they are perceived as not belonging there, in addition to gendered expectations (Evans 2013, 77). Attendant gender The origin of the feminized occupation of flight attendant is located at the intersection of public perceptions of aircraft as exciting and dangerous and the commercial need to convince potential customers that flying is safe and routine. Enter the pleasant, calming, friendly, and kind stewardess who, in the early years, is also often a certified nurse. Within government controlled and regulated aviation, commercial airliners could not compete for customers through ticket prices, so they turned to marketing their in-flight services and specifically the beauty and charm of their “stewardesses” (Barry 2007, 39; Corn 1979, 571). To craft a specific image and work role, airline management strongly socializes flight attendants through strict regimens of grooming rules and supervision, creating a rigid differentiation between how the two genders “naturally” appear (Ayuttacorn 2016b, 463). The result within the commercial airline, however, is not what society might view as conventional femininity or masculinity but instead, and especially since the 1970s, an increasingly eroticized female flight attendant to please the (heterosexual) gaze of 6 GE ND E R A ND A V I AT I O N the male business passenger. At the height of Pan American World Airways’ empire, the Pan Am flight attendants who were used as advertising models sought to present not only the notion that the world was the airline’s “neighborhood” but also that the flight attendants pictured represent the Euro-American girl next door. In one advertising poster, the figure of the feminine white flight attendant was contrasted to an Asian (American) woman flight attendant, defining the latter by juxtaposition as the other (Yano 2011, 178). With femininity a fundamental attribute of the role, flight attendants not only represented middle-class notions of femininity but were often seen as more female than other women (Hochschild 1983, 175). A similar ethos pervaded airline management worldwide, although cultural differentiation and performance took on a different meaning. Where reciprocal international landing rights precluded using price to compete on major routes, some national airlines began to advertise the female bodies of their flight attendants as servile paragons of ethnicized glamor. Among some nations’ flag carriers, female flight attendants—often in a uniform that incorporates aspects of a national costume—are expected to perform a hyperfeminine archetype of that nation. Examples include khwampenthai (essentialized Thai-ness) for female Thai Airways flight attendants or Singapore Airlines’ image of sophisticated, charming courtesy embodied and performed by “the Singapore Girl” (Ayuttacorn 2016b). In addition to their symbolic work, flight attendants carried out material labor, serving passengers and carrying out safety procedures as part of duty crew. The sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s (1983) pioneering book The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling revolutionized how social science has understood work in advanced capitalism. She argues that for flight attendants the “emotional style of offering the service is part of the service itself” (Hochschild 1983, 5). Although Hochschild’s argument is predicated on emotional work leading to an estrangement of workers’ private selves, other work on flight attendants’ emotional work across cultures suggests otherwise. On the basis of long-term participant observation of Thai female flight attendants, the anthropologist Arratee Ayuttacorn has argued that Hochschild’s notion of emotional labor and affective economy can be related to the Buddhist conceptions of the self and suffering. In the Thai Airways context, the notion of the winyann (inner spirit or soul) is understood and used by flight attendants to combine emotional maturity, integrity, and professionalism into a single notion. The flight attendants thus appropriate the Buddhist concept to represent a corporate ethos as well as an everyday on-the-job crisis management strategy (Ayuttacorn 2016a, 51). Where special characteristics of aviation work and its cultural management strategies created new types of job roles, the gendered and affective labor begat new kinds of identity formation as well as agency in the form of union militancy. In her history of flight attendants’ labor activism in the United States, the historian Kathleen Barry (2007) argues that the hypervisibility of flight attendants and their glamorization gave them an extra dynamo for union activism. Their work led to important gains not only for women flight attendants but also for other kinds of workplace laws including smoke-free workplace legislation, antidiscrimination laws, and progressive gender-neutral “buddy pass” flying benefits. Further, in the global North, flight attendants’ union organization pioneered activism for “pink-collar” laborers in other sectors as well (Barry 2007, 61). GE ND E R A ND A V I AT I O N 7 In contrast to the flight attendant union movement of the global North, the anthropologist Alex Jong-Seok Lee notes that Korean female flight attendants were able to acquire new modes of individual pleasure, autonomy, and consumerism through their work as part of what he calls “service mobilities,” which are seen as sites of distinction from the more racialized labor migrant (2018, ii). Further, the geographic mobility that is intrinsic in flight attendant work also facilitates the subtle networking of gay male flight attendants in geographically disparate locations (Tiemeyer 2013, 120). The gender dynamic and concrete workplace antidiscrimination laws have created a work context for flight attendants that is experienced as gay friendly for men, though lesbian women are noted to be less likely to be “out.” Some Thai cabin crew felt that taew (effeminate gays) had hearts that were better oriented to looking after the wishes of passengers than their straight counterparts; there was a perception that straight men were less inclined to listen or to take care of the emotional needs of others or would need to tone down their masculinity to perform the role of flight attendant (Ferguson and Ayuttacorn 2019). Because of the hypermasculine perception of the cockpit and the hyperfeminine stereotype of the flight attendant, women pilots and male flight attendants are seen as the exception and are therefore stereotyped as not quite women or not quite men. These kinds of assumptions not only make individuals defensive about their own gender and sexuality but also provoke retaliation which leads to the harassment of others. For example, men in stereotypically female occupations are sometimes presumed to be less manly. Straight-identifying male flight attendants sometimes assert their straightness by telling homophobic jokes or making unwanted advances to female coworkers (Tiemeyer 2013, 220). In contrast, in the presumed masculine space of the cockpit, female pilots sometimes contend with the assumption that they are lesbians or become defensive about their femininity. In response to interviews about their gender or how they are perceived, some women pilots will insist that they are not “butch” or, as one female pilot asserted, that they are “normal girls who seem to like planes” (Gibbon 2014, 55; emphasis added). Conclusion: Taxi to Terminal While a former Boeing chief executive officer estimated that fewer than 20 percent of the world’s population have ever set foot on an aircraft in their lifetime (Gurdus 2017), aviation and its infrastructures have been integral to the ideological and material actualization of modernity and empire. Its history is therefore imbued with idealized, aspirational forms of masculinity and femininity. As an elite industry that is both symbolically heavy and capital intensive, aviation has incorporated and perpetuated gender ideologies as part of its military and political directives, as well as to market and sell its distinct product. Legal and management discourses have socialized and perpetuated aspects of gendered behavior as long as they are seen as important and beneficial for their ideal human figures for operating the technical system or for advertising. As a result, management 8 GE ND E R A ND A V I AT I O N discourses have tended to focus on issues such as occupational role, performance, or representation without explicitly addressing the ideological implications of aviation as part of the military–industrial complex or global capitalism. For example, the underrepresentation of women pilots in the air force is discussed as a kind of gender problem to be solved by increasing equity in the recruitment and retention of pilots. The broader effects of the culture of war are not included in the gender issue as framed. Social movements for gender and racial equality, coupled with airline workers’ union movements, have been key drivers for changes to work norms within the industry. Although many commercial airlines still maintain strict body regulations (Thai Airways, for example, measure the body mass index of its female flight attendants), some discriminatory rules have gone, such as selection based on age, gender, ethnicity, or weight. Airline workers’ unions have pioneered and fought for benefits that are some of the most progressive today. However, in recent decades corporate mergers and bankruptcies have reduced the relative buying power of airline crew salaries. Finally, while direct participation in aviation is a relatively elite endeavor, studying it ethnographically requires acknowledging the gender dimension, as well as situating these practices in the broader-reaching economic networks and supply chains of the global economy. SEE ALSO: Gender and Economics; Gender and Globalization; Gender, Nationalism, and Ethnicity; Gender and Race, Intersectionality Theory of; Gender and Sexuality: Contested Relations; Labor, Employment, and Work; Women in the Military REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Adey, Peter. 2010. “‘Ten Thousand Lads with Shining Eyes Are Dreaming and Their Dreams Are Wings’: Affect, Airmindedness and the Birth of the Aerial Subject.” Cultural Geographies 18 (1): 63–89. doi:10.1177/1474474010377670. Augé, Marc. 2008. Non-places: An Introduction to Supermodernity. London: Verso. Ayuttacorn, Arratee. 2016a. “Winyann and Affective Performance among Female Thai Flight Attendants.” Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 17 (1): 50–65. doi:10.1080/14442213.2015. 1119186. Ayuttacorn, Arratee. 2016b. “Air Crafting: Corporate Mandate and Thai Female Flight Attendants’ Negotiation of Body Politics.” South East Asia Research 24 (4): 462–76. doi:10.1177/0967828X16673941. Barry, Kathleen. 2007. Femininity in Flight: A History of Flight Attendants. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. doi:10.1215/9780822389507. Batteau, Allen W. 2001. “The Anthropology of Aviation and Flight Safety.” Human Organization 60 (3): 201–12. doi:10.17730/humo.60.3.3q5m5dylr01p1qa4. Bhimull, Chandra D. 2017. Empire in the Air: Airline Travel and the African Diaspora. New York: New York University Press. doi:10.18574/nyu/9781479843473.001.0001. Connell, R. W. 2005. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Corn, Joseph J. 1979. “Making Flying ‘Thinkable’: Women Pilots and the Selling of Aviation, 1927–40.” American Quarterly 31 (4): 556–71. doi:10.2307/2712272. Evans, Louwanda. 2013. Cabin Pressure: African American Pilots, Flight Attendants and Emotional Labor. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. GE ND E R A ND A V I AT I O N 9 Ferguson, Jane M. 2014. “Terminally Haunted: Aviation Ghosts, Hybrid Buddhist Practices, and Disaster Aversion Strategies amongst Airport Workers in Myanmar and Thailand.” Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 15 (1): 47–64. doi:10.1080/14442213.2013.872698. Ferguson, Jane M. 2018. “Flight School for the Spirit of Myanmar: Aerial Nationalism and Burmese–Japanese Cinematic Collaboration in the 1930s.” South East Asia Research 26 (3): 268–82. doi:10.1177/0967828X18793046. Ferguson, Jane M., and Arratee Ayuttacorn. 2019. “Air Male: Exploring Flight Attendant Masculinities in North America and Thailand.” Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 20 (4): 328–43. doi:10.1080/14442213.2019.1634137. Gibbon, Deanne. 2014. “Difficult, Dangerous, Not a Job for Girls: Factors Impacting Women and Girls’ Orientation towards Pilot Careers.” In Absent Aviators: Gender Issues in Aviation, edited by Donna Bridges, Jane Neal-Smith, and Albert J. Mills, 43–72. London: Routledge. Gluck, Sherna Berger. 1987. Rosie the Riveter Revisited: Women, the War and Social Change. Boston: Twayne. Gurdus, Lizzy. 2017. “Boeing CEO: Over 80% of the World’s Population Has Never Taken a Flight. We’re Leveraging That for Growth.” CNBC, December 7. Accessed May 17, 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/boeing-ceo-80-percent-of-people-never-flown-for-usthat-means-growth.html. Helmreich, Robert L., Ashleigh C. Merritt, and John A. Wilhelm. 1999. “The Evolution of Crew Resource Training in Commercial Aviation.” International Journal of Aviation Psychology 9 (1): 19–32. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0901_2. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lee, Alex Jong-Seok. 2018. “Serving to Secure ‘Global Korea’: Gender, Mobility, and Flight Attendant Labor Migrants.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Neal-Smith, Jane. 2014. “Flying through Barriers: Identifying Issues for Female Airline Pilots.” In Absent Aviators: Gender Issues in Aviation, edited by Donna Bridges, Jane Neal-Smith, and Albert J. Mills, 187–207. London: Routledge. Penley, Constance. 1988. “Introduction: The Lady Doesn’t Vanish: Feminism and Film Theory.” In Feminism and Film Theory, edited by Constance Penley, 1–24. London: Routledge. Reynolds, Rosemarie, Alexandru Milt, Giby Abraham Jacob, Joshua Hirschheimer, and Bridget Cox. 2014. “Gender-Based Attitudes regarding Pilot Behaviour.” In Absent Aviators: Gender Issues in Aviation, edited by Donna Bridges, Jane Neal-Smith, and Albert J. Mills, 97–111. London: Routledge. Tiemeyer, Phil. 2013. Plane Queer: Labor, Sexuality, and AIDS in the History of Male Flight Attendants. Los Angeles: University of California Press. doi:10.1525/9780520955301. Valant, Gary. (1987) 1997. Classic Vintage Nose Art: U.S. Military Aircraft in World War II and Korea. Ann Arbor, MI: Lowe & B. Hould. Yano, Christine R. 2011. Airborne Dreams: “Nisei” Stewardesses and Pan American World Airways. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. doi:10.1215/9780822393368.