Q:     Why can’t we fight for more Positive Space (PST) tickets? We use those more frequently and we don’t seem to be getting them as often.  Can they be added to the contract?

A:     Pass travel is a Company benefit and therefore management discretion. The only contractual language we have regarding discretionary (i.e. for pleasure) pass travel is that FAs receive the same pass privileges as other employees and that you may continue to have pass travel privileges under certain conditions while on leaves of absence. Management considers pass travel to be a management’s rights issue, so it is extremely unlikely that AFA will be able to negotiate PST tickets.

Q:     Why wasn’t vacation and sick leave counting towards the 480 for paid vacation accrual negotiated and improved?

A:     Improving the 480 was definitely on the table. The JNC tried very hard to recapture vacation counting towards the 480 for purposes of vacation accrual in JCBA negotiations, but management was adamantly opposed. It was one of the very last items that the JNC very reluctantly took off the table at the end in order to reach a TA. That strategic decision was made only after considering all factors and in consultation with the MEC.

Although this does not fix the “hard 480” for vacation, the JNC was able to achieve tangential improvements to vacation:

• Elimination of the 1/12 reduction to vacation accrual when there is no paid time in a month (meaning no more  ‘double jeopardy’ of the “hard 480” and the 1/12 reduction);
• Paid and unpaid vacation and Longevity PTO applies towards achieving the new Productivity Premium Program (PPP); and
• Paid and unpaid vacation and Longevity PTO entitlement can all be used for minimum coordination under §15.M.2 for purposes of retaining medical insurance at the active employee rates. This “vacation coordination bank” includes one’s full possible vacation entitlement per §23.B.1.c even if the 480 requirements are not achieved in the previous year.

Based on management’s approach to the 480 in JCBA negotiations, it seems extremely unlikely that management’s position on the 480 would change in regular Section 6 negotiations.

Q:     What is the difference between merger negotiations and Section 6 negotiations?

A:     The Railway Labor Act (RLA) sets out the provisions governing Section 6 negotiations*. The steps involving direct negotiations, oversight by the National Mediation Boards (NMB), mediation, etc are set in the provisions of the law:

• An RLA labor group’s contract has an amendable date (versus an expiration date);
• The NMB controls the timetable if the parties enter mediation; and
• If granted a proffer of arbitration, both labor and management can engage in self help remedies.

In Section 6 negotiations, the entire contract is open and management is free to ask for “productivity gains,” which is usually what we would call “concessions.”  It is not unusual to take years to reach a tentative agreement under the Section 6 negotiations process.

Unlike Section 6 negotiations, our contract is not amendable in merger negotiations. Merger negotiations normally involve a more limited scope of items focused on the transitions needed for the merger. However, the JNC sought to achieve improvements for FAs from both carriers, so we were put in the position of reaching a “mid-term” agreement with a duration that extends beyond the current contract (i.e. JCBA amendable in 2021 vs. current CBA amendable in 2019) in order to do so.

* The phrase “Section 6 negotiations” comes from where the provisions covering negotiations under the RLA was historically located: in Section 6. Although the RLA has now been incorporated into the broader United States Code of federal statutes, the name stuck.

Q:     It is unclear as to pay increases for a current Lead for VX.  Will Leads be paid as an A FA, and if so, how much of an increase in pay is to be expected?

A:     Under the L-VX work rules, an “AS Lead” translates to a L-VX “Inflight Team Leader (ITL)”.  ITL pay of a 15% override will be retroactive to 1.1.2018.   If the TA is ratified, the current ITL pay will continue until the end of the second bid month after the Date of Ratification (DOR).  Beginning with the third bid month after DOR, ITLs will no longer receive the ITL override, but will be paid the equivalent A pay in the JCBA.  The block-hour equivalent of the $2/TFP that the L-AS Flight Attendants receive is $2.26/block hour (1.13 TFP/block-hour conversion) for a L-VX ITL.

Q:     Why can’t there be a penalty to the Air Group if full implementation isn’t done by  a said date?

A:     Actually, the JNC did achieve an incentive to encourage the Company to keep the anticipated Full Integration date. If the two Flight Attendant groups are not fully integrated by March 2019, all of the L-VX pairings must be constructed using the JCBA work rules (the 10.5 hour duty day and all of the AS rest provisions, etc.). While this will not carry over into the operation once the bid month is active, all L-VX pairings will be constructed using JCBA work rules.

The below language is in the L-VX FA Transition Agreement:

Delay of JCTE

In the event that Full Implementation is delayed past March 2, 2019, then all pairings will be constructed under the provisions outlined in the JCBA in Section 10 [Scheduling]. Additionally, for any pairings created after the initial bid award the Company will make every best effort to construct the pairing in compliance with Section 10 of the JCBA.  

This will be a significant constraint on and financial incentive for the Company to integrate on time because it will take more L-VX Flight Attendants to fly a schedule with pairings constructed under the JCBA work rules.  The L-VX partition would most likely not have the staffing to accomplish all of their flying if the pairings were built using the JCBA work rules.

The JNC strongly advocated for additional penalties during negotiations to pressure management to achieve the targeted dates. Unfortunately, management would not agree to actual monetary incentives.