Scheduling Committee

• Pairing Construction Process: The AFA Pairing Analyst and Company Crew Planners use metrics like hotel costs, layover times, and duty limits to build pairings each month, but the optimizer often prioritizes crew utilization over pairing quality or Flight Attendant preferences.
• Challenges and Evolution: Changes in flight schedules, new routes, and the optimizer’s focus on maximizing duty days have led to less desirable pairings, though efforts are being made to reduce four-day pairings and balance costs with quality.
• Selection and Reporting: Both the AFA Analyst and crew planners submit pairing solutions for review, with management making the final selection. The chosen solution is analyzed, and a detailed report is shared with flight attendants.

Introduction to the Pairing Process

Pairing construction is a complex process that occurs every month to create the work schedules, or “pairings,” that Flight Attendants will operate. A team consisting of four individuals—three Company Crew Planners and one AFA Pairing Analyst—work together to build these pairings. Karen Ferrell, our AFA Pairing Analyst and the Scheduling Committee Vice Chairperson-Pairing Construction, is an Anchorage-based Flight Attendant who flies between 50 to 70 TFP per month, ensuring a deep understanding of the challenges and frustrations Flight Attendants face regarding pairing quality.

Several factors impact the construction of pairings each month, some of which are outside the planners’ control. Factors such as red-eye flying, additional destinations, or changes to flight schedules contribute to variations in pairing structures. One of the most significant influences is the optimizer, a software program that builds pairings with the goal of maximizing Flight Attendant utilization. Unfortunately, this often results in multiple-leg days and minimal layover times, provided the pairings remain contractually legal.

Role of the Optimizer

The optimizer plays a key role in how pairings are constructed. Its primary function is to maximize efficiency, often with little regard for factors such as layover time, pairing value, or quality of life for Flight Attendants. For instance, if the optimizer can create a legal pairing that includes multiple long workdays with short layovers, it will do so to maximize crew utilization. While planners can implement certain “locks” and “penalties” to influence the optimizer’s output, these adjustments often come with increased costs. Moreover, the undesirable pairings still need to be assigned to someone.

Evolution of Flying at Alaska Airlines

Many Flight Attendants express concerns about losing the type of flying they were accustomed to holding. However, the flying at Alaska Airlines has changed significantly over the years and continues to evolve. Changes to flight schedules, new destinations, and route planning decisions can drastically alter pairing structures. Small shifts, such as a flight’s departure time being adjusted by a few minutes, can lead to new connections and different pairing configurations.

The optimizer frequently utilizes these changes to build multi-day, multi-leg pairings, maximizing duty days for Flight Attendants without considering the quality or desirability of the pairings. Additionally, while total hotel costs are included in cost analysis, the optimizer doesn’t focus on creating high-value pairings or accommodating Flight Attendants who prefer “high time, more efficient” pairings. The focus remains on maximizing crew usage, even if it leads to more undesirable pairings.

Balancing Costs and Desirability

To address the issue of undesirable pairings, planners have started placing penalties on four-day pairings to minimize their occurrence. This shift represents a small victory in improving pairing quality. While cost savings are important, the company has recognized that pairing configurations designed to maximize utilization can result in greater long-term costs when undesirable pairings remain open, requiring additional resources to cover them.

In July 2024 alone, there were 47,120 individual flights, resulting in approximately 8,900 pairings across the system. With over 6,900 Flight Attendants spread across six bases, each with unique preferences for “desirable pairings,” it’s impossible to eliminate all undesirable pairings or cater to every individual’s preference. Desirability varies significantly, with some Flight Attendants preferring turns, while others prioritize long layovers, single-leg days, or commutability.

Role of the AFA Pairing Analyst

The AFA Pairing Analyst works closely with the Master Executive Council (MEC) to guide the pairing-building process. Each month, the analyst collects input from Local Executive Council Presidents (LECPs) and Scheduling Chairs on what constitutes “desirable pairings” for their bases. This input, often based on seasonal flying, helps to ensure that the greatest number of Flight Attendants benefit from the pairings. While this information is shared with company crew planners, only the top three requests from each base are typically considered.

When building solutions, the AFA Pairing Analyst analyzes whether the optimizer has naturally built any of these requested pairings. If not, the analyst may manually adjust the solutions, keeping cost constraints in mind. However, if the analyst’s solution is significantly more expensive than the company’s, it is unlikely to be selected.

Metrics Used in Pairing Construction

Both the crew planners and the AFA Pairing Analyst input various metrics into the optimizer to build pairing solutions. These metrics include:

• Hotel costs and per diem
• Aircraft swaps
• Minimum and maximum layover times
• Maximum duty day
• Sit Pay
• Soft time (e.g., minimum pay rules like Multi-day Sequence Minimum, Duty Period Minimum, etc.)
• Penalties for trip length
• Red-eye flights with End of Duty (no additional flying after all-nighter flights until after legal rest.)
• Hard and soft locks for specific pairing configurations
• Deadheads and other contractual or Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) requirements

These metrics are essential in shaping the final pairing solutions, with each party adjusting parameters to influence the results.

How Is a Pairing Solution Chosen?

Each month, the AFA Pairing Analyst and Crew Planners submit their pairing solutions for consideration. The Crew Planning department creates a cost comparison document that outlines the financial implications of each solution. While the AFA Pairing Analyst has input in the selection process, management has final authority over which solution is chosen.

For transparency, the cost comparison document is also shared with MEC officers, although it is confidential and requires the AFA Pairing Analyst to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to view it.

Post-Solution Review and Reporting

Once management confirms the selected solution, the AFA Pairing Analyst reviews the pairings for each domicile and writes a monthly pairing report. This detailed review typically takes two to three hours and includes a thorough examination of the final pairing configurations. After completing the report, the analyst forwards it to Crew Planning, which adds statistical information such as average TFP per duty period, average sit time, and other key metrics.

The finalized “Pairing Report and Statistics” is then distributed to Flight Attendants via Outlook, ensuring transparency and communication regarding the monthly pairing process.