AFA Alaska + Hawaiian

Representing the Flight Attendants of Alaska + Hawaiian

Click here to report an issue to AFA
You are here: Home / Archives for Latest News

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

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 24th or 25th, 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,

 

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; and MEC Scheduling Chairperson Jake Jones

AFA Alaska Logo Transparent Background

AFA Alaska Master Executive Council Supports FIGHT FOR 10

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

 

Over 300 Flight Attendants from across the industry, including Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants, descended on Capitol Hill on March 16th 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

 

cropped-AFA-Alaska-Logo-Transparent-Background.png

AFA’s Perspective Regarding Alaska Listens Customer Feedback: Kudos and “Red Flags”

Steps in the right direction…

Inflight management recently revealed changes and clarifications to the Alaska Listens customer feedback process in the February 22nd communication “Customer Feedback.” The Master Executive Council (MEC) has heard you loud and clear that there is much confusion and discontent on the line regarding “red flags,” so any clarifications are a refreshing change to recent experience. According to the communication, management intends to balance the kudos and red flags going forward by treating them more equally than in the past. Although the MEC is not providing a blanket endorsement, generally speaking many of the stated changes to policy appear to be steps in the right direction.

…but…

However, it is disappointing that management did not do more to acknowledge the level of your dissatisfaction and did not even mention AFA’s advocacy on your behalf. The MEC firmly believes management would not have revised the program without the constant negative feedback from the line combined with the persistent pressure from your AFA leaders. Most of the time your AFA leaders are content to simply work in the background, and we do not find it necessary to communicate the details of how we work with management. Although the MEC very much appreciates management’s willingness to make adjustments to this policy based on feedback, in this case it is important for our members to know the full “behind the scenes” story.

The full “behind the scenes” story

From the very beginning, AFA advised management that this program would be received poorly if not administrated in a positive and non-punitive manner. AFA requested that any low level customer feedback simply be sent to the Flight Attendant via email without a required supervisor discussion or documentation. The MEC is pleased to see that the revised customer feedback policy now does just that.

 

In addition, AFA continued to seek clarification on the specifics of the program and clear communication from management to the Flight Attendant group over the past several months. Management appeared reluctant to clearly spell out the program in writing—until now.

 

So what changed? The MEC is not saying it was all due to our efforts, but you should know that we’ve had a very critical communication about red flags written and ready to go for some time now. We were strategically holding off on sending it out in order to accomplish miscellaneous business important to our flight attendants—including achieving clarifications and ideally policy changes to the red flag program.

 

Last week AFA engaged in several discussions with management about red flags and our intent to communicate to our members about our perspective regarding the red flag program. Late last week management requested that the MEC hold off for a few more days in order to have the opportunity to revamp the program prior to AFA communicating on the subject. The MEC reluctantly voted to wait until the new customer feedback policy was released on Monday. The reality is that this policy change was at least partially the result of multiple meetings and numerous back and forth communications between AFA and management over several months. So now here we are.

Red flags and the disciplinary timeline

AFA had made multiple requests for clarification regarding how far into the past management would refer to red flags in a Flight Attendant’s personnel file in order to take disciplinary action. In our opinion, management had been purposefully vague with respect to the timeline up until this latest communication. Management has now clearly stated that they will not utilize red flags that are older than 18 months in order to determine discipline. Upon a cursory review, this timeline appears to be contractually consistent with CBA §19.D. [Grievance Procedures: Disciplinary Eighteen (18) Month Removal], but the MEC will be more thoroughly evaluating the timeline at our monthly meeting this week.

Summary of the customer feedback process as we know it

Effective March 1st, all kudos and most red flags will simply be emailed to Flight Attendants—no response required.

First three general or relatively benign “red flags” in 18 months

Management says that the first two general or relatively benign red flags in 18 months will simply be emailed and will no longer require a conversation. The third general or relatively benign red flag will result in a record of discussion (ROD). For more information about RODs, see “What is a ROD?” below.

After three general or relatively benign “red flags” in 18 months…

After three general or relatively benign flags in 18 months, or if any Alaska Listens comment is deemed serious, then the Flight Attendant will likely be referred directly to his or her performance supervisor. Depending on the severity of the allegation, the Flight Attendant could be given a ROD or issued progressive discipline. If a Flight Attendant attends a performance meeting and there is any type of discipline issued, the contractual grievance process is available to dispute the discipline. For your information, Manager of Inflight Labor and Work Performance Leslee Cabulagan leads the performance group; and the performance supervisors are Michelle Kirschbaum (PDX & SEA: A), Beth Swanson (SAN & SEA: B-I), Tony Nichols (ANC & SEA: J-P) and Natasha Kemp (LAX & SEA: Q-Z).

Why is management not more supportive?

AFA understands the group’s frustration that many of these red flags stem from Flight Attendants’ compliance with FARs and Company policies. Why is management not more supportive of Flight Attendants in upholding the policies that management puts in place? The Association has repeatedly urged management to refocus energy on being supportive and encouraging of Flight Attendants and to recognize the excellent job we do—and we will continue to do so.

What is a ROD?

A ROD is not considered discipline. It is a record of a discussion with an employee outlining a company policy or procedure. A Flight Attendant should be provided a copy of any ROD and s/he may issue a statement in response to the ROD for her/his ROD file. A ROD stays in your file permanently—however, it can only be used to show that you were previously advised of a policy.

Although an ROD is a permanent part of an employees record, AFA stands firm on the fact that any ROD over 18 months old is not to be counted in the red flag total. AFA will file a grievance if management tries to use a red flag older than 18 months.

What can Flight Attendants do?

When flying, we encourage Flight Attendants to write up any incident or concern that they have with a customer. This will provide a record of the Flight Attendant’s side of the interaction. Many are using the notes function on their Inflight Mobile Device (IMD) to take a few notes when an event occurs.

Flight Attendants have the right to access their personnel and ROD files upon request and AFA encourages all to take a look at their files on a regular basis. A Flight Attendant must specifically request both files.

If a Flight Attendant is contacted to speak with a supervisor or manager regarding a red flag, the Flight Attendant may ask, “Is there a possibility of discipline?” If the answer is yes, the Flight Attendant should contact her/his local AFA representative. If the answer is no, ask the supervisor to verify if it will be noted as a ROD. If it is noted as a ROD, then you should be provided a copy. If you would like to add your own statement to the ROD, you may do so.

If, during a conversation with a supervisor, you become concerned and wish to have an AFA rep involved, you can stop the conversation and request one. If you are asked to write a statement, you should consult with an AFA rep before doing so.

* * *

AFA will keep you updated on further developments regarding the new customer feedback policy once it has been implemented on March 1st and we have had an opportunity to evaluate the new rules.

In solidarity,

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

AFA Alaska Logo Transparent Background

MEC Inflight Service Committee Chairperson Interviews

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

AFA Alaska Logo No Tag

Navigating Acute & Delayed Stress As A Flight Attendant

Stress is an inherent aspect of the Flight Attendant profession, often stemming from the demanding nature of responsibilities and the unpredictable nature of air travel. It’s essential for Flight Attendants not only to understand the different types of stress they may encounter but also to recognize the warning signs of acute and delayed stress for […]

Protect Yourself From Potential Discipline on Social Media

Our Grievance Committee would like to provide background on social media, protected classes, and discipline. Federal protected classes include race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or transgender status), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.  Alaska’s People Policy says: Personal Conduct22. Threatening, intimidating, or discourteous behavior, including abusive, profane, or obscene language, acts, […]

Human Rights & Equity Committee Meeting Recap – 1st Quarter 2026

On Wednesday, March 25, our AFA 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 (LAX-pmAS), Bruni Agosto-Pinal (LAX-pmHA), Aaron Miller (PDX), Nyachan Chuar (ANC), and Yan Yan Teague (SEA). MEC Human […]

Pre-Merger Hawaiian Inflight Service Committee Update – March 2026

Editor’s Note: Our MEC Inflight Service Committee now represents both pre-merger airlines, but management still makes service decisions that affect each group of Flight Attendants differently. This update covers changes for both Hawaiian- and Alaska-branded flying, but is specific to aircraft flown by pre-merger Hawaiian Airlines crews. As the work of the merger progresses, we […]

Joint Contract Negotiations Session 13 – March 2026

Our JNC met this week for three days of collective bargaining with management. The JNC focused on clarifying questions about moving expenses and presented a proposal for Sick Leave, using feedback from Flight Attendants to guide improvements. The Committee is working to incorporate the strongest elements from both contracts to ensure better support for all members.

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 (pmAS) Council 19 SEA (pmAS) Council 30 ANC Council 35 SFO Council 39 PDX Council 43 HNL Council 47 LAX/SEA (pmHA) 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 Engagement 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 + Hawaiian 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