This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants

The Master Executive Council (MEC) has been very hard at work ensuring disciplinary due process and contractual compliance on your behalf. CBA §20.N.2 allows for 10 arbitration dates per year to argue discipline/termination cases and contractual issues. AFA typically prioritizes termination cases 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. The following is a list of open contractual grievances.

Upcoming arbitration/mediation:

August 9, 2017 – AFA will be arbitrating a disciplinary grievance.

Mediated on July 5, 2017:

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-4-17- Violation of §9.E. & §12.E. All Open Time Trips Withheld from Open Time and Premium Pay Removed

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 9.E. [Junior Available//and Premium Open Time/Premium Open Time] & 12.E. [Exchange of Sequences/Open Time], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about February 9, 2017, and on or about February 16, 2017, all Open Time trips across the entire system were withheld from Open Time and premium pay was removed. This is an ongoing violation, and this grievance intends to include all future violations.

Details: The Company agreed it violated this provision of our CBA. This grievance also includes a violation on April 4, 2017, and April 15, 2017.

Mediation report: Management will research the trips that were offered as premium and were then withheld from open time. It will then back out any of the trips that were picked up and paid at premium as well as any of the trips that were flown by reserves.  The Company will pay the 0.5x or 1.0x additional premium (i.e., 1.5x – 1.0x straight time = 0.5x, or 2.0x – 1.0x straight time = 1.0x) as applicable, to be distributed equally in TFP among all non-management flight attendants on the seniority list as of the date of each incident. If management cannot calculate the number/payment with a reasonable margin of certainty, the parties will discuss other methods for obtaining an acceptable remedy. A Flight Attendant who is on leave at the time of the distribution will receive the payment on the first 20th paycheck after returning to service.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-6-17- Violation of §11.E. Low Time First Available (LTFA) Out of Order Assignments January 31 to February 2, 2017

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 11.E. [Reserve/Order of Assignment], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on or about January 31, 2017, at 8:00pm PST to February 2, 2017, at 11:00am PST, Crew Scheduling assigned Reserve Flight Attendants out of order because of the inability for Crew Scheduling to accurately verify order of assignments due to the cutover to the new crew tracking and scheduling system, Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA).

Details: The Company agreed it violated this provision of our CBA.

Mediation report: The Company will pay any Flight Attendant who flew a sequence from reserve and/or sat APSB commencing on January 31, 2017, through February 8, 2017, 0.5x premium for each TFP flown, to be paid above guarantee. A Reserve Flight Attendant who is on leave at the time of the distribution will receive the payment on the first 20th paycheck after returning to service.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-7-17- Violation of §11.E. Low Time First Available (LTFA) Out of Order Assignments Post Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) Cutover

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 11.E. [Reserve/Order of Assignment], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when starting on or about February 2, 2017 at 11:00am PST, and including all subsequent violations, Crew Scheduling assigned Reserve Flight Attendants out of order because of the inability for Crew Scheduling to accurately verify order of assignments due to the cutover to the new crew tracking and scheduling system, Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA).

Details: The Company agreed it violated this provision of our CBA.

Mediation report: The Company will pay any Flight Attendant who flew a sequence from reserve and/or sat APSB commencing on January 31, 2017, through February 8, 2017, 0.5x premium for each TFP flown, to be paid above guarantee. A Reserve Flight Attendant who is on leave at the time of the distribution will receive the payment on the first 20th paycheck after returning to service.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-18-17-Violation of §12.G.3 & §10.Y.7 SIP’d Sequences in Open Time

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.G.3 [Exchanges of Sequences: Sequence Interruption Point (SIP) Sequences] & §10.Y.7 [Scheduling: Sequence Construction], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to identify SIP sequences placed into Open Time by the Company for pick-up/trade by Flight Attendants or assigned to (or self-assigned by) Reserve Flight Attendants; and thereby failed to pay all eligible Minimum Pay Rules on such sequences pursuant to §21.D [Compensation: Minimum Pay Rules].

Mediation report: The Company will sustain the grievance and order a programming change from Jeppesen as a high-priority so that SIPs that the Company place in Open Time will have a SIP identifier as required by Section 12.G. Any Flight Attendant who picked up or traded into an Open Time sequence between January 31, 2017, and the date the SIP identifier is implemented, and who feels that s/he has been incorrectly paid, may submit an Activity Claim Form to Crew Scheduling, who will research and arrange pay for any applicable Minimum Pay Rules. Until the SIP identifier is implemented, the Company agrees that Flight Attendants who would like to know the SIP status of a sequence (i.e. whether a SIP sequence was placed into OT by a Flight Attendant or Crew Scheduling) may call Crew Scheduling to inquire whether the SIP’d sequence is eligible for Minimum Pay Rules. If this places undue burden on Crew Scheduling resources, the parties agree to meet to develop an alternative method of obtaining such information.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-28-17-Violation of §12.C.1 Real-Time Trading Procedures

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.C.1 [Exchange of Sequences: Trading Procedures], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it did not provide Flight Attendants a real-time electronic system for processing sequence trades, picks-ups, drops and give-aways because it requires frequent refreshing of one’s internet browser in order to view updated trading data and availability.

Details: The Company agreed it violated this provision of our CBA. Until JCA is modified there is a manual workaround requiring Flight Attendants to refresh their browser to view an updated screen.

Mediation report: AFA requested the following fixes for real-time trading:

The Company will order a programing change from Jeppesen as a high-priority so that the end-user experience is essentially real-time, meaning:

• All “front-end” views (Flight Attendant Crew Access user interface including but not limited to the roster view, roster report, trip pool, trade cart, published roster and calendar) will reflect synchronized “back-end” data;
• There will be no more than a ten second “turnaround” time from trade submission to the completion of the transaction (as reflected in the Flight Attendant’s Crew Access user interface) based on a standard high speed internet connection; and
• All data (“front-end” and “back-end”) will be automatically refreshed on a global basis at least every 10 seconds. Whenever the system refreshes, it will also auto-save any unsaved data, such as trips in a flight attendant’s cart.

Management had concerns with AFA’s suggestions for real-time trading. We agreed to have AFA and Alaska representatives meet with Jeppesen to explore the capabilities of the system and how to align the front-end with the “real time” experience of the back-end user (e.g. Crew Scheduling, Crew Administration and other management personnel). The Company has agreed to use AFA’s real-time “asks” above as a basis for that conversation. It is understood that both parties have a common goal of making the system as real time as possible.

Grievances filed and awaiting a response from management:

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-24-17-Violation of §15.M.1.a & 2.a Failure to Allow Minimum Coordination While on Maternity Leave. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §15.M.1.a [Leaves of Absence: Leaves with Coordination of Sick Leave or Vacation/Longevity PTO/Coordination of Sick Leave/Minimum Coordination] & §15.M.2.a [Leaves of Absence: Leaves with Coordination of Sick Leave or Vacation/Coordination with Vacation/Longevity PTO/Minimum Coordination], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow minimum coordination with sick leave and/or vacation to Flight Attendants on maternity leave from the sixth or eighth week following the birth, depending on the type of delivery, until the 120th day from the birth.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-52-17- Violation of §§11.H.3.b & 11.H.4 JCTE Denying Unlimited Trading of Reserve Days Due to Classification as a Reserve Block Split. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §§11.H.3.b & 11.H.4 [Reserve: Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades/Reserve Day/Blocks], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access (JCA) trading system denied unlimited trading of reserve days pursuant to §11.H.4 due to JCA incorrectly classifying such trade as a reserve block split pursuant to §11.H.3.b.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-54-17-Violation of §23.A.1 Flight Attendants Incurring a 3% Fee for Online Payments to COBRA Management Services. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §23.A.1 [Insurance Benefits: Flight Attendant Insurance Plans], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when for the convenience of the Company it used a third-party vendor to administer collection of healthcare premiums for Flight Attendants on leaves of absence; and the Company allowed their third-party vendor to charge the Flight Attendants a 3% fee for online payments to COBRA Management Services (CMS).

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).

Grievances recently granted by management:

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-29-17-Violation §12.C & §30.B.5 Trading and Requalification Training. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.C [Exchange of Sequences: Trading Procedures] & §30.B.5 [Training: Recurrent Training], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its crew tracking system (Jeppesen Crew Access) did not allow a Flight Attendant to electronically trade trips that were on his/her line in a bid month in which s/he is scheduled for requalification training.

Details: As a manual work around Flight Attendants can call Crew Scheduling to process a trade.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-30-17-Violation §12.C.3 SAN Open Time. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.C.3 [Exchange of Sequences: Trading Procedures], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it did not begin access to Open Time trading in the San Diego Flight Attendant domicile (SAN) at 9:00am PT on May 15, 2017.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-34-17-Violation §25.C.1 Failure to Notify Air Safety, Health and Security Committee of Company Meeting Affecting Flight Attendant Safety. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.C.1 [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safety Meetings], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to notify the Air Safety, Health and Security Committee (ASHSC) of a Safety Risk Management (SRM) assessment meeting on or about May 25, 2017, nor did the Company solicit feedback from and therefore failed to consider the recommendations of the ASHSC prior to taking action on the issue under SRM review.

Details: Mike Crook, Director of Inflight Safety & Compliance, was reminded that he is contractually required to notify the ASHSC of any action or meeting(s) affecting the safety and health of Flight Attendants.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-35-17-Violation of §12.F.9.a Cancellation of Open Time Trial and Back to Book. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.F.9.a [Exchange of Sequences: Open Time Trial/Cancellation of Open Time Trial], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to provide sufficient IT resources for reverting to the Open Time System in place in the 2006-2010 Flight Attendant Agreement as modified by the Arbitration award (AFA No. 36-99-2-18-11 [“Withholding Open Time” Award]).

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-36-17-Violation of §12.C.10 Base Turn Trading Procedure. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.C.10 [Exchange of Sequences: Trading Procedures], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access trading system failed to allow a Flight Attendant to trade a base turn containing a duty day over ten hours and thirty minutes (10:30).

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-37-17-Violation of §8.D.1 Early Push Program. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §8.D.1 [Hours of Service: Check-In and Debrief], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it altered certain flight departure times 10 minutes earlier than scheduled thereby changing posted boarding times to 50 minutes prior to departure and pressuring the Flight Attendants to board earlier than 45 minutes prior to departure.

Details: Management is moving from a 10-minute early boarding to 5 minutes in the case of early pushes only. By pushing this from D-50 to D-45, it will be contractually compliant. Therefore, management requested and were guaranteed that departures be posted no greater than 5 minutes early instead of 10 minutes effective immediately.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-39-17-Violation of §25.C.1 Failure to Consider the Recommendations of the Air Safety, Health and Security Committee Regarding the Flight Attendant Manual Revision Validation Survey. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §25.C.1 [Air Safety, Health and Security: Safety Meetings], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to solicit feedback from and therefore failed to consider the recommendations of the Air Safety, Health and Security Committee (ASHSC) regarding the Flight Attendant Manual (FAM) revision validation survey.

Details: Mike Crook, Director of Inflight Safety & Compliance, was reminded that he is contractually required to notify the ASHSC of any action or meeting(s) affecting the safety and health of Flight Attendants.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-41-17- Violation of §11.E.1.a ANC PM Reserve Self-Assign Start Time Incorrect. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §11.E.1.a [Reserve: Order of Assignment/Reserve Self-Assignment], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access trading system failed to allow Anchorage based PM Reserve Flight Attendants to self-assign a sequence from Open Time at 10:00am PT the day prior to check in.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-43-17- Violation of §12.A Failing to Allow Unlimited Trading of Pairings Which Begin with a LIMO Segment. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §12.A [Exchange of Sequences: Unlimited Trading], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access trading system failed to allow Flight Attendants to trade pairings that began with a LIMO segment.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-44-17- Violation of §11.1.a.2 Failing to Allow Reserve Self-Assignment for Same Number of Days Left in Block. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §11.1.a.2 [Reserve: Order of Assignment/Reserve Self-Assignment], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when its Jeppesen Crew Access trading system failed to allow a Reserve Flight Attendant to Self-Assign for the same number of days as the Reserve has left in her/his block.d

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-45-17-Violation of §10.S Pre-Cancellation and Schedule Changes. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.S [Scheduling: Pre-Cancellation], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it altered Flight Attendant schedules due to a schedule change/retiming using inapplicable Pre-Cancellation language without prior notice or approval from AFA.

Details: Management agreed this was not a correct application, and they confirmed with AFA that they would manage schedule changes according to §10.R.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-47-17-Violation of §25.D.2 Failing to Discuss Boeing 737-700 Reconfiguration with ASHSC 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 discuss with the Air Safety, Health and Security Committee (ASHSC) the parties’ interests and concerns for inflight safety prior to making a final decision and allow the Association to comment on the aircraft acquisition or changes to the cabin interior of the Boeing 737-700 of the current fleet.

Details: Michael Crook, Director of Inflight Safety & Compliance, was reminded that he is contractually required to notify the MEC President of any reconfiguration of the aircraft interior and hold discussions with the ASHSC on the same topic prior to making a final 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.: 36-99-2-6-15- Incorrect Assessment of a No Show. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 32 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it incorrectly assessed a No Show to a Flight Attendant on November 30, 2014.

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.: 36-99-2-29-15-Commuter Boarding Priority. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 28.G.6. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it allowed Company employees (and their dependents) on pleasure travel to be given higher boarding priority than commuting Flight Attendants.

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. 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 in-flight shoes with all concourse shoe requirements except the defined heel (with at least half inch height) requirement until the aircraft door closes. Unlike past practice these restrictions eliminate many ‘healthy shoe styles’, e.g., Danskos and Naot, and makes them non-compliant.

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 alternate hotels; and when it failed to provide site visits on alternate 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 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.: 36-99-2-5-16- 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.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-31-16- Benefit Re-enrollment-Failure to Provide Insurance. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 23 [Insurance Benefits], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it: Intended to deny insurance to Flight Attendants who fail to reenroll following any duration leave of absence; and failed to provide sufficient notice regarding insurance reenrollment following any leave of absence.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-32-16- Automation of Stranded and Delay Pay. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 21 [Compensation], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it continues to automate its payroll system yet failed to include automated stranded pay for the entire crew.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-40-16- Violation of Paternal Leave §15.E.2. & §15.M. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Sections 15.E.2. & 15.M. [Leaves of Absence/Parental Leaves of Absence], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow a Flight Attendant to utilize sick leave or vacation while on a paternal leave of absence.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-43-16- Violation of §11.H.8. Failing to Allow Trades. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 11.H.8. [Reserve/Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow Reserve Flight Attendants, [Flight Attendant Names], to trade on December 18, 2016, and December 30, 2016, under its provisions; it failed to allow other Flight Attendants to do trades on other various dates as well.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-1-17- Violation of §32.C.5. Assessing Short Sick Call Points to Flight Attendant on FMLA. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §32.C.5 [Attendance Policy: Short Sick Call], past practice, all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Federal Law when it assessed short sick call points (2 ½) to Flight Attendants on qualified Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) status when they called in sick within two hours of scheduled check-in.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-3-17- Violation §30.A.3.c. Failure to Pay for Lodging for Recurrent Training. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 30.A.3.c. [Reserve/Reserve Exchange of Days, Pick-Ups and Trades], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to pay for a Flight Attendant’s lodging when she came to Seattle to attend required Recurrent Training.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-17-17-Violation of §15.C Medical Leave of Absence. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §15.C [Leaves of Absence: Medical Leave of Absence], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it denied Flight Attendants a Medical Leave of Absence because they did not also qualify for FMLA.

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-50-17-Violation of §10.X.9 Meals While Deadheading on Alaska Air Group Flights. This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement §10.X.9 [Scheduling: Deadhead], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to provide a deadheading Flight Attendant with one (1) complimentary meal on board any flight when there is a food option available for purchase on Alaska Air Group flights operated by Horizon Air, (QX), SkyWest Airlines (OO) and Virgin America (VX).

In Solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Linda Christou, Lisa Pinkston, Terry Taylor, Mario de’Medici, Melissa Osborne, Tim Green, Brice McGee; MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Stephanie Adams, MEC Grievance Committee Representative Christina Frees; and AFA Senior Staff Attorney Kimberley Chaput