AFA Alaska

Representing the Flight Attendants of Alaska + Hawaiian

Click here to report an issue to AFA
You are here: Home / Archives for Committees / Grievance Committee

System Board of Adjustment Interviews – July 2025

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants

Our Master Executive Council (MEC) will be conducting interviews for one (1) Member to serve on the pre-merger Alaska AFA System Board of Adjustment.

Scope

Members are to serve on the System Board of Adjustment for the purpose of arbitrating any disputes or grievances that may arise under the terms of the Agreement between Alaska Airlines or Hawaiian Airlines and its Flight Attendants.

Policy/Responsibilities

  • There will be two members selected by the MEC from active members in good standing to represent the Association. Members will be selected at-large without regard to Local Council or domicile. 
  • Until such time as a joint collective bargaining agreement is ratified, separate System Boards of Adjustment will be maintained for pre-merger Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants and pre-merger Hawaiian Airlines Flight Attendants.
  • Any person seeking a position as a System Board of Adjustment Member must submit a resume. Candidates must interview with the MEC.
  • System Board Members will be selected for a two (2) year election period in accordance with the AFA Constitution and Bylaws. At least one election will be reviewed in June of each year. Selection will be made, insofar as possible, to ensure that both members will not be new at the same time.  
  • The System Board Members will act in the best interest of the membership and the Association and will be consistent with the Agreement between the Flight Attendants and Alaska Airlines or Hawaiian Airlines.
  • The MEC President will have the ability, in the event of an emergency, to appoint a qualified member in good standing to fill an ad hoc position on the Board.
  • The MEC on an ad hoc basis, by majority vote, may appoint an expert as a substitute for one member of the System Board of Adjustment.

Qualifications

  • Current Alaska Airlines Flight Attendant
  • Willingness to attend the requisite grievance training(s)
  • In depth knowledge of the contract
  • Understanding of the principles of just cause
  • Adherence to Grievance Committee policies, procedures, and standards of ethical conduct
  • Ability to maintain confidentiality of sensitive and personal information
  • Maintenance of member-in-good-standing status
  • Ability to remain in good standing with the company
  • Ability to analyze written data and information with high attention to detail
  • Strong written and communication skills
  • Strong computer skills.

Term of Office

The selected candidate will serve a term of office that begins on August 1, 2025, and concludes on June 30, 2027.

Expressing Interest and Interview Scheduling

The MEC will hold interviews of eligible candidates during the July Regular MEC Meeting on Wednesday, July 30, 2025. If you’re interested in interviewing, plan to bid around this date or adjust your schedule accordingly to accommodate. All interviews will be conducted in person in Seattle, WA or using Google Meet videoconferencing at the candidate’s discretion.

Interested candidates should submit an expression of interest and resume using the online expression of interest form. The deadline for submissions is 5 PM Pacific time on Wednesday, July 23, 2025. After the submission deadline, an MEC representative will contact eligible candidates to arrange a specific interview time.

Please note that to submit an expression of interest, you must have a Google account.  If you do not have a Google account, you can create one for free at https://accounts.google.com/signup.

Questions?

Any questions regarding the position or application process should be directed to pre-merger Alaska MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Stephanie Adams at stephanie.adams@afaalaska.org.

Grievance Committee Update – 1st Quarter 2025

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants

Our Grievance Committee has been busy working to ensure that your rights are protected when it comes to discipline and following the rules set in our contract. According to our contract, there are a minimum of 13 arbitration dates each year to dispute discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. When it comes to termination cases, we prioritize those situations to help get Flight Attendants back to work quickly, but we also try to balance that with other types of cases. Together, representatives from AFA and management decide which cases to arbitrate next based on a variety of factors. 

Discipline usually happens in several steps: starting with a confirmation of oral warning (COW), then a written warning, potential suspension, and finally termination. COWs, written warnings, and suspensions stay in a Flight Attendant’s record for 18 months before being removed. If someone receives another violation while already facing discipline, that new issue will add to the existing one. However, management doesn’t always follow the usual path of progressively increasing discipline. For serious issues like theft or abuse of sick leave, if there is enough evidence, management may choose to terminate a Flight Attendant immediately. If the evidence isn’t strong, the Flight Attendant might receive a record of discussion (ROD), which isn’t considered formal discipline.

Many Flight Attendants believe that if they generally do a good job, have no or very few attendance points, and receive positive passenger feedback, they won’t face discipline. Unfortunately, that’s not true. If management thinks someone has done something wrong, they may still face consequences, regardless of their past performance.

If a supervisor or manager calls you to discuss a flight, work-related matter, or a disciplinary issue, and there is no AFA representative present, it’s important to pause the conversation and request that one be included. Having an AFA representative ensures that your interests are effectively protected and represented. 

What Have Flight Attendants Been Disciplined For Recently?

  • Sick Leave and FMLA Abuse: Terminations are increasing due to travel audits and other factors. Any comments made on posted trip trades and personal drop requests can be viewed by management, even if deleted. If management determines there is abuse, it may lead to termination. If you cannot make it to work and are not genuinely sick, it may be best to no-show for the trip instead of calling in sick. Calling in sick for a non-medical reason, such as for a pet, is considered a terminable offense.
  • Theft: Removing anything from the aircraft, except for an opened or used bottle or box of water, an unused pilot crew meal, or purchased food, will result in termination.
  • Timecard Fraud: Intentionally delaying the closure of the boarding door to obtain sit pay is a violation that can result in termination.
  • Reserve “Roulette”: This refers to failing to be within two hours of base during your Reserve Availability Period (RAP) and calling in sick only after being given an assignment. This is considered a terminable violation by management.
  • Calling In Sick for a Trip You Tried to Give Away: Management regularly reviews trip trade postings and sick call history, including any monetary incentives added to trips that were subsequently called in sick. Deleted trade history or postings can still be accessed by management.
  • Dishonesty in Investigations: Lying during an investigation can lead to serious consequences.
  • Drug and Alcohol Violations: Any breaches of policies regarding drug and alcohol use are treated very seriously.
  • Improper Passenger Compensation: Giving away miles in exchange for positive feedback or completed Visa applications is not permitted.
  • Harassment: Any form of harassment is considered unacceptable, and management has disciplined accordingly.
  • Refusal to Comply with Scheduling Changes: Ignoring requests to call Crew Scheduling when required to be contactable or refusing scheduling revisions.
  • Reserve Commuting Violations: Reserves commuting during the RAP, even if they self-assign trips, or not being present at base throughout the entire RAP (unless otherwise released by Crew Scheduling for purposes of contactability). Depending on the situation, management has issued a two-week suspension or termination for these cases.
  • Social Media Violations: Sending friend or follow requests or direct messages to passengers on social media based on information obtained from Block2Block.
  • Commuter Violations: Issues include using commuter boarding priority (D8) home after being released from DHD, using D8 for trips picked up out of base, using D8 to/from cities other than the designated commuter city and domicile, or using D8Y for pleasure travel. Monthly commuter audits also often reveal reserve Flight Attendants who were not at their base while on call during a RAP.
  • Lost or Forgotten Required Items: Misplacing your IMD or other required items can result in disciplinary action.
  • Failure to Complete CBT: Not completing Computer-Based Training (CBT), even if it’s something as small as forgetting to close out of a window to switch the module from “in process” to “complete.”
  • Uniform Compliance: Flight Attendants can and have been removed from flights without pay by management for non-compliance with uniform standards.
  • Late To Gate/Flight Delay: Being late to the gate or causing flight delays can result in disciplinary action.   

Hot Topic: Social Media Discipline

There has been an increase in disciplinary actions related to social media, including terminations. Please keep in mind that social media groups and pages are not truly private, even if they claim to be. This applies to your personal pages or accounts and any groups you may be part of, including group chats.

While the First Amendment protects your right to free speech in relation to the government, it does not provide the same protections within private companies like Alaska Airlines. The company has a social media policy, and arbitrators have ruled that posts or comments made on private pages or groups can still result in disciplinary action by your employer.

Reminder: Short Sick Calls

Section 32.C.5 of the contract defines a Short Sick Call as follows: “Short Sick Call: When a Flight Attendant calls in sick due to their own illness, a sick child, or a sick family member less than two hours (2:00) before the scheduled check-in.”

If you plan to call in for a Short Sick Call but want to avoid receiving the 2.5 points associated with it, make sure that your call to Crew Scheduling is initiated after your SCHEDULED check-in time, not just after you’ve checked in, as outlined in section 32.C.6.

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

September 2024Disciplinary Grievance
October 2024Contractual Grievance
November 2024Disciplinary Grievance
January 2025Disciplinary Grievance
February 2025Disciplinary Grievance
March 2025Disciplinary Grievance

Recent Contractual Arbitrations

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-340-23-Violation of §11.E.1.c & §11.H.8.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §11.E.1.c [Reserve:  Order of Assignment/Reserve Self-Assignment] and §11.H.8 [Reserve:  Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades], and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it prohibited Reserve Flight Attendants who had been assigned sequences with the an Ineligible for Self-Assignment (ISA) code from giving such sequences away to another Reserve Flight Attendant or trading such sequences in open time or with another Reserve Flight Attendant.    

Arbitrator’s Decision: The Company did not violate the JCBA when it restricted trades with assignments with ISA designation with Open time under Section 11.H.8. However, to the extent that the Company limits trades between Reserve Flight Attendants it would violate the JCBA.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-38-24-Violation of §8.M and Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-458-22 Violation of §8.D Check In and Debrief.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.M [Hours of Service: Domicile Rest] and Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-458-22 [Violation of §8.D Check In and Debrief], and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or around September 23, 2023, the Company refused to allow a Flight Attendant who had operationally-impacted reduced domicile rest (§8.M.2) to utilize the applicable contractual provisions of §8.M, which would have allowed the Flight Attendant to be removed from their subsequent sequence beginning September 24, 2023, without pay pursuant to §8.M.3, due to the domicile rest time between sequences projecting to fall below CFR-required rest. Instead, on the evening of September 23, 2024, Crew Scheduling altered the Flight Attendant’s check-in time for the subsequent sequence (on September 24, 2023) to a later check-in time in violation of §8.M.2, thereby denying them access to their contractual right to be released from the subsequent sequence without pay pursuant to §8.M.3. 

We are currently waiting for the decision from this arbitration.

Grievances Recently Filed and Awaiting Management Response

Grievance No:  36-99-2-73-25-Violation of §8.I Night Rule & 10.DD Long

Stage Length Duty Period (“4k”). This grievance alleges t The Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.I [Hours of Service: Night Rule] and §10.DD [Scheduling: Long Stage Length Duty Period (“4k”)] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused to pay double time (2.0x) for the full duty period on a 4k sequence in which the Flight Attendant is on duty at 4:29 AM*, 8:30 AM†, and the duty day is ultimately over twelve hours and thirty minutes (12:30), although they currently pay double time (2.0x) on non-4k sequences when the Flight Attendant is on duty at 4:29 AM*, 8:30 AM†, and the duty day ultimately goes over ten hours and thirty minutes (10:30).

* Local time
† Initial departure station time of the duty period

Grievances Recently Filed and Denied

Grievance No:  36-99-2-37-24- Violation of §10.Z Personal Drops. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.Z [Scheduling: Personal Drop(s)] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement occurred when, on or about October 10, 2024, it was discovered that Crew Scheduling was processing personal drops incorrectly. Instead of processing the personal drops in seniority order the day prior, as required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Crew Scheduling would process them in random time periods throughout the day of operation, skipping over the contractual requirement to process them in seniority order the day prior. This resulted in Crew Scheduling randomly executing first-come, first-served requests based on their staffing needs, thereby circumventing the seniority order provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Grievances Previously Filed, Denied by Management and Currently Awaiting Arbitration Dates

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-22-14-Violation of Required Maternity Leave.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 15.D. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to require Flight Attendants to begin Maternity Leave after the 28th week of pregnancy.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-55-17-Violation of §21.V Winds Aloft Adjustment of Sit Pay in JCTE.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.V [Compensation: “Scheduled” or “Actual” For Minimum Pay Rules (MPRs) and/or Sit Pay], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) trading system displayed each posted trip as a static ‘snapshot’ taken at the time of posting rather than a ‘live’ view, thus denying the Flight Attendant the ability to determine whether a trip is eligible for 1.0 TFP of Sit Pay due to an automated scheduling adjustment (e.g. by the Winds Aloft program).

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-41-19-Violation of §25.D.2 Failing to Notify MEC President and ASHSC of Reconfiguration or Re-design Prior to Final Decision. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.D.2 [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safety Information], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to notify the MEC President of a decision to reconfigure or re-design the interior of the Airbus aircraft and when it failed to discuss with the ASHSC the parties’ interests and concerns for inflight safety prior to making a final decision on the reconfiguration/re-design. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-36-20-Violation of §25.B ANC Training Facility.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safe and Healthy Workplace], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it conducted Recurrent Training (RT) drills in Anchorage, Alaska in the Ross Aviation Hanger, and on or about February 16-19, 2020, the external temperature ranged from 18 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit and when the hanger door opened, frequently without notice, the internal hanger temperature dropped to as low as 46 degrees.  After the external hanger door opened it took approximately two hours with a loud heater to get the internal temperature back up to the low to mid 60s.  

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-207-20-Violation of §10, §11.D & §24.L Bundled Scheduling Notifications.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10 [Scheduling], §11.D [Reserve:  Scheduling/Notice of Time to Report] and §24.L [General and Miscellaneous: Company-Provided Inflight Mobile Device (IMD)], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) scheduling system sent bundled scheduling notifications to Flight Attendants on their Inflight Mobile Devices (IMDs) or directly in Crew Access, requiring Flight Attendants to batch acknowledge or ignore such notifications and thereby resulting in Flight Attendants potentially waiving multiple contractual protections via an extra-contractual point of contact (i.e. Crew Access scheduling notifications).  

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-384-20-Violation of §10.S Scheduling Notifications.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.S [Scheduling :  Pre-Cancellations], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it used non-contractual scheduling notifications sent to Flight Attendants via the Crew Scheduling system in order to communicate and assign alternate flying or an obligation to call Crew Scheduling within a specific window of time.  If a Flight Attendant accepts such non-contractual scheduling notification(s), which is neither contact by Crew Scheduling via Company email nor via primary phone contact as defined in §10.S.1.a, the scheduling notification(s) violates the contract by abrogating the Flight Attendant’s ability to: (1) decline the alternate assignment and waive pay protection (§10.S.2.b), (2) decline the “out of original footprint by more than two hours” alternate assignment and call Crew Scheduling between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM (local domicile time) the night prior to the start of the original sequence (§10.S.2.c), or (3) waive pay protection and be relieved of any further scheduling obligation (§10.S.3). 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-386-20-Violation of §8.Q & §8.R Contactability and Notification of Delay or Cancellation.This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.Q [Hours of Service: Contactability] and §8.R [Hours of Service: Notification of Delay or Cancellation], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it used non-contractual scheduling notifications sent via the Crew Scheduling system in order to communicate and assign revised flying to Flight Attendants who were off-duty on a remain overnight (RON). Such scheduling notifications are in violation of the contractually defined means of contact and/or the Flight Attendant’s obligation to respond pursuant to these provisions.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-84-22-Violation of §21.J Ground Delay Pay.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.J [Compensation:  Block and Ground Delays], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it did not pay ground delay pay accumulatively, requiring each delay to go over 11 minutes to be eligible for pay, when a flight (same flight number/same routing) returns to gate one or more times.   

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-176-22-California Family School Partnership Act Violation of Past Practice and Roberts Award.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice, the Roberts Award 36-99-2-49-03, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally disallowed the California Family School Partnership Act for those Flight Attendants based in Los Angeles (LAX); then reinstated, with no notice, the state law for LAX based Flight Attendants only, but not for the other California based Flight Attendants in San Diego (SAN) or San Francisco (SFO), and not for the rest of the Flight Attendants based in our system, Seattle (SEA), Portland (PDX) or Anchorage (ANC), in violation of Roberts.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-215-23-Violation of §10.J.4 Bidding Packet and Bidding Times and Violation of Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-116-18.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.J.4 [Scheduling:  Bid Packets and Bidding Timelines], Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-116-18, past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about July 10, 2023, it and/or the NAVBLUE Preferential Bidding System (PBS) vendor did not provide an administrative lock-out function or a mutually agreeable alternate solution to allow for the correction of a technical issue when processing bid awards without opening up the system to all users.   

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-248-23- Violation of §32 and Roberts Decision.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32 [Attendance], past practice, the Roberts Award 36-99-2-49-03, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally rolled out state leave laws on a state-by-state basis rather than applying the most liberal of state leave laws to all Flight Attendants regardless of domicile, thereby disparately treating Flight Attendants within the Collective Bargaining unit, in violation of Roberts. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-41-24- Violation of §25.B Safe and Healthy Workplace-B/E Aerospace Coffee Makers.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Heath and Security:  Safe and Healthy Workplace] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about February 15, 2024, it refused AFA’s request to discontinue the use of older style B/E Aerospace coffee makers until adequate physical mitigations are put into place to prevent the coffee makers, when coupled with the Company’s new onboard coffee product, from spewing hot coffee and grounds during the brew process, which has previously resulted in the injury of at least ten Flight Attendants.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-170-24-Violation of §15.G Leaves Related to Serious Aircraft/Crewmember/Passenger Incidents (AQ).  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §15.G [Leaves of Absence: Leaves Related to Serious Aircraft/Crewmember/Passenger Incidents] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about August 30, 2024, it refused to allow Flight Attendants the ability to use the above provisions when they had a documented air quality event, as they are requiring the Flight Attendants to file workers’ compensation claims, which are frequently denied.  

Grievance Committee Update – 4th Quarter 2024

Grievance Committee

  • Our Grievance Committee protects all Flight Attendants from arbitrary and unjust disciplinary action and upholds our collective bargaining agreement. This update briefly summarizes the committee’s work over the past few quarters.
  • Management has issued discipline lately for a variety of reasons. Read on for more information about why management is disciplining and terminating Flight Attendants.
  • If you’ve faced a situation that you believe might be a contractual violation, please report the issue through the AFA Alaska Online Support Center. AFA Representatives review each report submitted and will follow up to help you determine options and a course of action.

Our Grievance Committee has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf.  The contract requires a minimum of 13 arbitration dates yearly to dispute discipline/termination cases and contractual issues.  Termination cases are usually given first priority in order to return a Flight Attendant back to work as soon as possible; however, we seek a balance between discipline and contractual cases.  AFA and management mutually decide which cases to arbitrate next based on many factors.

Steps of discipline are confirmation of oral warning (COW), written warning (WW), suspension (varied number of days) to termination.  COWs, WWs, and suspensions remain in a Flight Attendant’s file for 18 months, and then are removed.  If a Flight Attendant is in a step of discipline and gets another violation, the new violation will build on the previous violation.  Management doesn’t always progressively travel up the steps of discipline.  If management investigates a Flight Attendant for theft or abuse of sick leave, for example, management will terminate the Flight Attendant if there is evidence to support its findings; if there is no evidence, then the Flight Attendant will most likely be issued a record of discussion (ROD). An ROD is not considered discipline.  There is no middle ground for certain violations. 

Many Flight Attendants are under the impression that if they’ve been an overall good employee, have no to low attendance points, good kudos, decent seniority, etc.…that they will not get disciplined.  This is not the case, regardless of any good work qualities one may have, if management believes the FA committed an offense, they will be disciplined.

If a supervisor or manager calls and asks questions pertaining to a flight, work issue, or disciplinary issue and no AFA representative is on the call, you should assert that you would like an AFA rep on the call.

Subject of Most Recent Discipline

  • Sick leave and FMLA abuse. Terminations are on the rise due to travel audits among other things.  Anything written in the comments/remarks on posted trip trades and personal drops can be seen, even if eventually deleted. Management can also see every drop/trade attempt, even if it was not processed successfully. If management determines abuse it results in termination. If you’re not going to make it to work and you’re not sick and can’t get a management drop, your best option might be to simply no-show the trip. You should never call in sick unless you are actually too ill or injured to fly. Calling in sick for a pet is a terminable offense as well.
  • Theft. Removing anything from the aircraft other than an opened/used bottle of water, unused pilot crew meal or purchased food will result in termination. 
  • Timecard fraud.  Examples: Intentionally delaying boarding door closure to obtain sit pay.  Management has terminated for this violation.
  • Reserve “Roulette”.  Not being within two hours of base for your Reserve Availability Period (RAP) and calling in sick only once given an assignment.  The Company considers this a terminable violation.  Management regularly reviews the trip trade postings and history related to sick calls and whether comments and money incentives are added to trips which are subsequently called in sick.  Even deleted trade history or postings can be seen by management.
  •  Lying in an investigation
  •  Drug/Alcohol violations
  • Giving miles in exchange for kudos or filled out Visa applications
  • Harassment
  • Refusing scheduling revisions or ignoring requests to call Crew Scheduling. 
  • Reserves commuting during Reserve Availability Period (RAP) even if self-assigned a trip and/or not being in base for the entirety of reserve period. Management usually gives a two-week suspension or termination depending on circumstances.
  • Social media violations including sending friend or follow requests to passengers on social media based on information gained from Block2Block.
  • Commuter Violations
    • Flight Attendant released from DHD and used D8Y home
    • Flight Attendant used D8Y when they picked up out of base
    • Flight Attendant used D8Y to/from incorrect cities
    • Flight Attendant used D8Y for pleasure travel.  
  • Commuter audits are conducted monthly, and usually reserve FAs not in base are discoverable in said audits.
  • Lost IMD or other required items
  • Failing to complete CBT—even if FA just forgets to hit the close out x at the top to switch it from in process to complete.
  • Uniform Issues—Flight Attendants can and have been pulled from working their flights without pay for uniform non-compliance.
  • Late to gate/flight delay

Reminder

CBA §32.C.5 says, “Short Sick Call, When a Flight Attendant calls in sick less than two hours (2:00) prior to scheduled check-in.”  If you intend to call in for a short sick call, but not get the 2.5 points, the call to Crew Scheduling must be after SCHEDULED check in, and not just after you check in per §32.C.6.

Recent Arbitration/Mediation

September 2024Disciplinary Grievance
October 2024Contractual Grievance
November 2024Disciplinary Grievance

Recent Contractual Arbitration Awards

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-340-23-Violation of §11.E.1.c & §11.H.8.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §11.E.1.c [Reserve:  Order of Assignment/Reserve Self-Assignment] and §11.H.8 [Reserve:  Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades], and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it prohibited Reserve Flight Attendants who had been assigned sequences with the an Ineligible for Self-Assignment (ISA) code from giving such sequences away to another Reserve Flight Attendant or trading such sequences in open time or with another Reserve Flight Attendant.   

Awaiting Decision

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-38-24-Violation of §8.M and Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-458-22 Violation of §8.D Check In and Debrief.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.M [Hours of Service: Domicile Rest] and Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-458-22 [Violation of §8.D Check In and Debrief], and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or around September 23, 2023, the Company refused to allow a Flight Attendant who had operationally-impacted reduced domicile rest (§8.M.2) to utilize the applicable contractual provisions of §8.M, which would have allowed the Flight Attendant to be removed from their subsequent sequence beginning September 24, 2023, without pay pursuant to §8.M.3, due to the domicile rest time between sequences projecting to fall below CFR-required rest. Instead, on the evening of September 23, 2024, Crew Scheduling altered the Flight Attendant’s check-in time for the subsequent sequence (on September 24, 2023) to a later check-in time in violation of §8.M.2, thereby denying them access to their contractual right to be released from the subsequent sequence without pay pursuant to §8.M.3. 

Awaiting Decision

Grievances Previously Filed, Denied by Management and Currently Awaiting Arbitration Dates

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-22-14-Violation of Required Maternity Leave.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 15.D. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to require Flight Attendants to begin Maternity Leave after the 28th week of pregnancy.  

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-55-17-Violation of §21.V Winds Aloft Adjustment of Sit Pay in JCTE.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.V [Compensation: “Scheduled” or “Actual” For Minimum Pay Rules (MPRs) and/or Sit Pay], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) trading system displayed each posted trip as a static ‘snapshot’ taken at the time of posting rather than a ‘live’ view, thus denying the Flight Attendant the ability to determine whether a trip is eligible for 1.0 TFP of Sit Pay due to an automated scheduling adjustment (e.g. by the Winds Aloft program).

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-41-19-Violation of §25.D.2 Failing to Notify MEC President and ASHSC of Reconfiguration or Re-design Prior to Final Decision. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.D.2 [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safety Information], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to notify the MEC President of a decision to reconfigure or re-design the interior of the Airbus aircraft and when it failed to discuss with the ASHSC the parties’ interests and concerns for inflight safety prior to making a final decision on the reconfiguration/re-design.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-36-20-Violation of §25.B ANC Training Facility.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safe and Healthy Workplace], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it conducted Recurrent Training (RT) drills in Anchorage, Alaska in the Ross Aviation Hanger, and on or about February 16-19, 2020, the external temperature ranged from 18 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit and when the hanger door opened, frequently without notice, the internal hanger temperature dropped to as low as 46 degrees.  After the external hanger door opened it took approximately two hours with a loud heater to get the internal temperature back up to the low to mid 60s. 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-207-20-Violation of §10, §11.D & §24.L Bundled Scheduling Notifications.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10 [Scheduling], §11.D [Reserve:  Scheduling/Notice of Time to Report] and §24.L [General and Miscellaneous: Company-Provided Inflight Mobile Device (IMD)], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) scheduling system sent bundled scheduling notifications to Flight Attendants on their Inflight Mobile Devices (IMDs) or directly in Crew Access, requiring Flight Attendants to batch acknowledge or ignore such notifications and thereby resulting in Flight Attendants potentially waiving multiple contractual protections via an extra-contractual point of contact (i.e. Crew Access scheduling notifications). 

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-384-20-Violation of §10.S Scheduling Notifications.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.S [Scheduling :  Pre-Cancellations], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it used non-contractual scheduling notifications sent to Flight Attendants via the Crew Scheduling system in order to communicate and assign alternate flying or an obligation to call Crew Scheduling within a specific window of time.  If a Flight Attendant accepts such non-contractual scheduling notification(s), which is neither contact by Crew Scheduling via Company email nor via primary phone contact as defined in §10.S.1.a, the scheduling notification(s) violates the contract by abrogating the Flight Attendant’s ability to: (1) decline the alternate assignment and waive pay protection (§10.S.2.b), (2) decline the “out of original footprint by more than two hours” alternate assignment and call Crew Scheduling between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM (local domicile time) the night prior to the start of the original sequence (§10.S.2.c), or (3) waive pay protection and be relieved of any further scheduling obligation (§10.S.3).

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-386-20-Violation of §8.Q & §8.R Contactability and Notification of Delay or Cancellation. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.Q [Hours of Service: Contactability] and §8.R [Hours of Service: Notification of Delay or Cancellation], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it used non-contractual scheduling notifications sent via the Crew Scheduling system in order to communicate and assign revised flying to Flight Attendants who were off-duty on a remain overnight (RON). Such scheduling notifications are in violation of the contractually defined means of contact and/or the Flight Attendant’s obligation to respond pursuant to these provisions.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-84-22-Violation of §21.J Ground Delay Pay.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §21.J [Compensation:  Block and Ground Delays], past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it did not pay ground delay pay accumulatively, requiring each delay to go over 11 minutes to be eligible for pay, when a flight (same flight number/same routing) returns to gate one or more times.   

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-176-22-California Family School Partnership Act Violation of Past Practice and Roberts Award.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice, the Roberts Award 36-99-2-49-03, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally disallowed the California Family School Partnership Act for those Flight Attendants based in Los Angeles (LAX); then reinstated, with no notice, the state law for LAX based Flight Attendants only, but not for the other California based Flight Attendants in San Diego (SAN) or San Francisco (SFO), and not for the rest of the Flight Attendants based in our system, Seattle (SEA), Portland (PDX) or Anchorage (ANC), in violation of Roberts.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-215-23-Violation of §10.J.4 Bidding Packet and Bidding Times and Violation of Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-116-18.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.J.4 [Scheduling:  Bid Packets and Bidding Timelines], Grievance Settlement 36-99-2-116-18, past practice, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about July 10, 2023, it and/or the NAVBLUE Preferential Bidding System (PBS) vendor did not provide an administrative lock-out function or a mutually agreeable alternate solution to allow for the correction of a technical issue when processing bid awards without opening up the system to all users.  

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-248-23- Violation of §32 and Roberts Decision.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32 [Attendance], past practice, the Roberts Award 36-99-2-49-03, and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it unilaterally rolled out state leave laws on a state-by-state basis rather than applying the most liberal of state leave laws to all Flight Attendants regardless of domicile, thereby disparately treating Flight Attendants within the Collective Bargaining unit, in violation of Roberts.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-41-24- Violation of §25.B Safe and Healthy Workplace-B/E Aerospace Coffee Makers.  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.B [Air Safety, Heath and Security:  Safe and Healthy Workplace] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about February 15, 2024, it refused AFA’s request to discontinue the use of older style B/E Aerospace coffee makers until adequate physical mitigations are put into place to prevent the coffee makers, when coupled with the Company’s new onboard coffee product, from spewing hot coffee and grounds during the brew process, which has previously resulted in the injury of at least ten Flight Attendants.

Grievance No.:  36-99-2-170-24-Violation of §15.G Leaves Related to Serious Aircraft/Crewmember/Passenger Incidents (AQ).  This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §15.G [Leaves of Absence: Leaves Related to Serious Aircraft/Crewmember/Passenger Incidents] and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about August 30, 2024, it refused to allow Flight Attendants the ability to use the above provisions when they had a documented air quality event, as they are requiring the Flight Attendants to file workers’ compensation claims, which are frequently denied.

Introduction to the Minimum Pay Rules Flow Chart

Scheduling Committee

We’re introducing a valuable new resource from our Scheduling Committee! We’ve developed a visually engaging flow chart that breaks down the Minimum Pay Rules (MPRs) outlined in Section 21.D of our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). This chart is your go-to tool for understanding the essential elements of your pay provisions, ensuring that every Flight Attendant knows exactly what they are entitled to under the contract.

The flow chart highlights the following key elements:

  1. Duty Period Minimum (DPM). Guarantees a minimum of four (4.0) TFP for each duty period.
  2. Extended Overnight Rule (EOR). Provides an additional four (4.0) TFP for free periods between 1 AM and 11 PM.
  3. Multiday Sequence Minimum (MSM). Ensures a minimum of four (4.0) TFP based on the number of calendar days in a sequence.
  4. Average Duty Period Guarantee (ADPG). Guarantees a minimum of five (5.0) TFP times the number of duty periods in a sequence.

Click here to view the flow chart >

We encourage you to dive into this flow chart and familiarize yourself with the MPRs. Empower yourself to make the most of your contractual entitlements! If you have any questions or need more details, don’t hesitate to reach out to your Local Scheduling Committee Chairperson.

Thank you for being proactive in understanding your rights under our CBA. Your knowledge is key!

Supplemental Ditching Training Update

Grievance Committee

Supplemental Ditching Training Update

Dear Flight Attendants,

We wanted to take a moment to remind and encourage all of you to complete your Supplemental Ditching Training (SDT) as soon as possible but by July 31, 2024. The SDT drill requires completion of an in-person hands-on drill, completion of the SDT CBT, and to watch the video in the June 13, 2024, required Bulletin Bundle. This is FAA-required training. Please remember instructors are Flight Attendants first and have really stepped up to the plate to help.

Resolution of SDT Issues

AFA is pleased to let you know we strenuously negotiated and settled the open SDT issues with management to the benefit of our Flight Attendants:

  • Most Flight Attendants will receive 5 TFP for completing the SDT drill, plus an additional 1 TFP for completing the SDT CBT and watching the video in the June 13, 2024, required bulletin bundle.
  • The training must be completed by July 31st, if the Flight Attendant has duty in the remainder of July; the training can be done at many different times. You can select which option works best for you:
    1. The Flight Attendant may begin the training no sooner than :30 minutes prior to scheduled check in provided they call Crew Scheduling to verify their legalities and obtain approval; or
    2. The Flight Attendant may start the training at, but not before, scheduled check in time (Departure-60), without calling Crew Scheduling; or
    3. The Flight Attendant may complete the training during a sit time without calling Crew Scheduling; or
    4. The Flight Attendant may complete the training following a duty period, provided they call Crew Scheduling prior to the training to verify their legalities and obtain approval; or
    5. The Flight Attendant may complete the training on a day off provided they call Crew Scheduling to verify future legalities and obtain approval; or
    6. If you are scheduled for recurrent or requalification training from June 17th through July 31st (or before your return from leave of absence), the training will be included and you will receive the 5 TFP plus 1 TFP for CBT/video on top of normal pay for recurrent/requalification.
  • If you have no duty or are on a leave of absence from July 17th -July 31st , you must complete the training before your first flight back in August. You will receive 5 TFP plus 1 TFP for CBT/video.
  • If you have duty from July 17th -July 31st but fail to complete the training by July 31st, you must complete it before your first flight back in August. However, you will only receive 2 TFP plus 1 TFP for CBT/video.
  • Since Flight Attendants must call Crew Scheduling and obtain approval in a, d, and e, above, prior to the SDT drill, there should be no instance where a Flight Attendant will obtain pay for over duty or under rest, etc., per §8.E-M, or additional TFP per §11.B.4.a-b, unless Crew Scheduling approves the SDT drill, thereby resulting in such an event. However, if Crew Scheduling does approve the SDT drill in violation of such contractual legalities, then the provisions in §8.E-M, and §11.B.4.a-b, and any other applicable contractual provisions will apply.
  • Flight attendants who completed the training on July 4th will receive double time on the TFP for the 5 TFP, excluding 1 TFP for CBT/video.
  • Flight Attendants who were awarded a reserve line in the month they did the training will receive the 5 TFP and the 1 TFP for CBT/video above guarantee.
  • Open houses may be held from 3-5pm, although the dates and locations are yet to be confirmed. Management will post required bulletins with this information.
  • There will be no Q3 CBT.

Questions?

There are more details in the Letter of Agreement, which will be sent to your IMD soon. Please reach out to your LEC President if you have any questions.

Mahalo From Your AFA Hawaiian Communications Committee

This message is for pre-merger Hawaiian Flight Attendants Aloha Hawaiian Flight Attendants, On behalf of your AFA Hawaiian Communications Committee, we would like to extend our heartfelt mahalo to each of you for your engagement and support throughout the years. It has been an honor to serve you and to help ensure that important communications […]

Human Rights & Equity Committee Meeting Recap – 2nd Quarter 2025

On Thursday, June 12, our AFA Local Human Rights & Equity Committee Chairpersons met to discuss their ongoing activism to raise awareness and create positive change within our workplace and community. Your representatives attending the meeting included Louise Borras (pmAS LAX), Aaron Miller (PDX), Erika Daniel (SAN), and Freddy Vega (SEA). MEC Human Rights Committee […]

Hotel Committee Meeting Recap – June 2025

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants Updated 06/13/2025 17:56 PT to remove a reference that indicated that there were no PVR layovers in July. There are in fact scheduled PVR layovers; these crews will be relocated to the crew hotel’s sister property. On Monday, June 9, our AFA Local Hotel Committee Chairpersons met […]

Celebrating LGBTQ Pride Month

June 1 marks the beginning of LGBTQ Pride Month in the United States. This celebration originated to honor the Stonewall Uprising in Manhattan in 1969, a significant milestone in the LGBTQ civil rights movement. On June 28, 1970, the first Pride March was held in New York City to commemorate the first anniversary of the […]

Inflight Service Committee Meeting Recap – 2nd Quarter 2025

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants On Thursday, May 15, our AFA Inflight Service Committee Chairpersons met to discuss their ongoing work to represent our Flight Attendants and push for improvements in our workplace. Representing you at the meeting were Naomi Parcell (ANC), Ross DeJong (SEA), Todd Horn (PDX), Raymond Ramirez (SFO), and […]

RSS Negotiations News

Recent Posts

News By Month

News By Category

AFA News Now Air Quality Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee (ASHSC) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) AS/HA Merger AS/VX Merger Benefits Committee Committees Communications Committee Contract Contract 2014 Negotiations Blog Council 15 SAN Council 18 LAX Council 19 SEA Council 30 ANC Council 35 SFO Council 39 PDX EAP/Professional Standards Committee Extension 2021 Blog Featured Government Affairs Committee Grievance Committee Hotel Committee Human Rights & Equity Committee Industry News Inflight Service Committee Inflight Training Committee JNC Blog Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) Latest News Local Councils Master Executive Council (MEC) Membership Committee Message from the MEC President Mobilization Committee Negotiations Pairing Construction Preferential Bidding System (PBS) Press Releases Reserve Committee Retirement Committee Scheduling Committee Uniform Committee

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Stay up-to-date on AFA Alaska news and information by signing up for our email and text message updates. Click a button below to get started or update your preferences if you're already a subscriber.
Sign Up for Emails
Sign Up for Text Updates