Committees

March 2016 Grievance Report

March 23, 2016 12:00

Your AFA Alaska Master Executive Council (MEC) has been very busy pursuing contractual compliance on your behalf.

Grievances recently filed and sustained:

Grievance No. 36-99-2-3-16: Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 13.G. [Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it failed to: (1) Consult with the Flight Attendant Uniform Committee and consider their recommendations before making any change in the style, color or material of the uniform; and (2) Consider the recommendations of the Association Air Safety, Heath and Security chairperson in regard to materials available, including application FAA or NTSB flammability standards.

For management’s response sustaining the grievance, click here.

Grievances recently filed and settled:

Grievance No. 36-99-2-9-16: CBA Section 9 [Junior Available] Violation

The details of this grievance were communicated in a recent standalone communication. For details, click here.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-11-16: Incorrect Application of EOR for February 2016 LIH Pairings

This grievance alleged the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 21.D.2. [Compensation/Minimum Pay Rules (MPRs)/Extended Overnight Rule (EOR)], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it incorrectly calculated the extended overnight rule for February 2016 LIH pairings in the Seattle domicile.

The settlement agreement states: Those Flight Attendants identified by their specific PBS bid who could have been awarded such pairings and were affected by the error, will be paid four (4) TFP….

Grievances recently filed and now awaiting arbitration dates:

Grievance No. 36-99-2-32-15: Concourse Uniform Shoe Standards

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 25.B. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and past practice when it issued Revised Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) requiring Flight Attendants to wear concourse shoes: With a defined heel between a half inch and three inches in height; with added restrictions, i.e., solid black in color, single functional strap with a plain silver or gold buckle, button, or snap smaller than a quarter, and no textured leather, suede, cloth fabric, color threading, or separate colored trim styles; and during boarding up until the aircraft door closes. These restrictions essentially limit Flight Attendants to wear a pump type shoe only, and unlike past practice eliminates many ‘healthy shoe styles’, e.g., Danskos, Naot, and makes them non compliant.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-33-15: In-Flight Uniform Shoe Standards

Grievance No. 36-99-2-34-15: Uniform Luggage Standards

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it issued Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) which says: Designated “Crew” luggage tag and/or Company-approved recognition luggage strap is the only permitted accessory/adornment that may be attached on luggage items; recreational equipment must fit into company issued luggage; and individual or union lanyards with personal pins may not be worn.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-41-15: Section 34.C.3. Alternative Hotel Selection/Site Visit

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 34.C.3. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to include the hotel committee in the selection of alternative hotels; and when it failed to provide site visits on alternative hotels.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-2-16 Violation of ASAP and Discipline LOA

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Letter of Agreement: ASAP and Discipline July 2006 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) process to complete prior to disciplining and terminating a Flight Attendant. The Letter of Agreement specifically states, “Flight Attendants participating in the ASAP program, whether reporting or non-reporting as defined in the ASAP Memorandum of Understanding, will not be subject to discipline. Neither the written ASAP report nor the content of the written ASAP report will be used to initiate or support any company disciplinary action.”

Grievance No. 36-99-2-4-16: Order of Reserve Assignment

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 11.E. [Order of Reserve Assignment], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it out of order assigned reserve Flight Attendants to pairing 1164 on June 12, 2015.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-5-16: Non-negotiated Compensation

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 21 [Compensation] and Section 32 [Attendance Policy], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it awarded, without prior consistent notice, policy and application, $5 gift cards to all Anchorage based Flight Attendants for meeting the daily attendance goal (in December 2015).

Grievance No. 36-99-2-10-16: Mandatory Attendance Counseling in Violation of Section 32

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 32.A. [Attendance Policy/Reporting Procedure], Section 32.E.1. [Attendance/Control Procedure/Attendance Policy Disciplinary Action], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it required Flight Attendants to attend meetings to discuss sick leave under the guise of an investigation when in fact it was a counseling in violation of Section 32.E.1.

Grievances previously filed and currently awaiting arbitration dates:

Grievance No. 36-99-2-15-15: Limiting Access to the SAN Domicile

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 28.I [Company Provided Computers and Printers at Domiciles], when it limited access to the SAN Domicile including contractually required resources to only those Flight Attendants based in SAN.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-19-15: Failing to Pay Flight Attendants for Reasonable Suspicion Drug/Alcohol Testing

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Addendum to Section 21 [Compensation], when it failed to pay Flight Attendants for reasonable suspicion drug & alcohol testing.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-20-15: Converting a Line Holding Flight Attendant to ER Reserve Outside of her/his Contactable Period

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 11.C.3.b.6 [Conversion of Reserves to ER] and 11.C.3.c [ER Contactability], when it converted a line holding Flight Attendant to ER Reserve outside of her/his contactable period.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-21-15: Section 21.M Compensation

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 21.M [Pay Protection Due to Weather, Mechanical or to Suit Company Convenience], when it removed a Flight Attendant from a trip and failed to pay protect her.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-22-15: Violation of Past Practice Regarding Manual Revision/Emergency Interim Bulletin (EIB) Insertion Timelines

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice regarding manual revision/emergency interim bulletin (EIB) insertion timelines, which fails to provide Flight Attendants sufficient time to thoroughly read and insert their revisions and/or EIB’s. Long standing past practice is articulated in the prior referenced Flight Attendant Manual (FAM) 6.500 page 1, July 6, 2012, which states: Insert, post and record manual revisions within 14 days of receipt, no later than 30 days after distribution. A new EIB 14-40 effective November 25, 2014, now states: The holder of the FAM shall insert revisions/EIBs on or before the effective date or prior to the first assignment following the effective date, whichever comes first.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-23-15: Beyond Service Training Exceeding Contractual Training Hours

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 30.A.2 [Recurrent Training and Other Company-Required (Non-Computer-Based) Training; Hours], by conducting Beyond Service Training after 5:00PM local time, failing to provide a clear break between required training and the optional “Happy Hour” and failing to provide transportation information to Flight Attendants who choose to depart promptly at 5:00PM.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-24-15: Ground Floor Lodging While on Company Business

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 34 [Hotels], when it failed to avoid ground floor lodging for Flight Attendants attending company required Beyond Service training.

Grievance No. 36-99-2-29-15: Section 28.G.6 Commuter Boarding Priority

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 28.G.6 [Commuter Policy], when it allowed Company employees (and their dependents) on pleasure travel to be given higher boarding priority than commuting Flight Attendants.

* * *

As we work through these grievances you will receive more information. Until then, if you have any questions or concerns about grievances please contact a member of your Local Executive Council Grievance Committee.

In Solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and Committee Member Stephanie Adams

Grievance No. 36-99-2-3-16 Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change sustain letter

Grievance No. 36-99-2-9-16 CBA Section 9 [Junior Available] Violation

March 22, 2016 08:00

Grievance filed

AFA Alaska filed Grievance No. 36-99-2-16 CBA Section 9 [Junior Available] Violation in response to the junior assignments around Christmas. See Holiday JA … Updates, No JA for … Premium OT Returning on December 24^th or 25^th, Temporary Waiver to Allow CSKD to Withhold Trips from OT for Assignment to Reserves at Noon and JA December 2015 for more background information. This grievance alleged the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 9.D.2. [Junior Available/Company’s Right to Assign JA], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act on December 23, 2015, and December 24, 2015, when it junior assigned Flight Attendants out of order.

Settlement agreement

After several meetings between AFA and Alaska Airlines management, this grievance was resolved via a settlement agreement that states:

In addition to the contractual pay outlined in 9.D.1.e. [Company’s Right to Assign JA], Flight Attendants junior assigned out of order will be paid an additional one-half times (0.5x) the trip rate for a total of one times (1.0x) the trip rate for the sequence assigned in error excluding Minimum Pay Rules per §21.U. [Minimum Pay Rules];

Flight Attendants who should have been junior assigned to the sequence will be pay protected at two and one-half times (2.5x) the trip rate for the sequence excluding Minimum Pay Rules per 21.U. [Minimum Pay Rules];

As outlined in 9.D.1.e. [Company’s Right to Assign JA], Flight Attendants who picked up and flew an out of order junior assignment will be paid an additional half-times (0.5x) the trip rate for the sequence assigned in error excluding Minimum Pay Rules per §21.U. [Minimum Pay Rules]; and

A Flight Attendant will be paid four (4.0) TFP due to incorrect junior assignment, which required her to utilize FMLA.

AFA and management developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Junior Assignments

It is the Association’s goal that management utilizes junior assignment (JA) only as a last resort. However, AFA and management are working together to develop a Junior Assignment (JA) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) just in case it happens again. Both parties would like to ensure that JA out of order is eliminated—or at least greatly reduced—just in case. AFA is currently reviewing a formal draft of the JA SOP. It is our hope that this new SOP will ensure out of order JAs are eliminated—or at least greatly minimized.

Additionally, AFA is seeking clarification to how the provisions of §3.D.2. [Scope: Management flying to prevent a cancellation] interact with the provisions of §9.D.2.h. [Junior Available & Premium Open Time: Company’s Right to Assign JA]. This is specifically in relation to the order of release from JA for Flight Attendants (if the operation allows) and how this affects the order of release by management in order to prevent a cancellation. Both provisions were actively in effect at the same time over the holidays, which caused confusion and, in our opinion, the inappropriate application of the provisions. AFA anticipates these provisions will again be utilized concurrently, so we would like to prevent the same outcome from occurring in the future.

Via the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, AFA has stated our position that management personnel assigned to a flight pursuant to §3.D.2. [Scope: Management flying to prevent a cancellation] should be considered the most junior Flight Attendant on that flight consistent with §3.D.1.C.2. Therefore, AFA contends that management personnel must be released after all other JA’d Flight Attendants for that day have been released—or have declined release—pursuant to §9.D.2.h. We have stipulated that this understanding must be incorporated into the JA SOP.

Use of the new Premium Open Time provisions prior to JA

AFA leadership will continue to push management to make the most of the new Premium Open Time provisions—with escalating premiums if necessary—prior to JA. We never want to see JAs unless trips have been offered at no less than two and one-half times (2.5x) premium for a reasonable period of time prior to JA. After all, doesn’t it make sense to offer Premium OT at 2.5x for voluntary pick up, rather than force a JA on a flight attendant for the same premium?

* * *

Questions? Contact one of your Local Executive Council officers or local Scheduling Committee members.

In solidarity,

AFA Alaska Master Executive Council Supports FIGHT FOR 10

March 21, 2016 18:00

Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants attended the March 16^th RALLY FOR REST

Over 300 Flight Attendants from across the industry, including Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants, descended on Capitol Hill on March 16^th to RALLY FOR REST. Flight Attendants from the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the Transport Workers Union joined together to FIGHT FOR 10. They visited all 541 Congressional offices to advocate for these provisions.

What is the FIGHT FOR 10 all about?

Every three to five years Congress is required to authorize funding and set policies for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). AFA’s top legislative priority for this FAA reauthorization is to have Congress increase the minimum rest requirements for Flight Attendants. Seven Flight Attendant fatigue studies, commissioned by Congress, concluded that the best way to combat fatigue is to get more rest.

Currently, Flight Attendant rest can include passenger deplaning, preflight preparation and passenger boarding is included within the rest period which means that the opportunity to actually sleep is closer to four or five hours. Unless an air carrier is contractually required to provide more rest than the Federal Air Regulations (FARs), Flight Attendants could be facing a scheduled 14-hour duty day following that very short sleep opportunity. The goal of AFA’s FIGHT FOR 10 includes achieving an irreducible FAA minimum 10 hours rest for all Flight Attendants.

In addition to proper rest, the FIGHT FOR 10 includes a Fatigue Risk Management Plan (FRMP). The FRMP would provide a protocol for reporting instances of fatigue in order to take steps to correct it. The FRMP would also require education for Flight Attendants to determine when they are fatigued and how to avoid it.

What is the current status of the FIGHT FOR 10?

The House of Representatives and the Senate have two different versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, which both including language regarding Flight Attendant rest. The Senate bill includes proposed ten hours with “reasonable flexibility,” which means rest for Flight Attendants will most often be reduced to nine hours. The House version of the bill includes FAA minimum (irreducible) rest of ten hours and a FRMP.

Now that both the House and Senate have marked up FAA reauthorization bills, each chamber will schedule votes in their respective chamber. If the House and the Senate pass different versions the bill, a Conference Committee will work out differences between the two versions of the bill.

How would the FIGHT FOR 10 affect the contractual premium pay for going under 9 ½ hours?

If the FAA required minimum (irreducible) rest were to become ten hours, Alaska Flight Attendants would never achieve the two and a half times (2.5x) premium for receiving less than nine and one-half (9 ½) hours per CBA §8.K. [Hours of Service: Reduced RON Rest]. Instead, Crew Scheduling would always ensure that Flight Attendants received at least 10 hours of rest on layovers, even if that meant delaying a flight.

Why would the Master Executive Council support a legislative effort that could negatively impact a lucrative contractual provision?

The Master Executive Council (MEC) strongly believes that it would be near sighted of us to not fully support legislation that would greatly improve Flight Attendant rest across the entire industry. Not only that, but there are no guarantees the new provisions in §8.K will survive from one contract to the next. Did you know the Negotiating Committee sought such a stiff “penalty” for receiving reduced rest on a layover not for the purpose of consistently paying out, but rather to ensure Flight Attendants received improved rest? In other words, the new contractual provisions in §8.K were specifically negotiated to improve safety for Flight Attendants, not primarily as a windfall (although it is a nice bonus when it happens).

Proper rest for Flight Attendants is about safety, health and equality. Fatigue threatens safety throughout the industry. Consequently, the MEC officers feel it is our duty as safety professionals to advance the legislative agenda encapsulated in the FIGHT FOR 10.

* * *

Do you have any questions or want to know how you can help the FIGHT FOR 10? Contact your Local Executive Council (LEC) president or LEC Government Affairs Committee.

In solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; and MEC Government Affairs Chairperson Bev Bullock

Alaska MEC Government Affairs – February 2016

March 14, 2016 14:47

SECURE OUR SKIES ACT This legislation will save lives

Flight Attendants Achieve Introduction of Legislation Aimed at Stopping Human Trafficking (AFA media report)
Washington, DC (February 2, 2016) — The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA) today praised the introduction of the Secure Our Skies Act to fight human trafficking with proper training for aviation workers, led by U.S. Representatives Dina Titus (D-NV-01) and Barbara Comstock (R-VA-10).

“As aviation’s first responders we are charged with the safety, health and security of the passengers in our care,” said AFA International President Sara Nelson. “Traffickers steal lives. But for a window of time, we can see it and report it. Millions of innocent victims are trafficked throughout the world each year, and many are transported on our planes. We are proud to work with Representatives Titus and Comstock to move this important legislation to reality in our workplace. With proper training we can be 100,000 eyes in skies saving lives.”

The bill requires training for flight attendants, pilots and dispatchers of air carriers to to identify and report human trafficking.

“Human trafficking doesn’t happen just on the ground. That’s why members of the airline industry are in a strong position to help stop these crimes,” said Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV-01). “The SOS Act will close off the skies to traffickers by providing training to professionals who know their way around aircraft. I thank the nation’s flight attendants for their commitment to fighting these heinous crimes. They know we have to spot the signs to stop the crimes.”

The infrastructure and training mechanisms are already in place through the Department of Transportation’s Blue Lightning Initiative, launched almost three years ago on June 6, 2013. Blue Lightning teaches airline personnel on a voluntary basis about common circumstances with human trafficking in order to recognize and report these instances to law enforcement for swift action. AFA launched a public campaign on June 1, 2015 to promote the provisions of the SOS Act.

“It is critical that we are ever vigilant in the fight against the heinous crime of human trafficking,” said Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA-10). “Every day, flight attendants see and interact with children on the thousands of flights across our country and throughout the world. They are the eyes and ears in this constant battle, and this legislation will give them the tools

to save the most vulnerable in our society and fight this terrible scourge. I want to thank Congresswoman Titus for working in a bipartisan manner on this important legislation.”

“Everyone immediately recognizes the horror of human trafficking, but we must turn our outrage into concrete action to stop it,” Nelson concluded.

See Rep. Dina Titus introduce the bill on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUhhhCiWWGU

UPDATE ON THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION PROCESS

February saw the introduction of the much awaited FAA Reauthorization bill. I have included Gov Affairs Director Steve Schembs comprehensive update and explanation on the bill as it moves through Congress:

FEB 26, 2016 – The FAA Reauthorization Bill has been introduced in the House, reviewed and adopted by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as amended. Our 10 hours rest between duty periods and a Fatigue Risk Management Plan are included in the bill as well a AFA-promoted issues listed at the end of this update.

Now the Senate is writing its version of the bill, which is expected to be introduced in the coming days. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee “mark-up” will likely be scheduled prior to their Easter recess starting March 18th. This means committee action could take place on the very day of our March 16th Rally for Rest. Regardless, the Rally is well timed and it is assisting us in promoting inclusion of our rest/fatigue language. If you have not already RSVP’d, we encourage you to do that now: https://cdn.afacwa.org/ issues/rest/.

Once both House and Senate bills are introduced and adopted by the respective committees, each full chamber must also vote on the bill. Amendments could also be considered during this process, although sometimes the bill can only be considered as adopted by the committee.

Next, a conference between the House and Senate is held to write common language. This final version of the bill must again be adopted by both chambers before going to the President’s desk for signature. We must remain engaged throughout the process and continue to use the power of our numbers to take action in support of rest and recognition of Flight Attendant fatigue.

The FAA Reauthorization bill is must-pass legislation, although our experience shows this might include several extensions before the long-term bill is passed. Getting our rest provisions in these base bills now sets a foundation for inclusion in the final passage of the bill regardless of when that actually occurs.

This week AFA has ramped up our advocacy to the U.S. Senator’s writing the FAA Bill; Sen. John Thune (ND), Sen. Kelly Ayote (NH), Sen. Bill Nelson (FL), Senator Maria Cantwell (WA), Senator Cory Gardner (CO) and all of the members of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Thanks to a massive effort for calls from members, and special thanks to AFA Frontier for relentless efforts in generating calls from Colorado, we are making good progress with the Senate. But we can’t let up for a second. We have to keep up calls next week and right up to the point of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee vote on their version of the bill.

At the Rally for Rest on March 16, hundreds of Flight Attendants will urge members of the Senate to include the 10 hours minimum rest and a Fatigue Risk Management Plan into the Senate bill. We will also go to every House office to encourage support of our rest in the FAA Reauthorization bill and thank members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for recognizing the importance rest plays in supporting our health and the tools necessary to fulfill our duties as aviation’s first responders.

CWA NEXT GEN AT JOBS WITH JUSTICE

Government Affairs Committee members Kris Hall and Drew Lemish were the AFA representatives at the Jobs with Justice Next Generation conference in Washington DC, Feb. 12th and 13th.

JWJ activists joined sessions on organizing, social media, innovations in the labor movement, grassroots fundraising and much more as part of JWJ’s two-day national conference. CWA Next Generation leaders were on hand as former CWA President Larry Cohen was recognized for his years of building JWJ and his commitment to democracy and working families. (CWA Media report).

Kris had this to say about the experience: “I found it profoundly educational- every workshop, every caucus, every conversation. I made so many connections, met and listened to so many stories, discussed so many concerns that would not have been possible without JwJ!”

Respectfully submitted,

Beverly Bullock
MEC Government Affairs Chairperson

MEC Inflight Service Committee Chairperson Interviews

February 23, 2016 09:00

The AFA Alaska Master Executive Council (MEC) would like to thank Blair Kimball for stepping up and serving as MEC Chairperson of the AFA Inflight Service Committee over the past several years. Under Blair’s leadership, the committee has expanded involvement and helped to advocate for Flight Attendants as management has introduced major service changes. Blair will remain in position during the transition period as the MEC selects and appoints a new MEC Chairperson.

Background

The MEC Chairperson of the Inflight Service Committee is responsible for coordinating the activities of the committee at the airline level. The Chairperson works closely with each Local Committee Chairperson to gather feedback and input and represents the positions of the Committee and MEC in interactions with management.

Additional Information From the MEC Policy Manual

INFLIGHT SERVICE COMMITTEE

1. SCOPE

a. The Inflight Service Committee shall act to support the Union’s interest with respect to inflight service and sales onboard flights. The Committee shall meet with the Company to discuss any change in inflight service or sales, procedures to be followed and other pertinent matters prior to the implementation of such service

2. POLICY/RESPONSIBILITIES

a. The MEC Inflight Service Committee shall consist of the MEC Inflight Service Committee Chairperson and the Local Inflight Service Committee Chairperson from each council.

b. It shall be the policy of the Union to make any significant change in inflight service or sales subject to negotiations between the parties. The Union shall always place Flight Attendants’ health and safety as its first priority when considering the feasibility of any inflight service or sales change and the location of inflight service or sales items in galleys or other stowage locations.

c. The MEC Chairperson shall:

(i) Immediately contact the MEC President should the Company override his/her objections and proceed to implement changes in inflight service or sales against his/her recommendation

(ii) Compose informational and educational articles of interest to the membership and provide them to the MEC Communications Chairperson to be included in MEC communications and posted to the MEC website.

d. The Committee shall:

(i) Represent the Flight Attendant point of view to the Company in all matters pertaining to onboard sales and service policies, procedures, and practices

(ii) Work with the Scheduling Committee to determine available service time, projected loads and staffing when the Company determines a certain service is required on a flight

(iii) Monitor feedback from all domiciles on flights where services, load, staffing, or flight time cause the Flight Attendants difficulty in completing the standards of performance

Qualifications

Robust working knowledge of inflight service procedures, including all positions and routes (including short haul, Mexico, Hawaii, midcon, and transcon)
Ability to attend meetings as required, including being present in Seattle on occasion
Strong computer skills. Excellent working knowledge of Inflight Mobile Device, Google email, and Microsoft Office.
Strong written and verbal communication skills. Ability to write membership communications, respond professionally to internal and external e-mail, prepare reports, and plan meetings agendas and take minutes.
Ability to meet deadlines, delegate responsibilities, and follow up on assigned tasks

Duties

Participate in reviews of inflight catering, packing, service, and sales with management
Review Flight Attendant complaints or concerns regarding catering and inflight service. Gather information and work with management to satisfactorily resolve each issue.
Schedule, plan, and conduct quarterly meetings of the committee and other meetings and conference calls as needed
Correspond with the Local Inflight Service Committee Chairpersons and MEC regularly to provide status updates. Prepare and send a monthly committee report to the MEC.

Time Commitment and Flight Pay Loss Reimbursement

This is position eligible for Flight Pay Loss (FPL) reimbursement by the Company under 27.P Company Business (CB) Flight Pay Loss with a 5% override and “A” pay. CB is compensated at 0.75 TFP per hour of work.
Estimated 8-10 hours per week (24 to 30 TFP per month). Some work may be accomplished remotely. Regularly required to be in Seattle to work on projects and attend meetings.

Working Relationships

With The Inflight Service Committee

Constant interaction with the Local Inflight Service Committee Chairpersons. Frequent interaction with Local Inflight Service Committee Members.

With The Master Executive Council

This position reports to the Master Executive Council. The MEC executive sponsor for the committee is the MEC Vice President.

With Alaska Airlines Management

Constant interaction with inflight management, particularly the Manager of Inflight Experience (Matthew Coder) and Director of Catering Operations (Susan Morse)

Expressing Interest and Interview Scheduling

The MEC will hold interviews during the April MEC meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2016. Bid around the interview date or plan to arrange your schedule accordingly to accommodate.
Interviews will be at the AFA Alaska MEC office in Seattle. Our office is located in the Alaska Airlines Flight Operations and Training Center, Suite 280 at 2651 South 192nd Street, Seattle, WA 98188.
Submit a declaration of interest and resume to MEC Secretary-Treasurer Yvette Gesch at yvette.gesch@afaalaska.org no later than 5 PM Pacific Time on Friday, April 1, 2016. Yvette will be able to provide additional information regarding transportation and booking of flights if necessary.

In Solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt

Grievances recently filed and sustained:

Grievances recently filed and settled:

Grievances recently filed and now awaiting arbitration dates:

Grievances previously filed and currently awaiting arbitration dates:

Grievance filed

Settlement agreement

AFA and management developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Junior Assignments

Use of the new Premium Open Time provisions prior to JA

Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants attended the March 16th RALLY FOR REST

What is the FIGHT FOR 10 all about?

What is the current status of the FIGHT FOR 10?

How would the FIGHT FOR 10 affect the contractual premium pay for going under 9 ½ hours?

Why would the Master Executive Council support a legislative effort that could negatively impact a lucrative contractual provision?

SECURE OUR SKIES ACT This legislation will save lives

UPDATE ON THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION PROCESS

CWA NEXT GEN AT JOBS WITH JUSTICE

Background

Additional Information From the MEC Policy Manual

Qualifications

Duties

Time Commitment and Flight Pay Loss Reimbursement

Working Relationships

With The Inflight Service Committee

With The Master Executive Council

With Alaska Airlines Management

Expressing Interest and Interview Scheduling

Recent Posts

Local Councils

Master Executive Council

Negotiations

Contract

News By Month

News By Category

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Connect With AFA

Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants attended the March 16^th RALLY FOR REST