text:
Single malt Scotch

Single malt Scotch refers to single malt whisky made in Scotland. To qualify for this category, a whisky must have been distilled at a single distillery using a pot still distillation process and made from a mash of malted barley. Therefore, a single malt means that the whisky has not been blended elsewhere with whisky from other distilleries. As with any Scotch whisky, a single malt Scotch must be distilled in Scotland and matured in oak casks in Scotland for at least three years, although most single malts are matured longer.

Definitions

 * "Malt" indicates that the whisky is distilled from a "malted" barley. Malting calls for soaking the grains in water for several days until it germinates. Heat is then applied to stop the germination, often using peat as the fuel. Other grains, such as rye or wheat, can be malted for other types of whisky, but barley must be used for single malt Scotch. The dry malt is ground into flour (grist) and mixed with hot water; this mashing process converts the starch into sugar. Later, yeast is added to increase the process of fermentation. Finally, impurities such as methanol are removed during distillation; that also increases the alcohol content.
 * "Single" indicates that all the spirits in the bottle come from a single distillery. That distillery may combine single malt whiskies of several ages in a bottle.

Another term is sometimes seen, "double malt Scotch" or "triple malt". This designation indicates that the whisky was aged in two or three types of casks, but was not blended; hence, it still falls into the single malt category. The more common term for this type of whisky is "double wood" or "triple wood". Examples include The Balvenie 12 Years Old DoubleWood and Laphroaig Triple Wood.

Many companies use malt whisky purchased from multiple distilleries, and these whiskies combined into "blended malt".

Until the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009 (SWR 2009), the word "blended" only appeared (in the context of Scotch whisky) on bottles of whisky that contained a mixture of both barley and non-barley grain whisky, but this is no longer the case. Under the terminology established by the SWR 2009, the term "blended malt Scotch whisky" replaced the term "vatted malt" to describe a mixture of single malt Scotch whiskies (malted barley whisky).

Only about 10% of the Scotch whiskies on the market are defined as single malt. The other 90% is made by combining numerous whiskies, typically two-thirds grain whisky (non-barley) and one-third malt whisky, from several, or numerous, distilleries in Scotland. The resulting products are labeled "blended Scotch whisky", without the word "malt". Nearly 90% of Scotch whisky sold each year is a blended type. Nonetheless, in 2018, single malt Scotch made up nearly 28% of the £4.7 billion of whisky exported from Scotland.

For any Scotch whisky, whether malt or blended, the age statement on a bottle refers to the number of years the whisky spent maturing in casks. Very few whiskies are bottled from a single cask. The mixing of spirits with different amounts of ageing is allowed; the age statement of the resulting mix reflects the age of the youngest whisky in the bottle.

History
Distillation of whisky has been performed in Scotland for centuries. The earliest written record of whisky production in Scotland from malted barley is an entry on the 1494 Exchequer Rolls, which reads "Eight bolls of malt to Friar John Cor, by order of the King, wherewith to make aqua vitae." The expression 'single' means that of "separate, distinct, not combined or taken together" and is adapted from the old Latin word singulum (individual).

In the following centuries, the various governments of Scotland began taxing the production of whisky, to the point that most of the spirit was produced illegally. However, in 1823, Parliament passed the Excise Act making commercial distillation legal and profitable. Punishments were imposed on landowners when unlicensed distilleries were found on their properties. The passing of the act encouraged many distillers to apply for licensees. An Upper Drummin farmer in the Glen Livet valley, George Smith, working under landlord the Duke of Gordon, was the first person in Scotland to take out a licence for a distillery under the new law, founding what would become the Glenlivet Distillery in 1824, making single malt Scotch. Others followed and by 1830, some 232 distilleries had become licensed in Scotland.

In the 1830s, Aeneas Coffey patented a refined version of a design originally created by Robert Stein, based on early innovations by Sir Anthony Perrier, for a column still. This new method produced whisky much more efficiently than the traditional pot stills. The new type of still allowed for continuous distillation, without the need for cleaning after each batch was made. This process made manufacturing more affordable by performing the equivalent of multiple distillation steps. The new still dramatically increased production; the whisky was less intense and smoother, though less flavoursome.

Quickly, merchants began blending the malt whisky with grain whisky distilled in the continuous stills, making the first blended Scotch whisky. The blended Scotch proved quite successful, less expensive to produce than malt, and exhibited more flavour and character than grain. The combination allowed the single malt producers to expand their operations, or to sell their products to other distillers who were making the blended products. After the 1850s, blended Scotch became far more popular than single malt whisky which eventually became a niche product for connoisseurs.

By the Victorian era, distilleries had become commonplace across Scotland. A common feature in design originating from Charles C. Doig was that of a pagoda like roof that improved the efficiency of distilleries by drawing off peat smoke in the malting process. Even today many distilleries possess a pagoda style roof on at least one building even if no malting takes place and in some instances, new pagoda roofs are added for aesthetic purposes. However, while whisky production was widespread in Scotland, the number of single malts was comparatively limited until the late 20th century. It was noted that in 1967, of 110 distilleries only 30 allowed the public to buy their whisky as a single malt. However, by the 1990s, changing demand had resulted in most distilleries offering a single malt to customers.

A 2016 report stated that only 20% of the Scotch whisky was made by companies owned in Scotland. The owners of the majority of products are Diageo, a London-based company, Pernod Ricard of France and Beam Suntory, a Japanese-owned company. Independent distilleries owned by Scots companies make a substantial amount of whisky too, particularly William Grant & Sons, the largest of these. Grant produces 8% of all Scotch whisky, with brands including Glenfiddich and Balvenie. Glenfiddich is the best-selling single malt Scotch in the world; roughly 14 million bottles are sold annually.

In recent times, single malt has made up about 26% of the whisky exported to other countries; bulk spirits constituted about 5% and the balance has been blended whisky. The top importers of Scotch whisky are the US (21%), France (11%) and Singapore (6%).

Economic benefits
The Scotch Whisky Association estimated in 2019 that Scotland's whisky industry supported 40,000 jobs. The industry's contribution to the economy of the UK was estimated as £5.5 billion in 2018; the industry provided £3.8 billion in direct GVA (gross value added) to Scotland. Whisky tourism has also become significant and accounts for £68.3 million per year.

One factor may have negatively affected sales, an extra 3.9% duty on spirits imposed by the UK in 2017. By 2020, another factor may affect exports: the 25% increase in tariffs imposed by the U.S. in October 2019. By year-end 2017, however, exports totaled a record-breaking £4.37 billion, an increase of 8.9% over 2016. Of that total, single malt Scotch accounted for £1.17 billion in exports, a 14% increase over 2016.

Exports in 2018 again increased, by 7.8% by value, and 3.6% in number of bottles, in spite of the duty imposed in 2017; exports grew to a record level, £4.7 billion. The US tariffs were not yet in place at that time, however. Of the total exports in 2018, single malt accounted for £1.3 billion.

Whisky tourism has also become significant and accounts for £68.3 million per year; the percentage contribution to this industry by single malt Scotch distilleries, however, has not been released. The tourism has been a real plus to the economy, and of significant value especially in remote rural areas, according to Fiona Hyslop MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs. "The Scottish Government is committed to working with partners like the Scotch Whisky Association to increase our tourism offer and encourage more people to visit our distilleries," the Secretary added.

Regions
Flavour, aroma, and finish differ widely between single malts. Single malt Scotch whiskies are categorised into the following whisky-producing regions: Campbeltown single malts, Highland single malts, Island single malts (a sub-section of the Highland region), Islay single malts, Lowland single malts, and Speyside single malts

Independent bottlers
Independent bottlers buy casks of single malts and either bottle them immediately or store them for future use. Many of the independents began as stores and merchants who bought the whisky in bulk and bottled it for individual sales. Many distilleries do not bottle their whisky as a single malt, so independent bottlings are the only way the single malt gets to market. The bottling process is generally the same, but independents generally do not have access to the distillery's water source, so another source is used to dilute the whisky. Additionally, independents are generally less concerned with maintaining a particular style, so more single year and single cask bottlings are produced.

Established independent bottlers include Duncan Taylor, Murray McDavid, Douglas Laing & Co, and Blackadder.

title: Single malt Scotch


text:
Symbolism

Symbolism or symbolist may refer to:

Arts

 * Symbolism (arts), a 19th-century movement rejecting Realism
 * Symbolist movement in Romania, symbolist literature and visual arts in Romania during the late 19th and early 20th centuries
 * Russian symbolism, the Russian branch of the symbolist movement in European art
 * Symbol, something that represents, stands for or suggests an idea, belief, action, or entity
 * Color symbolism, the use of colors within various cultures to express a variety of symbolic meanings

Religion

 * Religious symbol, an iconic representation of a religion or religious concept
 * Buddhist symbolism, the use of Buddhist art to represent certain aspects of dharma
 * Christian symbolism, the use of symbols, including archetypes, acts, artwork or events, by Christianity
 * Symbols of Islam, the use of symbols in Islamic literature, art and architecture
 * Jewish symbolism, a visible religious token of the relation between God and man

Science

 * Symbolic anthropology, the study of cultural symbols and how those symbols can be interpreted to better understand a particular society
 * Symbolic system, a system of interconnected symbolic meanings
 * Solar symbol, a symbol which represents the Sun in psychoanalysis, symbolism, semiotics, or other fields

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Symbolism


text:
Flight attendant

A flight attendant, traditionally known as a steward ( undefined ) or stewardess ( undefined ); or air host ( undefined ) or hostess ( undefined ), is a member of the aircrew aboard commercial flights, many business jets and some government aircraft. Collectively called cabin crew, flight attendants are primarily responsible for passenger safety and comfort.

History

The role of a flight attendant derives from that of similar positions on passenger ships or passenger trains, but it has more direct involvement with passengers because of the confined quarters on aircraft. Additionally, the job of a flight attendant revolves around safety to a much greater extent than those of similar staff on other forms of transportation. Flight attendants on board a flight collectively form a cabin crew, as distinguished from pilots and engineers in the cockpit.

The German Heinrich Kubis was the world's first flight attendant, in 1912. Kubis first attended to the passengers on board the DELAG Zeppelin LZ 10 Schwaben. He also attended to the famous LZ 129 Hindenburg and was on board when it burst into flames. He survived by jumping out a window when it neared the ground.

Origins of the word "steward" in transportation are reflected in the term "chief steward" as used in maritime transport terminology. The term purser and chief steward are often used interchangeably describing personnel with similar duties among seafaring occupations. This lingual derivation results from the international British maritime tradition (i.e. chief mate) dating back to the 14th century and the civilian United States Merchant Marine on which US aviation is somewhat modelled. Due to international conventions and agreements, in which all ships' personnel who sail internationally are similarly documented by their respective countries, the U.S. Merchant Marine assigns such duties to the chief steward in the overall rank and command structure of which pursers are not positionally represented or rostered.

Imperial Airways of the United Kingdom had "cabin boys" or "stewards"; in the 1920s. In the US, Stout Airways was the first to employ stewards in 1926, working on Ford Trimotor planes between Detroit and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Western Airlines (1928) and Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) (1929) were the first US carriers to employ stewards to serve food. Ten-passenger Fokker aircraft used in the Caribbean had stewards in the era of gambling trips to Havana, Cuba from Key West, Florida. Lead flight attendants would in many instances also perform the role of purser, steward, or chief steward in modern aviation terminology.

The first female flight attendant was a 25-year-old registered nurse named Ellen Church. Hired by United Airlines in 1930, she also first envisioned nurses on aircraft. Other airlines followed suit, hiring nurses to serve as flight attendants, then called "stewardesses" or "air hostesses", on most of their flights. In the United States, the job was one of only a few in the 1930s to permit women, which, coupled with the Great Depression, led to large numbers of applicants for the few positions available. Two thousand women applied for just 43 positions offered by Transcontinental and Western Airlines in December 1935.

Female flight attendants rapidly replaced male ones, and by 1936, they had all but taken over the role. They were selected not only for their knowledge but also for their physical characteristics. A 1936 New York Times article described the requirements:

"The girls who qualify for hostesses must be petite; weight 100 to 118 pounds; height 5 feet to 5 feet 4 inches; age 20 to 26 years. Add to that the rigid physical examination each must undergo four times every year, and you are assured of the bloom that goes with perfect health."

Three decades later, a 1966 New York Times classified ad for stewardesses at Eastern Airlines listed these requirements:

"A high school graduate, single (widows and divorcees with no children considered), 20 years of age (girls 191⁄2 may apply for future consideration). 5'2' but no more than 5'9', weight 105 to 135 in proportion to height and have at least 20/40 vision without glasses."

Appearance was considered one of the most important factors to become a stewardess. At that time, airlines believed that the exploitation of female sexuality would increase their profits; thus the uniforms of female flight attendants were often formfitting, complete with white gloves and high heels. In the United States, they were required to be unmarried and were fired if they decided to wed. The requirement to be a registered nurse on an American airline was relaxed as more women were hired, and disappeared almost entirely during World War II as many nurses joined military nurse corps.

Ruth Carol Taylor was the first African-American flight attendant in the United States. Hired in December 1957, on 11 February 1958, Taylor was the flight attendant on a Mohawk Airlines flight from Ithaca to New York, the first time such a position had been held by an African American. She was let go within six months as a result of Mohawk's then-common marriage ban. Patricia Banks-Edmiston became the first black flight attendant for Capitol Airlines in 1960 following a legal complaint which resulted in the airline being required to hire her.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's first complainants were female flight attendants complaining of age discrimination, weight requirements, and bans on marriage. (Originally female flight attendants were fired if they reached age 32 or 35 depending on the airline, were fired if they exceeded weight regulations, and were required to be single upon hiring and fired if they got married. ) In 1968, the EEOC declared age restrictions on flight attendants' employment to be illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also in 1968, the EEOC ruled that sex was not a bona fide occupational requirement to be a flight attendant. The restriction of hiring only women was lifted at all airlines in 1971 due to the decisive court case of Diaz vs. Pan Am. The Airline Deregulation Act was passed in 1978, and the no-marriage rule was eliminated throughout the US airline industry by the 1980s. The last such broad categorical discrimination, the weight restrictions, were relaxed in the 1990s through litigation and negotiations. Airlines still often have vision and height requirements and may require flight attendants to pass a medical evaluation.

Overview
The role of a flight attendant is to "provide routine services and respond to emergencies to ensure the safety and comfort of airline passengers".

Typically flight attendants require holding a high school diploma or equivalent, and in the United States, the median annual wage for flight attendants was $50,500 in May 2017, higher than the median for all workers of $37,690.

The number of flight attendants required on flights is mandated by each country's regulations. In the US, for light planes with 19 or fewer seats, or, if weighing more than 7,500 pounds, 9 or fewer seats, no flight attendant is needed; on larger aircraft, one flight attendant per 50 passenger seats is required.

The majority of flight attendants for most airlines are female, though a substantial number of males have entered the industry since 1980.

Responsibilities

Prior to each flight, flight attendants and pilots go over safety and emergency checklists, the locations of emergency equipment and other features specific to that aircraft type. Boarding particulars are verified, such as special needs passengers, small children travelling alone, or VIPs. Weather conditions are discussed including anticipated turbulence. A safety check is conducted to ensure equipment such as life-vests, torches (flash lights) and firefighting equipment are on board and in proper condition. They monitor the cabin for any unusual smells or situations. They assist with the loading of carry-on baggage, checking for weight, size and dangerous goods. They make sure those sitting in emergency exit rows are willing and able to assist in an evacuation. They then give a safety demonstration or monitor passengers as they watch a safety video. They then must "secure the cabin" ensuring tray tables are stowed, seats are in their upright positions, armrests down and carry-ons stowed correctly and seat belts are fastened prior to take-off.

Once up in the air, flight attendants will usually serve drinks and/or food to passengers using an airline service trolley. The duty has led to the mildly derogatory slang term "trolley dolly". When not performing customer service duties, flight attendants must periodically conduct cabin checks and listen for any unusual noises or situations. Checks must also be done on the lavatory to ensure the smoke detector has not been disabled or destroyed and to restock supplies as needed. Regular cockpit checks must be done to ensure the health and safety of the pilot(s). They must also respond to call lights dealing with special requests. During turbulence, flight attendants must ensure the cabin is secure. Prior to landing, all loose items, trays and rubbish must be collected and secured along with service and galley equipment. All hot liquids must be disposed of. A final cabin check must then be completed prior to landing. It is vital that flight attendants remain aware as the majority of emergencies occur during take-off and landing. Upon landing, flight attendants must remain stationed at exits and monitor the airplane and cabin as passengers disembark the plane. They also assist any special needs passengers and small children off the airplane and escort children, while following the proper paperwork and ID process to escort them to the designated person picking them up.

Flight attendants are trained to deal with a wide variety of emergencies, and are trained in first aid. More frequent situations may include a bleeding nose, illness, small injuries, intoxicated passengers, aggressive and anxiety stricken passengers. Emergency training includes rejected take-offs, emergency landings, cardiac and in-flight medical situations, smoke in the cabin, fires, depressurization, on-board births and deaths, dangerous goods and spills in the cabin, emergency evacuations, hijackings, and water landings.

Cabin chimes and overhead panel lights
On most commercial airliners, flight attendants receive various forms of notification on board the aircraft in the form of audible chimes and coloured lights above their stations. While the colours and chimes are not universal and may vary between airlines and aircraft types, these colours and chimes are generally the most commonly used:

 * ' (Boeing) or ' (Airbus): interphone calls from the cockpit to a flight attendant and/or interphone calls between two flight attendants, the latter case if a green light is not present or being used for the same purpose (steady with high-low chime), or all services emergency call (flashing with repeated high-low chime). On some airlines Airbus' aircraft (such as Delta Air Lines), this light is accompanied by a high-medium-low chime to indicate a call to all flight attendant stations. The Boeing 787 uses a separate red light to indicate a sterile flight deck while using pink for interphone calls from the cockpit.
 * : call from passenger in seat (steady with single high chime).
 * Amber: call from passenger in lavatory (steady with single high chime), or lavatory smoke detector set off (flashing with repeated high chime).
 * : on some aircraft (some airlines Airbus aircraft, and the Boeing 787), this colour is used to indicate interphone calls between two flight attendants, distinguishing them from the pink or red light used for interphone calls made from the flight deck to a flight attendant, and is also accompanied with a high-low chime like the pink or red light. On the Boeing 787, a flashing green light with a repeated high-low chime is used to indicate a call to all flight attendant stations.

Chief purser
The chief purser (CP), also titled as in-flight service manager (ISM), flight service manager (FSM), customer service manager (CSM) or cabin service director (CSD) is the senior flight attendant in the chain of command of flight attendants. While not necessarily the most-senior crew members on a flight (in years of service to their respective carrier), chief pursers can have varying levels of "in-flight" or "on board" bidding seniority or tenure in relation to their flying partners. To reach this position, a crew member requires some minimum years of service as flight attendant. Further training is mandatory, and chief pursers typically earn a higher salary than flight attendants because of the added responsibility and managerial role.

Purser
The purser is in charge of the cabin crew, in a specific section of a larger aircraft, or the whole aircraft itself (if the purser is the highest ranking). On board a larger aircraft, pursers assist the chief purser in managing the cabin. Pursers are flight attendants or a related job, typically with an airline for several years prior to application for, and further training to become a purser, and normally earn a higher salary than flight attendants because of the added responsibility and supervisory role.

Training
Minimum entry requirements for a career as a flight attendant is usually the completion of the final year of high school; e.g. the International Baccalaureate. Many prospective attendants have a post-secondary school diploma in an area such as tourism and a number hold degrees having worked in other occupations, often as teachers. Graduates holding degrees, including those with studies  in one or more foreign languages, communication studies, business studies, public relations or nursing  can be favoured by employers.

Flight attendants are normally trained in the hub or headquarters city of an airline over a period that may run from four weeks to six months, depending on the country and airline. The main focus of training is safety, and attendants are evaluated for each type of aircraft in which they work. One of the most elaborate training facilities was Breech Academy, which Trans World Airlines (TWA) opened in 1969 in Overland Park, Kansas. Other airlines also sent their attendants to the school. However, during the fare wars, the school's viability declined and it closed around 1988.

Safety training includes, but is not limited to: emergency passenger evacuation management, use of evacuation slides/life rafts, in-flight firefighting, first aid, CPR, defibrillation, ditching/emergency landing procedures, decompression emergencies, crew resource management, and security.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration requires flight attendants on aircraft with 20 or more seats and used by an air carrier for transportation to hold a Certificate of Demonstrated Proficiency. It shows that a level of required training has been met. It is not limited to the air carrier at which the attendant is employed (although some initial documents showed the airlines where the holders were working), and is the attendant's personal property. It does have two ratings, Group 1 and Group 2 (listed on the certificate as "Group I" and "Group II"). Either or both of these may be earned depending upon the general type of aircraft, (propeller or turbojet), on which the holder has trained.

There are also training schools, not affiliated with any particular airline, where students generally not only undergo generic, though otherwise practically identical, training to flight attendants employed by an airline, but also take curriculum modules to help them gain employment. These schools often use actual airline equipment for their lessons, though some are equipped with full simulator cabins capable of replicating a number of emergency situations. In some countries, such as France, a degree is required, together with the Certificat de formation à la sécurité (Safety training certificate).

Language
Multilingual flight attendants are often in demand to accommodate international travellers. The languages most in demand, other than English, are French, Russian, Hindi, Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Bengali, Japanese, Arabic, German, Portuguese, Italian, and Turkish. In the United States, airlines with international routes pay an additional stipend for language skills on top of flight pay, and some airlines hire specifically for certain languages when launching international destinations. Carole Middleton recalled when interviewed in 2018 that "you had to be able to speak another language" when working in the industry in the 1970s.

Height
Most airlines have height requirements for safety reasons, making sure that all flight attendants can reach overhead safety equipment. Typically, the acceptable height for this is over 152 cm but under 185 cm tall. Regional carriers using small aircraft with low ceilings can have height restrictions. . Some airlines, such as EVA Air, have height requirements for purely aesthetic purposes.

Presentation
A flight attendant's presentation has changed over the decades. Many early uniforms had a strongly military appearance; hats, jackets, and skirts showed simple straight lines and military details like epaulettes and brass buttons. Many uniforms had a summer and winter version, differentiated by colours and fabrics appropriate to the season: navy blue for winter, for example, khaki for summer. But as the role of women in the air grew, and airline companies began to realise the publicity value of their female flight attendants, more feminine lines and colours began to appear in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Some airlines began to commission designs from high-end department stores and still others called in noted designers or even milliners to create distinctive and attractive apparel. During the 1960s, Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) was known for brightly coloured female flight attendant uniforms that included short miniskirts. In the early 1970s, the uniform changed to hotpants.

Haute couture
In the 1930s, the first flight attendant uniforms were designed to be durable, practical, and inspire confidence in passengers with the first female flight attendants dressing in uniforms resembling nurses' outfits. The first female flight attendants for United Airlines wore green berets, green capes and nurse's shoes and other airlines, such as Eastern Air Lines, actually dressed female flight attendants in nurses' uniforms. However, by the 1960s a number of airlines were  promoting their flight attendant's uniforms as evoking the refinement of  Haute couture. In March 1962, Air France launched a new model designed by Marc Bohan at Dior, introducing the "Air France" model into its Haute couture collection. Hainan Airlines debuted their new flight attendant's uniforms  at the 2017 Laurence Xu Haute Couture Show at Paris Couture Week in 2017.

Since the 1980s, Asian airlines, especially national flag carrier ones, usually feature the traditional dress and fabrics of their respective country in their female flight attendants' uniform. It was meant as a marketing strategy to showcase their national culture as well as to convey welcoming warmth and hospitality. For example, Thai Airways flight attendants are required to change from their corporate purple suits into traditional Thai costume prior to passengers boarding. While the uniform of Garuda Indonesia female flight attendants is a modified kebaya, inspired by the traditional batik motif of Parang Gondosuli, the motif is called Lereng Garuda Indonesia. Malaysian and Singapore Airlines flight attendants wear batik prints in their uniform. Vietnam Airlines flight attendants wear red áo dài and Air India flight attendants wear a sari on all passenger flights.

Uniform and makeup
During the mid-1990s, several US-based airlines required female flight attendants to wear shoes with heels. Minimum heel heights ranged from one-half inch to the two inches mandated by USAir. Flight attendants at times avoided censure by changing into more comfortable shoes during flights, since their supervisors were less likely to be present there.

In 2015, the Israeli airline El Al introduced a requirement that female flight attendants wear high heels until passengers had been seated. The airline's workers' union stated that the requirement would endanger the health and safety of the flight attendants and instructed its members to ignore the rule. Later that year the requirement was removed.

Until 2016, some female crew members on British Airways were required to wear British Airways' standard "ambassador" uniform, which has not traditionally included trousers.

In 2019, Virgin Atlantic began to allow its female flight attendants to wear trousers and not wear makeup.

In 2023, Qantas declared that it had ended uniform rules based on gender. Female flight attendants are no longer required to wear high heels, male flight attendants can wear makeup, and flight attendants of any gender can wear the same type of jewelry and have long hair in a ponytail or bun.

Health conditions
A 2018 study found higher instances of breast cancer, melanoma, uterine, gastrointestinal, cervical, and thyroid cancers reported in flight attendants in contrast to the general population. Specifically, the increased cancer cases reported were seen in breast cancer (3.4% of flight crew compared to 2.3% in the general population - a 50% increase), cervical cancer (1.0% compared to 0.70%), gastrointestinal cancer (0.47% compared to 0.27% – a 74% increase), thyroid cancer (0.67% compared to 0.56%) and higher rates of both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers with reports of the latter increasing with every five years spent in the job. The study did not look into what causes this increase, but the authors said increased exposure to ionizing radiation from time spent in the thinner upper atmosphere, poor cabin air quality as well as disrupted sleep and meal cycles could be factors.

Other studies have found increased rates of breast and skin cancer, reduced respiratory health, adverse reproductive and perinatal outcomes, musculoskeletal injuries, and higher rates of mental health conditions in flight attendants.

Radiation
Flight attendants and crew members are known to be exposed to cosmic ionizing radiation which is a form of radiation that comes from space and intensifies as altitude above sea level increases. The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization lists ionizing radiation as a known human carcinogen. Passengers are also exposed to this type of cosmic radiation, but they spend considerably less time on average in the air than crew members. An online travel agency report found, in particular, that travelling adults in Britain spend on average 306 hours on flights to holiday destinations during their lifetime. In contrast, according to the US Federal Aviation Administration, a flight attendant can spend up to 30 hours of flight time in seven consecutive days and in some cases more. The effect of cosmic radiation on air crew members is a subject of a growing body of research.

Cabin crew members are also regularly exposed to more UV radiation than the general population, which can make these workers more vulnerable to skin cancers.

The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) reports that aircrew have the largest average annual effective dose of all U.S. radiation workers.

Cabin air quality
Poor cabin air quality is a subject of ongoing study in relation to symptoms such as headache, fatigue, fever, and respiratory difficulties among many others that have been reported by flight attendants, particularly on long-haul routes. There is also much concern regarding the transmission of contagious diseases, particularly tuberculosis. An open question remains whether these complaints are due to poor cabin air quality or to other factors inherent in flights, such as lowered barometric pressure, hypoxia, low humidity, etc. Other chemical contaminants found in the cabin may include engine leakages, pesticides and flame retardants, which contain compounds that may act as hormone disruptors and increase the risk of some cancers.

Sleep disruption
Flight attendants often have disrupted sleep cycles. They are more likely to have disruptions in their sleep patterns because they may work at night, cross time zones, and have irregular schedules. There is some evidence linking sleep disruptions to increased cancer risk. Flight attendants may also have different lifestyle behaviours related to diet, physical activity, and health care than the general population which could affect overall health and cancer risk.

Secondhand tobacco smoke
Many of the flight attendants working today were exposed to second-hand in-flight smoke until 1998 with partial smoking bans enacted in 1988. The long-term effects of this historical secondhand smoke exposure have not been well characterized.

Sexual harassment
Flight attendants are exposed to verbal and sexual harassment. Studies in the United States and Australia have found that the vast majority (two-thirds) of flight attendants experience sexual harassment in the course of their careers, including sexual assault, inappropriate touching and sexual comments both by colleagues and passengers. "Flight attendants describe the verbal sexual harassment as comments that are 'nasty, unwanted, lewd, crude, inappropriate, uncomfortable, sexual, suggestive, and dirty'. They also report being subjected to passengers' explicit sexual fantasies, propositions, request for sexual 'favours' and pornographic videos and pictures."The studies also found that 70% of flight attendants who experience sexual harassment on the job "chose not to report the incident because they did not think it would be dealt with appropriately or they were concerned reporting it would make the situation worse" and "their airline was not doing enough to put a stop to harassment", and that "they have not noticed any employer efforts over the past year to address sexual harassment at work."

Emotional labour
The concept of emotional labour as the process of managing feelings and expressions to fulfil the emotional requirements of a job through a publicly visible facial and bodily display within the workplace (as opposed to the concept of emotion work, i.e. the management of one's feelings in private life) was first established and linked to the profession of flight attendants by Professor Emerita of Sociology Arlie Hochschild, in her book, The Managed Heart. According to Hochschild, flight attendants do emotional labour to enhance the status of the customer and entice further sales by their friendliness, and support this effort by evoking feelings that make the "nice" display seem natural. With regard to how flight attendants are supposed to use their smile in the job, the author writes:"[I]n the flight attendant's work, smiling is separated from its usual function, which is to express a personal feeling, and attached to another one—expressing a company feeling. The company exhorts them to smile more, and 'more sincerely,' at an increasing number of passengers. The workers respond to the speed-up with a slowdown: they smile less broadly, with a quick release and no sparkle in the eyes, thus dimming the company's message to the people. It is a war of smiles."Hochschild notes that corporate logic in the airline industry generates a series of links between competition, market expansion, advertising, heightened passenger expectations about rights to display, and company demands for acting; and when conditions allow this logic to work, private use of emotional exchange gives way to corporate use of emotional exchange.

Hochschild also writes of how flight attendants are trained to control passengers' feelings during times of turbulence and dangerous situations while suppressing their own fear or anxiety.

The emotional labour performed by flight attendants and cross-cultural aspects of it have since been actively studied and are a topic of ongoing research.

Sponsorship and advertising
In the 1960s and 1970s, many airlines began advertising the attractiveness and friendliness of their stewardesses. National Airlines began a "Fly Me"; campaign using attractive female flight attendants with taglines such as "I'm Lorraine. Fly me to Orlando." Braniff International Airways presented a campaign known as the "Air Strip" with similarly attractive young female flight attendant changing uniforms mid-flight. In the United States, many airlines had a policy such that only unmarried women could be flight attendants, as well as a mandatory retirement age of 32 for stewardesses because of the belief women would be less appealing and attractive after this age. Many of the women were recruited as seniors in college and in beauty pageants.

In 1968, the EEOC declared age restrictions on flight attendants' employment to be illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Emirates have long sponsored international sporting events and employ their   flight attendants to present awards at  Wimbledon and other events.

Unions
Flight attendant unions were formed, beginning at United Airlines in the 1940s, to negotiate improvements in pay, benefits and working conditions. Those unions would later challenge what they perceived as sexist stereotypes and unfair work practices such as age limits, size limits, limitations on marriage, and prohibition of pregnancy. Many of these limitations have been lifted by judicial mandates. The largest flight attendants' union is the Association of Flight Attendants, representing nearly 60,000 flight attendants at 19 airlines within the US.

The Association of Professional Flight Attendants represents the flight attendants of American Airlines, the world's largest carrier. APFA is the largest independent flight attendant union in the world.

In the UK, cabin crew can be represented by either Cabin Crew '89, or the much larger and more powerful Transport and General Workers' Union.

In Australia, flight attendants are represented by the Flight Attendants' Association of Australia (FAAA). There are two divisions: one for international crews (long-haul) and one for domestic crews (short-haul).

In New Zealand, flight attendants can be represented by either the Flight Attendants and Related Services Association (FARSA) or by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU).

In Canada, flight attendants are represented by either the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) or by the Canadian Flight Attendants Union (CFAU).

Discrimination
Originally female flight attendants were required to be single upon hiring, and were fired if they got married, exceeded weight regulations, or reached age 32 or 35 depending on the airline. In the 1970s, the group Stewardesses for Women's Rights protested sexist advertising and company discrimination, and brought many cases to court. In 1964, United States President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law which prohibited sex discrimination and led to the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1968. The EEOC ruled that sex was not a bona fide occupational requirement to be a flight attendant. For stewardesses, this meant that they had an official governing body to report offences to and allowed them to successfully challenge age ceiling and marriage bans in relation to their effectiveness as employees.

In 1968, the EEOC declared age restrictions on flight attendants' employment to be illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The restriction of hiring only women was lifted at all airlines in 1971 due to the decisive court case of Diaz vs. Pan Am. The no-marriage rule was eliminated throughout the US airline industry by the 1980s. The last such broad categorical discrimination, the weight restrictions, were relaxed in the 1990s through litigation and negotiations. By the end of the 1970s, the term stewardess had generally been replaced by the gender-neutral alternative flight attendant. Also, during the 1980s and 1990s, more males were allowed to apply as flight attendants, helping to create more usage of this term. More recently the term cabin crew or cabin staff has begun to replace 'flight attendants' in some parts of the world, because of the term's recognition of their role as members of the crew.

Roles in emergencies
Actions of flight attendants in emergencies have long been credited in saving lives; in the United States, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other aviation authorities view flight attendants as essential for safety, and are thus usually required on Part 121 aircraft operations. Studies, some done in light of British Airtours Flight 28M, have concluded that assertive cabin crew are essential for the rapid evacuation of aeroplanes. Notable examples of cabin crew actions include:

11 September 2001
The role of flight attendants received heightened prominence after the September 11 attacks when flight attendants (such as Sandra W. Bradshaw and CeeCee Lyles of United Airlines Flight 93; Robert Fangman of United Airlines Flight 175; Renee May of American Airlines Flight 77; and Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney of American Airlines Flight 11) actively attempted to protect passengers from assault, and also provided vital information to air traffic controllers on the hijackings, as did many passengers.

In the wake of these attacks, many flight attendants at major airlines were laid off because of decreased passenger loads.

Other emergencies

 * In April 1936, flight attendant Nellie Granger aided survivors after the crash of TWA Flight 1, then walked 4 mi through a snowstorm to find help, before returning to the crash scene.
 * Senior Purser Neerja Bhanot saved the lives of passengers and crew when Pan Am Flight 73 was hijacked. She was killed while protecting children from the terrorists. After her death she received the Special Courage Award from the United States Department of Justice and India's highest civilian honour for bravery, the Ashoka Chakra.
 * Naila Nazir, Pakistani flight attendant (employee of Pakistan International Airlines) who received 1985's Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) Heroism Award for her brave handling of tense and dangerous situation during the 13 days of the Flight PK-326 hijacking ordeal.
 * British Airtours Flight 28M, the two forward flight attendants, Arthur Bradbury and Joanna Toff, repeatedly crawled into the smoke filled and burning cabin to drag a number of passengers to safety, and were subsequently awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal. The two rear flight attendants, Sharon Ford and Jacqui Ubanski, who opened the rear doors but were overwhelmed by fire and smoke were awarded the same medal posthumously.
 * Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751, when cabin crew recognised an emergency landing was imminent and commanded the passengers to "bend down ... hold your knees" to adopt the brace position.
 * Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 529, whose sole flight attendant, Robin Fech, provided emergency briefings, brace and evacuation commands to the passengers when the Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia aircraft sustained serious damage to one of its engines and crash landed. The NTSB accident report commended "the exemplary manner in which the flight attendant briefed the passengers and handled the emergency".
 * BOAC Flight 712, where a flight attendant, Barbara Jane Harrison, died saving passengers from an on-board fire and was posthumously awarded the George Cross.
 * British Airways Flight 5390, in which a flight attendant was able to prevent a pilot from being lost through a cockpit window that had failed.
 * Southern Airways Flight 242, on which the cabin crew provided safety briefings to their passengers, and on their own initiative, warned passengers of the impending crash by commanding passengers to adopt the brace position. At least one flight attendant is known to have assisted in rescuing trapped passengers.
 * Air Florida Flight 90, in which Kelly Duncan, the lone surviving flight attendant, passed the only life vest she could find to a passenger. She is recognised in the NTSB report for this "unselfish act".
 * TWA flight attendant Uli Derickson who protected passengers during the TWA Flight 847 hijacking by assisting with negotiation efforts.
 * TWA Flight 843, when a TWA Lockheed L-1011 aircraft crashed after an aborted takeoff in 1992. The aircraft was destroyed by fire. Nine flight attendants, along with five off-duty flight attendants, evacuated all 292 persons on board without loss of life. The NTSB in their after accident report noted, "The performance of the flight attendants during the emergency was exceptional and probably contributed to the success of the emergency evacuation."
 * On British Airways Flight 2069, cabin crew stopped the plane from being crashed by a mentally ill passenger.
 * Crew on American Airlines Flight 63 prevented shoe bomber Richard Colvin Reid from blowing up the plane.
 * Flight attendants on Qantas Flight 1737 prevented their plane from being hijacked by a passenger with mental health issues. Two of them were taken to hospital with stab wounds.
 * Aloha Airlines Flight 243 suffered a decompression which tore an 18 ft section of fuselage away from the plane. The only fatality was flight attendant C.B. Lansing who was blown out of the airplane. Flight attendant Michelle Honda was thrown violently to the floor during the decompression but, despite her injuries, crawled up and down the aisle reassuring passengers.
 * Flight Attendants on Air Canada Flight 797 (Sergio Benetti, Judi Davidson, Laura Kayama) used procedures which were not specifically taught in training such as moving passengers to the front of the aircraft to move them away from the fire and smoke, and passing out towels for passengers to cover their nose and mouths with while the cabin was filling with smoke. Chief Flight Attendant Sergio Benetti was the first to open the front door of the aircraft, and escaped out that way, leaving all passengers and other crew behind.
 * USAir flight attendant Richard DeMary helped to evacuate surviving passengers and another crew member from the burning wreckage of USAir Flight 1016, which crashed during a go-around in adverse weather conditions after a failed landing attempt at Charlotte Douglas International Airport.
 * Flight Attendants on US Airways Flight 1549 successfully evacuated all passengers from the aircraft within 90 seconds despite the fact that the rear was rapidly filling with water.
 * Nine cabin crew members aboard Air France Flight 358 successfully evacuated the aircraft within 90 seconds after the A340-300 overran a runway at Toronto Pearson International Airport. The NTSB stated that the actions of the cabin crew contributed to the 100% survival rate.
 * The flight attendants of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 kept the passengers calm after a bomb exploded during the flight from Cebu to Tokyo. Though one passenger was killed during the explosion, they took care of the injured passengers.

Some exceptions include Air Canada Flight 797, where the investigative board found that the flight attendant in charge's "misleading" reports about the fire "influenced the captain's decision to delay the initiation of a descent" and that such "delay increased the time for the fire to propagate and the time that passengers were exposed to the toxic environment before the airplane could be evacuated." The accident killed 23 passengers; none of the flight attendants sustained any injuries. Chief Flight Attendant Sergio Benetti was the first to open the front door of the aircraft, and escaped out that way, leaving all passengers and other crew behind.

title: Flight attendant


text:
Elgin Marbles

The Elgin Marbles are a collection of Ancient Greek sculptures from the Parthenon and other structures from the Acropolis of Athens, removed from Ottoman Greece and shipped to Britain by agents of Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, and now held in the British Museum in London. The majority of the sculptures were created in the 5th century BC under the direction of sculptor and architect Phidias.

The term Parthenon Marbles or Parthenon Sculptures (Γλυπτά του Παρθενώνα) refers to sculptures—the frieze, metopes and pediments—from the Parthenon held in various collections, principally the British Museum and the Acropolis Museum in Athens.

From 1801 to 1812, Elgin's agents removed about half the surviving Parthenon sculptures, as well as sculptures from the Erechtheion, the Temple of Athena Nike and the Propylaia, sending them to Britain in efforts to establish a private museum. Elgin stated he removed the sculptures with permission of the Ottoman officials who exercised authority in Athens at the time. The veracity of Elgin's claim has been disputed.

Their presence in the British Museum is the subject of longstanding international controversy. In Britain, the acquisition of the collection was supported by some, while others, such as Lord Byron, likened Elgin's actions to vandalism or looting. A UK parliamentary inquiry in 1816 concluded that Elgin had acquired the marbles legally. Elgin sold them to the British government in that year, after which they passed into the trusteeship of the British Museum. In 1983, the Greek government formally asked the UK government to return them to Greece, and subsequently listed the dispute with UNESCO. The UK government and British Museum declined UNESCO's offer of mediation. In 2021, UNESCO called upon the UK government to resolve the issue at the intergovernmental level.

The Greek government and supporters of the marbles' return to Greece have argued that they were obtained illegally or unethically, that they are of exceptional cultural importance to Greece, and that their cultural value would be best appreciated in a unified public display with the other major Parthenon antiquities in the Acropolis Museum. The UK government and British Museum have argued that they were obtained legally, that their return would set a precedent which could undermine the collections of the major museums of world culture, and that the British Museum's collection allows them to be better viewed in the context of other major ancient cultures and thus complements the perspective provided by the Acropolis Museum. Discussions between UK and Greek officials are ongoing.

Name
The Elgin Marbles are named after Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin who, between 1801 and 1812, oversaw their removal from the Parthenon, the Erechtheion, the Temple of Athena Nike and the Propylaia and their shipment to England. By an act of parliament, the British Museum Act 1816, the collection was transferred to the British Museum on the condition that it be kept together and named "the Elgin Marbles". The term "Parthenon Marbles" or "Parthenon Sculptures" refers to the sculptures and architectural features removed specifically from the Parthenon. These are currently held in nine museums around the world, principally the Acropolis Museum and the British Museum. The term "Parthenon Sculptures" is used in this sense by both the British Museum and the Greek government.

Background
Built in the ancient era, the Parthenon was extensively damaged by earthquakes. Also, during the Sixth Ottoman–Venetian War (1684–1699) against the Ottoman Empire, the defending Turks fortified the Acropolis and used the Parthenon as a castle and gunpowder store. On 26 September 1687, a Venetian artillery round, fired from the Hill of Philopappus, ignited the gunpowder, and the resulting explosion blew up the Parthenon, and the building was partly destroyed. The explosion blew out the building's central portion and caused the cella's walls to crumble into rubble. Three of the four walls collapsed, or nearly so, and about three-fifths of the sculptures from the frieze fell. About three hundred people were killed in the explosion, which showered marble fragments over a significant area. For the next century and a half, portions of the remaining structure were scavenged for building material and looted of any remaining objects of value.

Acquisition
In November 1798, the Earl of Elgin was appointed as "Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty to the Sublime Porte of Selim III, Sultan of Turkey" (Greece was then part of the Ottoman Empire). Before his departure to take up the post, he had approached officials of the British government to inquire if they would be interested in employing artists to take casts and drawings of the sculptured portions of the Parthenon. According to Elgin, "the answer of the Government ... was entirely negative."

Elgin decided to carry out the work himself, and employed artists to take casts and drawings under the supervision of the Neapolitan court painter, Giovanni Lusieri. According to a Turkish local, marble sculptures that fell were being burned to obtain lime for building. Although his original intention was only to document the sculptures, in 1801 Elgin began to remove material from the Parthenon and its surrounding structures under the supervision of Lusieri. Pieces were also removed from the Erechtheion, the Propylaia, and the Temple of Athena Nike, all inside the Acropolis.

They were brought from Greece to Malta, then a British protectorate, where they remained for a number of years until they were transported to Britain. The excavation and removal was completed in 1812 at a personal cost to Elgin of £74,240 (equivalent to £ in pounds). Elgin intended to use the marbles for a private museum to enhance the art of the nation, but a costly divorce suit forced him to sell them to settle his debts. Elgin sold the marbles to the British government for £35,000, less than half of what it cost him to procure them, declining higher offers from other potential buyers, including Napoleon.

Description

The Parthenon Marbles acquired by Elgin include some 21 figures from the statuary from the east and west pediments, 15 of an original 92 metope panels depicting battles between the Lapiths and the centaurs, as well as 75 metres of the Parthenon frieze which decorated the horizontal course set above the interior architrave of the temple. As such, they represent more than half of what now remains of the surviving sculptural decoration of the Parthenon.

Elgin's acquisitions also included objects from other buildings on the Athenian Acropolis – a caryatid from the Erechtheion; four slabs from the parapet frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike; and a number of other architectural fragments of the Parthenon, Propylaia, Erechtheion, and the Temple of Athene Nike – as well as the Treasury of Atreus in Mycenae.

The British Museum also holds additional fragments from the Acropolis acquired from various collections that have no connection with Elgin.

Legality of the removal from Athens
In February 1816, a House of Commons Select Committee held public hearings on whether Elgin had acquired the marbles legally and whether they should be purchased by the government. In his evidence to the committee, Elgin stated that the work of his agents at the Acropolis and the removal of the marbles were authorised by a firman (official edict) from the Sultan obtained in July 1801, and was undertaken with the approval of the voivode (civil governor of Athens) and the dizdar (military commander of the Acropolis citadel). In March 1810, another firman was obtained, authorising the second shipment of marbles from Athens to Britain. Elgin told the committee, "the thing was done publicly before the whole world ... and all the local authorities were concerned in it, as well as the Turkish government".

The committee cleared Elgin of all allegations that he had acquired the marbles illegally or had misused his powers as ambassador. Elgin's version of events, however, remains controversial. No official record of the July 1801 firman has been found in the Turkish archives. An Italian translation of the purported firman is held by the British Museum, and an English translation was submitted to the 1816 Select Committee. The document states in part,

"that it be written and ordered that the said painters [Elgin's men] while they are occupied in entering and leaving by the gate of the Castle of the City, which is the place for their observations, in setting up scaffolding round the ancient temple of the Idols [the Parthenon], and taking moulds in lime paste (that is plaster) of the same ornaments, and visible figures, in measuring the remains of other ruined buildings, and in undertaking to excavate, according to need, the foundations to find any inscribed blocks, which may have been preserved in the rubble, be not disturbed, nor in any way impeded by the Commandant of the Castle, nor any other person, and that no one meddle with their scaffolding, and implements, which they may have made there; and should they wish to take away any pieces of stone with old inscriptions, and figures, that no opposition be made."

Vassilis Demetriades, of the University of Crete, argues that the document is not a firman (a decree from the Sultan), or a buyuruldi (an order from the Grand Vizier) but a mektub (letter) from the Sultan's acting Grand Vizier which did not have the force of law. Dyfri Williams states that although the document is not a firman in the technical sense, the term was widely used informally in diplomatic and court circles to refer to a range of official Ottoman documents. He argues that the document is possibly a buyuruldi, but "[w]hatever the exact form of the document was, it clearly had to be obeyed, and it was."

There is debate over whether the document authorised Elgin's agents to remove sculptures attached to the Parthenon and other structures. Demetriades, Rudenstine and others argue that the document only authorised Elgin's party to remove artefacts recovered from the permitted excavations, not those still attached to buildings. Williams argues that the document was "rather open ended" and that the civil governor agreed with Hunt's interpretation that it allowed Elgin's party to remove sculptures fixed to buildings. Beard concludes, "No amount of poring over the text can provide the answer. As often with documents sent out from head office, the precise interpretation would rest with men carrying out the orders on the spot."

Legal academic John Merryman argues that the document provides only "slender authority" for the removal of the fixed sculptures, but that legally Elgin's actions were ratified by the conduct of Ottoman officials. In 1802, Ottoman officials in Constantinople issued documents to the civil governor and the military commander of Athens ratifying their conduct and, in March 1810, issued a command allowing Elgin to transport a shipment of marbles from Greece to Britain. Legal academic Catharine Titi states that Sir Robert Adair reported that the Ottomans in 1811 "absolutely denied" that Elgin had any property in the sculptures.

Rudenstine states that no official copies of the relevant documents have been found, we only have the evidence of Elgin's agents and the British Embassy regarding their contents, and therefore we can reach no conclusion regarding the extent to which they ratified Elgin's actions.

A number of eyewitnesses to the removal of the marbles from the Acropolis, including members of Elgin's party, stated that expensive bribes and gifts to local officials were required to ensure the work progressed. Merryman argues that the bribery did not make the acquisition of the marbles illegal by the standards of the time. "The Ottomans who were bribed were the responsible officials. Whatever their motivation may have been, they had the legal authority to perform those actions. At a time and in a culture in which officials routinely had to be bribed to perform their legal duties (as is still true today in much of the world), the fact that bribes occurred was hardly a significant legal consideration."

Rudenstine, however, states that further investigation would be required to determine whether, at the time, bribery would have been a significant legal consideration in such official transactions under Ottoman or British law.

In May 2024, a spokesperson for Turkey, which is a successor or the continuing state of the Ottoman Empire, denied knowledge of the firman and stated that Turkey supported the return of the marbles. The spokesman stated that the marbles' removal was carried out by "UK colonialists", adding: "I don't think there's room to discuss its legality, even during the time and under the law of the time."

Contemporary reaction
When, in 1807, Elgin put the first shipment of marbles on display in London they were "an instant success among many" who admired the sculptures and supported their arrival. The sculptor John Flaxman thought them superior to "the treasures of Italy", and Benjamin West called them "sublime specimens of the purest sculpture". Henry Fuseli was enthusiastic, and his friend Benjamin Haydon became a tireless advocate for their importance. Classicist Richard Payne Knight, however, declared they were Roman additions or the work of inferior craftsmen, and painter Ozias Humphrey called them "a mass of ruins". Lord Byron strongly objected to the removal of the marbles from Greece, denouncing Elgin as a vandal. In his narrative poem Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, published in 1812, he wrote in relation to the Parthenon:

Byron was not the only one to protest against the removal at the time. Sir John Newport said: "The Honourable Lord has taken advantage of the most unjustifiable means and has committed the most flagrant pillages. It was, it seems, fatal that a representative of our country loot those objects that the Turks and other barbarians had considered sacred."Edward Daniel Clarke witnessed the removal of the metopes and called the action a "spoliation", writing that "thus the form of the temple has sustained a greater injury than it had already experienced from the Venetian artillery", and that "neither was there a workman employed in the undertaking ... who did not express his concern that such havoc should be deemed necessary, after moulds and casts had been already made of all the sculpture which it was designed to remove." When Sir Francis Ronalds visited Athens and Giovanni Battista Lusieri in 1820, he wrote that "If Lord Elgin had possessed real taste in lieu of a covetous spirit he would have done just the reverse of what he has, he would have removed the rubbish and left the antiquities."

In 1810, Elgin published a defence of his actions, in which he argued that he had only decided to remove the marbles when he realised that they were not being cared for by Ottoman officials and were in danger of falling into the hands of Napoleon's army.

Elgin began negotiations for the sale of the collection to the British Museum in 1811, but talks failed when the government offered only £30,000; less than half of his expenses relating to them. The following years marked an increased interest in classical Greece, and Elgin procured testimonials from Ennio Quirino Visconti, director of the Louvre, and Antonio Canova of the Vatican Museum, who affirmed the high artistic value of the marbles.

In 1816, a House of Commons Select Committee found that they were of high artistic value and recommended that the government purchase them for £35,000 to further the cultivation of the fine arts in Britain. In June 1816, after further debate, parliament approved the purchase of the marbles by a vote of 82–30.

Felicia Hemans supported the purchase of the marbles and in her Modern Greece: A Poem (1817), defied Byron with the question:

and quoted Haydon and other defenders of their accessibility in her notes.

Goethe thought the British government's decision to buy the marbles would herald "a new age of great art". The marbles went on public display in a temporary room of the British Museum in 1817 and soon broke attendance records for the museum. John Keats visited the British Museum in 1817, recording his feelings in the sonnet titled "On Seeing the Elgin Marbles". Some lines of his "Ode on a Grecian Urn" are also thought to have been inspired by his visit to the Elgin Marbles. William Wordsworth also viewed the marbles and commented favourably on their aesthetics in a letter to Haydon.

The marbles were later displayed in the specially constructed Elgin Saloon (1832) and became the preferred models for academic training in fine arts. Plaster casts of the marbles were in high demand and were distributed to museums, private collectors and heads of state throughout the world. They were moved to the Duveen Gallery, named after Joseph Duveen, 1st Baron Duveen, in 1939 where they continued to attract record attendances.

Late antiquity and Byzantine era
Sometime after the Parthenon was converted to a Christian church in the 6th-century CE, the metopes of the north, west and east facades of the Parthenon were defaced by Christians in order to remove images of pagan deities. The damage was so extensive that the images on the affected metopes often can't be confidently identified.

Morosini
They were damaged during successive wars, and it was during such conflicts that the Parthenon and its artwork sustained, by far, the most extensive damage. In particular, an explosion ignited by Venetian gun and cannon-fire bombardment in 1687, whilst the Parthenon was used as a munitions store during the Ottoman rule, destroyed or damaged many pieces of Parthenon art, including some of that later removed by Elgin. It was this explosion that sent the marble roof, most of the cella walls, 14 columns from the north and south peristyles, and carved metopes and frieze blocks flying and crashing to the ground, destroying much of the artwork. Further damage to the Parthenon's artwork occurred when the Venetian general Francesco Morosini looted the site of its larger sculptures. The tackle he was using to remove the sculptures proved to be faulty and snapped, dropping an over-life-sized sculpture of Poseidon and the horses of Athena's chariot from the west pediment onto the rock of the Acropolis 40 ft below.

War of Independence
The Erechtheion was used as a munitions store by the Ottomans during the Greek War of Independence (1821–1833) which ended the 355-year Ottoman rule of Athens. The Acropolis was besieged twice during the war, first by the Greeks in 1821–22 and then by the Ottoman forces in 1826–27. During the first siege the besieged Ottoman forces attempted to melt the lead in the columns to cast bullets, even prompting the Greeks to offer their own bullets to the Ottomans in order to minimize damage.

Elgin
Elgin consulted with Italian sculptor Antonio Canova in 1803 about how best to restore the marbles. Canova was considered by some to be the world's best sculptural restorer of the time; Elgin wrote that Canova declined to work on the marbles for fear of damaging them further.

To facilitate transport by Elgin, the columns' capitals and many metopes and frieze slabs were either hacked off the main structure or sawn and sliced into smaller sections, causing irreparable damage to the Parthenon itself. One shipload of marbles on board the British brig Mentor was caught in a storm off Cape Matapan in southern Greece and sank near Kythera, but was salvaged at the Earl's personal expense; it took two years to bring them to the surface.

British Museum
The artefacts held in London suffered from 19th-century pollution which persisted until the mid-20th century and have suffered irreparable damage by previous cleaning methods employed by British Museum staff.

As early as 1838, scientist Michael Faraday was asked to provide a solution to the problem of the deteriorating surface of the marbles. The outcome is described in the following excerpt from the letter he sent to Henry Milman, a commissioner for the National Gallery. The marbles generally were very dirty ... from a deposit of dust and soot. ... I found the body of the marble beneath the surface white. ... The application of water, applied by a sponge or soft cloth, removed the coarsest dirt. ... The use of fine, gritty powder, with the water and rubbing, though it more quickly removed the upper dirt, left much embedded in the cellular surface of the marble. I then applied alkalies, both carbonated and caustic; these quickened the loosening of the surface dirt ... but they fell far short of restoring the marble surface to its proper hue and state of cleanliness. I finally used dilute nitric acid, and even this failed. ... The examination has made me despair of the possibility of presenting the marbles in the British Museum in that state of purity and whiteness which they originally possessed.

A further effort to clean the marbles ensued in 1858. Richard Westmacott, who was appointed superintendent of the "moving and cleaning the sculptures" in 1857, in a letter approved by the British Museum Standing Committee on 13 March 1858 concluded I think it my duty to say that some of the works are much damaged by ignorant or careless moulding – with oil and lard – and by restorations in wax and resin. These mistakes have caused discolouration. I shall endeavour to remedy this without, however, having recourse to any composition that can injure the surface of the marble. Yet another effort to clean the marbles occurred in 1937–38. This time the incentive was provided by the construction of a new Gallery to house the collection. The Pentelic marble mined from Mount Pentelicus north of Athens, from which the sculptures are made, naturally acquires a tan colour similar to honey when exposed to air; this colouring is often known as the marble's "patina" but Lord Duveen, who financed the whole undertaking, acting under the misconception that the marbles were originally white probably arranged for the team of masons working in the project to remove discolouration from some of the sculptures. The tools used were seven scrapers, one chisel and a piece of carborundum stone. They are now deposited in the British Museum's Department of Preservation. The cleaning process scraped away some of the detailed tone of many carvings. According to Harold Plenderleith, the surface removed in some places may have been as much as one-tenth of an inch (2.5 mm).

The British Museum has responded with the statement that "mistakes were made at that time." On another occasion it was said that "the damage had been exaggerated for political reasons" and that "the Greeks were guilty of excessive cleaning of the marbles before they were brought to Britain." During the international symposium on the cleaning of the marbles, organised by the British Museum in 1999, curator Ian Jenkins, deputy keeper of Greek and Roman antiquities, remarked that "The British Museum is not infallible, it is not the Pope. Its history has been a series of good intentions marred by the occasional cock-up, and the 1930s cleaning was such a cock-up". Nonetheless, he claimed that the prime cause for the damage inflicted upon the marbles was the 2000-year-long weathering on the Acropolis.

American archeologist Dorothy King, in a newspaper article, wrote that techniques similar to the ones used in 1937–38 were applied by Greeks as well in more recent decades than the British, and maintained that Italians still find them acceptable. The British Museum said that a similar cleaning of the Temple of Hephaestus in the Athenian Agora was carried out by the conservation team of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in 1953 using steel chisels and brass wire. According to the Greek ministry of Culture, the cleaning was carefully limited to surface salt crusts. The 1953 American report concluded that the techniques applied were aimed at removing the black deposit formed by rain-water and "brought out the high technical quality of the carving" revealing at the same time "a few surviving particles of colour".

Documents released by the British Museum under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that a series of minor accidents, thefts and acts of vandalism by visitors have inflicted further damage to the sculptures. This includes an incident in 1961 when two schoolboys knocked off a part of a centaur's leg, and in 1966 four shallow lines were scratched on the back of one of the figures by vandals. In 1970, letters were scratched on to the upper right thigh of another figure. Four years later, the dowel hole in a centaur's hoof was damaged by thieves trying to extract pieces of lead. In June 1981, a west pediment figure was slightly chipped by a falling glass skylight.

Athens
Air pollution and acid rain have damaged the marble and stonework. The last remaining slabs from the western section of the Parthenon frieze were removed from the monument in 1993 for fear of further damage. They have now been transported to the new Acropolis Museum.

Until cleaning of the remaining marbles was completed in 2005, black crusts and coatings were present on the marble surface. The laser technique applied on the 14 slabs that Elgin did not remove revealed a surprising array of original details, such as the original chisel marks and the veins on the horses' bellies. Similar features in the British Museum collection have been scraped and scrubbed with chisels to make the marbles look white. Between 20 January and the end of March 2008, 4200 items (sculptures, inscriptions small terracotta objects), including some 80 artefacts dismantled from the monuments in recent years, were removed from the old museum on the Acropolis to the new Acropolis Museum. Natural disasters have also affected the Parthenon. In 1981, an earthquake caused damage to the east façade.

Greek requests for return
In 1835, the government of the newly independent Greece asked the British Museum to return the Elgin Marbles, and in 1890 the Greek minister in London asked for the return of the architectural fragments. In 1983 the Greek government formally asked the UK government to return the sculptures to Greece and, in 1984, listed the dispute with UNESCO. The Greek government is only requesting the return of the sculptures Elgin took from the Parthenon. In 2000, a select committee of the UK parliament held an inquiry into the illegal trade in cultural property which considered the dispute over the marbles. The committee heard evidence from the then Greek foreign minister, George Papandreou, who argued that the question of legal ownership was secondary to the ethical and cultural arguments for returning the sculptures. The committee, however, made no recommendations on the future of the marbles.

In 2000, the Greek government commissioned the construction of a new Acropolis Museum which opened in 2009. The museum was, in part, designed to arrange the surviving Parthenon sculptures (including those in the Elgin collection) as they originally stood on the Parthenon itself, and to counter arguments that the Elgin Marbles would be better preserved and displayed in the British Museum. The Acropolis Museum displays a portion of the remaining frieze (about 20% has been lost or destroyed), aligned in orientation and within sight of the Parthenon, with the position of the elements held in London clearly marked and space left should they be returned to Athens.

In 2013, the Greek government asked UNESCO to mediate between the Greek and UK authorities on the return of the marbles, but the UK government and the British Museum declined UNESCO's offer to mediate. In 2021, UNESCO concluded that the UK government had an obligation to return the marbles and called upon the UK government to open negotiations with Greece.

In late 2022, British and Greek authorities resumed negotiations on the future of the marbles. Asked about the possible return of the Marbles, the British Culture Secretary, Michelle Donelan replied: "I can sympathise with some of the arguments but I do think that is a very dangerous and slippy road to embark down", expressing the worry that other cultural items now held in Britain might also have to be returned to the places they were acquired from.

In November 2023, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak cancelled a meeting with the Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis over public comments Mitsotakis made regarding the marbles.

Rationale for returning to Athens
Those arguing for the marbles' return cite legal, moral, cultural, conservation and artistic grounds. Their arguments include:

 * The marbles were obtained illegally, or at least unethically, and hence should be returned to their rightful owner.
 * While the marbles are of universal cultural value, they are also part of the unique cultural heritage of Greece, and this is the most fitting location for them to be displayed.
 * The Parthenon sculptures around the world should be reunited in order to restore "organic elements" which "at present remain without cohesion, homogeneity and historicity of the monument to which they belong" and allow visitors to better appreciate them as a whole.
 * Presenting all the extant Parthenon Marbles near their original historical and cultural environment, and in the context of other Greek antiquities, would permit their "fuller understanding and interpretation".
 * Safekeeping of the marbles would be ensured at the Acropolis Museum, as it is equipped with state-of-the-art technology for the protection and preservation of exhibits.
 * The Elgin Marbles have suffered significant damage from poor conservation and accidents in London and it cannot be assumed they will be better preserved there.
 * Returning the Parthenon sculptures would not set a precedent for other restitution claims because of the distinctively "universal value" of the Parthenon.

Rationale for remaining in London
A range of arguments has been presented by scholars, British political leaders and the British Museum for the retention of the Elgin Marbles in London. These include the following:

 * Elgin acquired the marbles legally and no court of law would find in favour of a Greek complainant.
 * Elgin rescued the marbles from destruction and those in the British Museum are in better condition than those left behind. The British Museum has a right to retain and publicly display what it preserved from destruction.
 * Bringing the Parthenon sculptures together as a unified whole is impossible as half had been lost or destroyed by 1800.
 * The British Museum display allows the marbles to be better viewed in the context of other major ancient cultures and thus complements the perspective provided by the Acropolis Museum collection.
 * Fulfilling all restitution claims would empty most of the world's great museums – this has also caused concerns among other European and American museums, with one potential target being the Nefertiti Bust in Berlin's Neues Museum; in addition, portions of Parthenon marbles are kept by many other European museums.
 * The British Museum receives about 6 million visitors per year as opposed to 1.5 million visitors to the Acropolis Museum. The removal of the marbles to Greece would significantly reduce the number of people who have the opportunity to visit the marbles.
 * The Elgin Marbles have been on public display in England since 1807 and in that time have become a part of the British cultural heritage.

Public campaigns for return
Outside Greece, a campaign for the return of the marbles began in 1981 with the formation of the International Organising Committee – Australia – for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles, and in 1983, with the formation of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles. Campaign organisations also exist in Greece and around the world.

A number of British and international celebrities such as comedian Stephen Fry and actor George Clooney have expressed their support for the return of the marbles.

Opinion polls
An Ipsos MORI poll of British voters in 1998, found 39% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece and 15% in favour of keeping them in Britain; 45% had no opinion or would not vote if the question were put to a referendum. Another Mori poll in 2002 showed similar results. A YouGov poll in 2021 found that 59% of British respondents thought the Parthenon marbles belonged in Greece, 18% that they belonged in Britain, and 18% did not know.

British press
The Guardian published an editorial in 2020 reiterating its support for the return of the Parthenon marbles. In January 2022, The Times reversed its long-standing support for retaining the marbles, publishing an editorial calling for their return to Greece. The Daily Telegraph published an editorial in January 2023 arguing that any decision on the return of the Elgin Marbles to Greece should be made by the UK parliament.

British Museum Act 1963
The British Museum Act 1963 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which forbids the British Museum from disposing of its holdings, except in a small number of special circumstances. Any change to the Act would have to be passed by Parliament.

Loans and copies
The British Museum has made plaster casts of the marbles and distributed them to many museums around the world. In 2022, The Institute of Digital Archaeology (IDA) in Oxford asked the British Museum to scan its marbles from the Parthenon in order to make robot-carved marble replicas. The museum, however, declined the request and the Greek government declined to comment on the project.

The British Museum lent the figure of a river-god, possibly the river Ilisus, to the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg to celebrate its 250th anniversary. It was on display there from 6 December 2014 until 18 January 2015. This was the first time the British Museum had lent part of its Parthenon Marbles collection and it caused some controversy. The British Museum states that it is open to lending its marbles from the Parthenon to Greece but the Greek government does not wish to agree to the standard clause acknowledging the British Museum's ownership of any loan items.

Pros and cons of restitution

 * British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles' site
 * The Parthenon Project
 * "The Case for Lord Elgin," Classics for All
 * Gillen Wood, "The strange case of Lord Elgin's nose": the cultural context of the early 19th century debate over the marbles, the politics & the aesthetics, imperialism and hellenism
 * Two memorandums submitted to the UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in 2000.

title: Elgin Marbles


text:
Steward

Steward may refer to:

Positions or roles

 * Steward (office), a representative of a monarch
 * Steward (Methodism), a leader in a congregation and/or district
 * Steward, a butler or servant responsible for managing service, maintenance and potentially finances of a household or estate
 * Communion steward, a position in the local church responsible for the distribution of the Eucharistic elements
 * Horse show steward
 * Steward, an official in horse, greyhound racing or car racing
 * Steward, another term for majordomo
 * Steward, an older term for a flight attendant
 * A member of the Steward's Department of a ship, responsible for preparation of food or caring for living quarters
 * Steward, United States Navy rate prior to 1975, now Culinary Specialist (US Navy)
 * Union steward, a labor union official, also known as a shop steward
 * Wine steward or sommelier
 * Steward, a junior officer of a Masonic Lodge
 * Kitchen steward, a steward in the kitchen whose general responsibilities involve cleaning and maintaining the kitchen

People

 * Steward (surname)
 * Steward Ceus (born 1987), footballer
 * J. Steward Davis (1890-after 1928), American lawyer and political activist

Schools

 * Steward School, a private school in Richmond, Virginia, United States
 * Stewards Academy, a secondary school in Harlow, Essex, England
 * The Stewards Society, a collegiate secret society at Georgetown University

Geography

 * Steward, Illinois, United States, a village
 * Steward Creek, a stream in Minnesota

Other uses

 * 15371 Steward, an asteroid
 * Steward Health Care System, an American healthcare network
 * Steward Observatory, department of astronomy, University of Arizona
 * Stewards (paramilitary organization), a wing of the British Union of Fascists

title: Steward