Q:     As I’m reading this response [in the JNC blog post Occupational Seniority “Synch Up”],  I see the word “anticipating”. Is it written somewhere that this is how it is going to happen? Isn’t this whole TA the reason we are doing this?  Was competitive bidding seniority and occupational seniority set up this way because the JA merger never addressed the date of hire issue first day of class versus first day of flying?

The JNC is “anticipating” that the SMIC will be giving credit to pmAS FAs’ competitive bidding dates for time spent in initial training.  The job of the SMIC is to merge the lists and certify the ISL in a fair and equitable manner consistent with the AFA Constitution and Bylaws.

A:     [Note: Although the JNC is responding to this question in the context of the Merger Agreement TA, the SMIC is the final authority on seniority integration.] The Seniority Merger Integration Committee (SMIC) decides the method of determining if and how a L-AS Flight Attendant would receive competitive bidding seniority credit for time spent in initial training. This is all outlined in Section X [Merger Policy] of the AFA Constitution & Bylaws. The SMIC’s work on the Integrated Seniority List (ISL) is running in parallel to the work on the JCBA by the JNC.

Until the SMIC has certified the ISL, which will occur prior to the ratified JCBA, the exact details regarding competitive bidding is technically not final. That is why the JNC uses the word “anticipating.”

Yes, seniority integration and JCBA negotiations were initiated as a result of the merger. The Merger TA and the ISL are two products of those efforts.

A new seniority integration effort occurs in every merger, so the historical application of seniority integration in the Alaska Airlines-Jet America merger has no bearing on the current merger. The JNC wanted to ensure that there were no disparities between Occupational Seniority and adjusted competitive bidding seniority resulting from this merger, which is why we negotiated the “synch-up” provision.

Q1:     “[T]he Company will make every best effort to construct the pairing in compliance with Section 10 of the JCBA. ” And how exactly will the Company define “every best effort?”

Q2:     Ok… define “every best effort,” and how is there accountability/proof in “every best effort”? What will that look like? Could there be a loophole?

A:     The verbiage “every best effort” is used twice in the Merger Agreement:

1. “The Company agrees to every best effort to meet the implementation time frames specified within each Agreement above,” [Merger Agreement]; and
2. “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” [L-VX FA Transition Agreement: Delay of JCTE].  

Legal agreements often refer to obligations being performed to a certain standard, which can be expressed multiple ways. “Reasonable efforts” and “best efforts” are often used.  “Best efforts” or “every best effort” is one of the highest standards. Such language indicates that “everything that can be done should be done” and provides a basis for pursuing a grievance in the event that management misses the contractual timelines  outlined  in the Merger Agreement.

Q:     Isn’t Alaska Airlines Company policy for FAs and pilots that we can retire with flight benefits at 45 years old as long as we have at least 10 years of service?  When L-VX FAs are moved to the Alaska 401(k) plan, why won’t our 401(k) vest at 100% once we have 10 years of service and are at least 45 years old?

A:     AS Company policy for retiree flight benefits is at 45 years old and 10 years of vesting service. The Company match portion of your L-VX 401(k) is automatically 100% vested when it is transferred over to the AS 401(k). The Company match portion of the AS 401(k) vests separately and becomes 100% vested at 5 years of vesting service pursuant to §29.C [Profit Sharing and Retirement: Vesting Schedule…] Employees are always 100% vested in their own contributions. Retiree pass benefit eligibility and the 401(k) vesting schedule are completely separate timelines, one being Company policy (pass benefits) and the other contractual (vesting schedule).

Q:    It’s my understanding that the only real reason that management would maybe come back with a “TA2” before Section 6 openers (besides pressure from the Board of Directors) is that AFA has not yet given them our Integrated Seniority List (ISL), and management needs that to operate. Will AFA give management our ISL if this TA gets voted down?

A:     Management has unequivocally stated to the JNC that if the TA is voted down, they will wait for Section 6 negotiations to begin in October and not renegotiate the Merger TA.

Under AFA’s Constitution and Bylaws, AFA  will not turn over the ISL until there is a ratified JCBA unless the MEC votes to release it. The MEC is 100% opposed to releasing the ISL without a ratified JCBA. The Company has no legal grounds to compel AFA to relinquish the ISL involuntarily.  Without the ISL, the Flight Attendant groups cannot be combined.  

However, management does not need the ISL to operate or merge the Company; management needs the ISL in order to achieve a unified inflight operation. Management may merge the operation “around” the Flight Attendant group. This has been done in other airline mergers. (See JNC blog post “ISL, JCBA and the Merger” for more info.)

Q:     Will my insurance benefits change after the vote?

A:     No. All Flight Attendants (pmAS and pmVX) are already on the same insurance programs.

See also JNC blog: “Healthcare Insurance” >