Q:     What does the FMLA look-back entail? Could VX be placed on PIPs* (e.g. performance improvement plans, which is similar to written warnings at Alaska), points, termination? Could we be forced to see a Company appointed doctor? Why even have a look back?

A:     From L-VX FA Transition Agreement 2018 TA, §15.C:

C.     FMLA: At DOR, the standard for FMLA qualification used for the L-AS Flight Attendants will be applied retroactively to all L-VX Flight Attendant. The Company shall complete a twelve (12) 150 month “lookback” effective DOR to determine if L-VX Flight Attendants qualify for FMLA.

The FMLA “lookback” language is to clarify that as of DOR any L-VX Flight Attendant who did not qualify for FMLA (due to the duty hour requirement) would be reviewed under the Alaska FMLA policy standard of 504 duty hours.  During negotiations the JNC was made aware that VX (prior to January 1, 2018) was using a duty hour standard that was more restrictive.  The lookback only applies to those Flight Attendants who applied for FMLA and were subsequently denied (due to duty hour requirement).  Since the FMLA eligibility requirements are housed in federal law and applied via Company policy (and not contractual) the JNC sought to require a look back so that no L-VX Flight Attendant would be required to spend an additional year qualifying for FMLA leave.  

If a Flight Attendant qualifies for, and uses, FMLA, there can be no discipline attached to the FMLA use (i.e. no PIPs, points or termination for appropriate use). Please note that after transition to Section 32 [Attendance Policy],  attendance points apply for short calls (even if covered by FMLA).  

Q:     There seems to be concern that the pay raise offered in the TA is not enough given the contributions made by the FA group during this long streak of Alaska Airlines profitability.  There is also concern that the extension will leave too much money on the table for a period of time well beyond 2021. With the introduction of retro pay in this TA, and if it were to be ratified, what is the likelihood that retro pay will be a precedent that is set for future negotiations to hold management’s feet to the fire, so to speak?

A:     The TA rates true Alaska back up with the Southwest rates.  In 2014, the top of scale CBA rates put us within 9.3% of the top of scale Southwest rates.  The 2018 JCBA TA rates at top of scale bring us back to within 9.2% of the Southwest rates at top of scale. Alaska also ends up at #3 in the industry in December 2020 at top of scale and several other step rates of pay.

AFA will always strive to achieve retro pay, but Alaska Airlines management is extremely resistant to retro pay. The JNC does not believe the retro pay in the Merger Agreement makes management more inclined to offer retro pay in the future.

Q:     I didn’t see any mention that our VX files would be wiped up to the past 18 months. Is that in this TA? If so can you point it out please?

A:     The L-VX Flight Attendants are currently covered under the AFA VX Grievance Procedures and System Board of Adjustment Letter of Agreement (LOA), which was signed on June 2, 2017.  The language from the LOA is as follows:

Corrective Action Eighteen (18) Month Removal

All letters of discipline (warning or suspension) will be expunged after eighteen (18) months after the date of issuance, or, if a lesser period is provided in the letter, the letter will be expunged at the expiration of such lesser period. At the request of the Flight Attendant, the letter will also be removed from the Flight Attendant’s personnel  file.

L-VX Flight Attendants are already under the “18 month” rule, unless the discipline they have received has an earlier expiration, then it expires on the earlier date.  Under former VX discipline policy, PIP’s had varying time periods. For example if you received a PIP2 for a six (6) month duration, it would be removed at the expiration of six months.  The LOA  will continue in full force and effect until Full Integration when Section 19 of the JCBA is implemented for L-VX Flight Attendants

Q:     I’m wondering why AFA was able to negotiate the current VX commuter policy for VX, however not for AS in the JCBA.

A:     The JNC did push for implementation of the current VX commuter policy for all Flight Attendants.  We were able to attain ground commuting provisions for all Flight Attendants.  However, management was unwilling to allowing the Commuter Policy provisions to cover non-AAG flights. Management refuses to assume “liability” for flights that they did not control.

Q:     I was wondering why our commuter policy doesn’t apply to other airlines? I live at Orlando Fl, I was told our LAX-MCO route will be taken away. How can I be protected if I can’t fly on my own metal? Also what’s the chance of this policy be updated.

A:     The AFA Negotiating Committee tried to achieve extending the Commuter Policy protections to non-AAG flights in the last round of Section 6 negotiations and the JNC attempted to do so again in these Merger negotiations.  However, management’s very firm position is that they have no control over other airlines’ flights and will not assume that liability. Consequently, you are not protected for off-line commuting, and management does not seem willing to revisit its position on the issue any time in the near future.

Q:     If you are an air commuter from a city that is not serviced by an Alaska, Horizon, or Virgin America flight, you may not use the commuter policy. Is this correct?  Without that protection may I ask what recourse a commuter has in the event of bad weather or some other event making commuting difficult?

A:     That is correct: You cannot use the Commuter Policy in that situation. However, you may register out of an AAG city closest to your residence or the closest AAG city to your residence that has the most service. Commuters do not have recourse in the provided example. Unfortunately, management has stated on more than one occasion that commuting is a choice, and commuters must make their life choices accordingly.

Q:     Why only a 0.5% increase to our 401k match when the pilots get 13% match?

A:     In a prior negotiations, the pilots traded their very generous defined benefit pension plan for a high-percentage match 401(k) plan.  Flight Attendants have not had a defined benefit plan for years.

Q.  It seems we could have asked for a higher 401k match.  The pilots have 13% and WN (Southwest) gets 9.3%.  What happened?

A:     Negotiating 401(k) increases are some of the most expensive improvements in contract negotiations.  The 401(k) touches every dollar and translates into significant cost increases. It has nothing to do with whether Flight Attendants deserve it; or whether Flight Attendants need it in order to secure a retirement. Be assured that the JNC pushed for a larger increase. However, it is a cost analysis that management calculates at the bargaining table, and management was unwilling to do more.

Q:     It has been suggested that our company has been as profitable as it has ever been.  Why did the JNC not bargain for a higher raise and higher 401k match when our company wants to have an integrated seniority list?  We may not have this kind of leverage again for quite some it not ever.

A:     The JNC did bargain hard for higher wage increases and also a higher 401(k) match.  The TA package does not represent management’s “first offer” to the JNC.  Many, many proposals were rejected and pushed back against. Even without a ISL, management can still merge the rest of the operation around the Flight Attendant groups despite separate inflight operations.  

Q:     I would like a 401(k) comparison chart.

A:     Below is the current 401(k) provisions in the industry: