Q:     As I’m reading this response [in the JNC blog post Occupational Seniority “Synch Up”],  I see the word “anticipating”. Is it written somewhere that this is how it is going to happen? Isn’t this whole TA the reason we are doing this?  Was competitive bidding seniority and occupational seniority set up this way because the JA merger never addressed the date of hire issue first day of class versus first day of flying?

The JNC is “anticipating” that the SMIC will be giving credit to pmAS FAs’ competitive bidding dates for time spent in initial training.  The job of the SMIC is to merge the lists and certify the ISL in a fair and equitable manner consistent with the AFA Constitution and Bylaws.

A:     [Note: Although the JNC is responding to this question in the context of the Merger Agreement TA, the SMIC is the final authority on seniority integration.] The Seniority Merger Integration Committee (SMIC) decides the method of determining if and how a L-AS Flight Attendant would receive competitive bidding seniority credit for time spent in initial training. This is all outlined in Section X [Merger Policy] of the AFA Constitution & Bylaws. The SMIC’s work on the Integrated Seniority List (ISL) is running in parallel to the work on the JCBA by the JNC.

Until the SMIC has certified the ISL, which will occur prior to the ratified JCBA, the exact details regarding competitive bidding is technically not final. That is why the JNC uses the word “anticipating.”

Yes, seniority integration and JCBA negotiations were initiated as a result of the merger. The Merger TA and the ISL are two products of those efforts.

A new seniority integration effort occurs in every merger, so the historical application of seniority integration in the Alaska Airlines-Jet America merger has no bearing on the current merger. The JNC wanted to ensure that there were no disparities between Occupational Seniority and adjusted competitive bidding seniority resulting from this merger, which is why we negotiated the “synch-up” provision.

Q1:     “[T]he Company will make every best effort to construct the pairing in compliance with Section 10 of the JCBA. ” And how exactly will the Company define “every best effort?”

Q2:     Ok… define “every best effort,” and how is there accountability/proof in “every best effort”? What will that look like? Could there be a loophole?

A:     The verbiage “every best effort” is used twice in the Merger Agreement:

1. “The Company agrees to every best effort to meet the implementation time frames specified within each Agreement above,” [Merger Agreement]; and
2. “In the event that Full Implementation is delayed past March 2, 2019, then all pairings will be constructed under the provisions outlined in the JCBA in Section 10 [Scheduling]. Additionally, for any pairings created after the initial bid award the Company will make every best effort to construct the pairing in compliance with Section 10 of the JCBA” [L-VX FA Transition Agreement: Delay of JCTE].  

Legal agreements often refer to obligations being performed to a certain standard, which can be expressed multiple ways. “Reasonable efforts” and “best efforts” are often used.  “Best efforts” or “every best effort” is one of the highest standards. Such language indicates that “everything that can be done should be done” and provides a basis for pursuing a grievance in the event that management misses the contractual timelines  outlined  in the Merger Agreement.

Q:     Isn’t Alaska Airlines Company policy for FAs and pilots that we can retire with flight benefits at 45 years old as long as we have at least 10 years of service?  When L-VX FAs are moved to the Alaska 401(k) plan, why won’t our 401(k) vest at 100% once we have 10 years of service and are at least 45 years old?

A:     AS Company policy for retiree flight benefits is at 45 years old and 10 years of vesting service. The Company match portion of your L-VX 401(k) is automatically 100% vested when it is transferred over to the AS 401(k). The Company match portion of the AS 401(k) vests separately and becomes 100% vested at 5 years of vesting service pursuant to §29.C [Profit Sharing and Retirement: Vesting Schedule…] Employees are always 100% vested in their own contributions. Retiree pass benefit eligibility and the 401(k) vesting schedule are completely separate timelines, one being Company policy (pass benefits) and the other contractual (vesting schedule).

Q:    It’s my understanding that the only real reason that management would maybe come back with a “TA2” before Section 6 openers (besides pressure from the Board of Directors) is that AFA has not yet given them our Integrated Seniority List (ISL), and management needs that to operate. Will AFA give management our ISL if this TA gets voted down?

A:     Management has unequivocally stated to the JNC that if the TA is voted down, they will wait for Section 6 negotiations to begin in October and not renegotiate the Merger TA.

Under AFA’s Constitution and Bylaws, AFA  will not turn over the ISL until there is a ratified JCBA unless the MEC votes to release it. The MEC is 100% opposed to releasing the ISL without a ratified JCBA. The Company has no legal grounds to compel AFA to relinquish the ISL involuntarily.  Without the ISL, the Flight Attendant groups cannot be combined.  

However, management does not need the ISL to operate or merge the Company; management needs the ISL in order to achieve a unified inflight operation. Management may merge the operation “around” the Flight Attendant group. This has been done in other airline mergers. (See JNC blog post “ISL, JCBA and the Merger” for more info.)

Q:     Will my insurance benefits change after the vote?

A:     No. All Flight Attendants (pmAS and pmVX) are already on the same insurance programs.

See also JNC blog: “Healthcare Insurance” >

Q:     If the TA is approved, our seniorities will be based on the last three digits of our Peoplesoft number if we started on the same day.  I am VX.  So, if I’m #3 in my class right now, I could get dropped down to #30 based on the last three digits of my Peoplesoft number, correct? And why are we using Peoplesoft numbers as a tiebreaker?  Can we use birthdays like many other airlines?  

A:     The provision you are referencing is only for new-hires on a go-forward basis following ratification. No Flight Attendant already on the payroll will experience a change in relative seniority as a result of this merger (i.e. no reshuffling of seniority numbers within one’s class).  AFA is moving away from using birth dates for determining seniority on a go-forward basis (i.e. for new hire classes after ratification) out of an abundance of caution. Recent legislation in certain localities may be problematic for continuing the practice of having the oldest trainee in a class to be the most senior and the youngest to be the most junior.

Q1:     Why are AFA officers getting big raises when the rest of us are getting only 4.5%?  LECPs 10 TFP/month and MECP 11.8TFP/month, etc., which is far more than my 4.5% as a Flight Attendant?  Is this increase a way to pay our AFA officers off to put this out for a vote?

Q2:     I understand work done by our LEC Officers is for all AFA members, but our Officers just received a healthy pay increase in this last contract as did the lower part of the seniority list.  Why would our Officers who work for us, the members, again receive (ask for/be offered?)–and more importantly accept–a larger increase in TFP pay than the senior FAs on both proposed TAs (TA2 in 2014 & current TA) when this Merger TA is only able to make a few improvements (e.g. “TA2 regrets”)?

A:     The JNC strongly advocated for more pay for senior Flight Attendants–particularly by increasing the Longevity Premium. That was one of the final items pulled from the table to reach a TA.  Management refused and refused to address increases for more senior Flight Attendants. Management was set on putting equal percentage increases in the scale.  The JNC pushed several proposals across the table that targeted senior Flight Attendants more favorably, but management pushed back on nearly all of them. The only one that made it into the final TA was the Productivity Premium Program (PPP), which arguably makes it easier for more senior FAs to achieve because of their relatively larger vacation accrual.

Keep in mind that a Reserve receives a 90 TFP guarantee and has 12 guaranteed days off. All of these officers and reps consistently have fewer days off than that in a month and are constantly on call. The JNC believes it is reasonable to bring the LECP FPL up closer to the reserve guarantee and to more closely mirror the line average. Finally, neither the MECP FPL nor the MEC EAP FPL  has increased since the mid-2000s, yet the number of members have more than doubled since then due to growth–and now the merger.

The FPL increases are in no way a quid pro quo for putting the TA out for a vote. Increasing the Company Business FPL for these positions shifts the financial burden of paying for these positions from the union funds (i.e. from members’ dues dollars) to the Company; this frees up members’ dues money for other member-directed activities. The increases are included in the TA in the interest of full transparency. If any member has additional questions or concerns, we encourage to you to reach out to your respective LEC president.

Q:     Will the $75 monthly parking stipend be paid in a manner that makes it subject to federal income tax?

A:     Yes, the parking stipend will be subject to federal income tax, which is the current application for a similar program at  L-VX. However, ground commuters could help offset the tax by making before-tax contributions to the commute trip reduction program.

Q:     I read this on social media. Is it in fact true the Company is not allowed to limit a medical leave to one year because of a lawsuit as this states so we will get the medical leave extension even if we vote this down?  Is it true that the current 1-year medical leave would be changed to four years regardless of whether this TA passes or not. There was a huge lawsuit in California and I believe a couple other states against the airlines who had one year medical leave policies they lost. Is it true that the company legally cannot make a medical leave one year?

A:     No. There is no law that AFA is aware of that eliminates a medical leave in duration of one year.  However, the case that we believe you reference had to do with ADA compliance and the fact that American Airlines would not allow any employees on medical leave to return to work until they were free from any restrictions. The court ruled this practice violates the ADA.  Reasonable accommodations are allowed under ADA, so eliminating the possibility of some reasonable accommodation to allow an employee to return is a violation of ADA. It has nothing to do with the duration of the leave.

Q:     Is L-VX now under AFA? Are we one union? If so, how is it possible that L-VX is not brought up to current L-AS pay standards immediately? Are we not all Flight Attendants?  We all do the same job, just on different planes. If we are now viewed as one company by the FAA, L-VX FAs should be treated as so. If the pay issue was managed and we were all on the same level,  the conversation would be very different.  This has become “us” vs. “them.” Why is Afa not putting their foot down and making sure L-VX is at the L-AS pay scale immediately?  How can the union represent both if we are not even? Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest?

A:     There is a legal answer to the question and a non-legal answer to the question.

Legal answer: There is nothing compelling management to bring the L-VX Flight Attendants up to the L-AS pay and work  rule standards.  AFA advocated for that as soon as AFA represented the L-VX Flight Attendants in April 2017.  Management did not agree to do so, but AFA did secure an interim pay raise and other improvements for L-VX–just not up to the L-AS rates or work rules.

Non-legal answer: In a public employee meeting, Alaska CEO Brad Tilden, answered a similar question by admitting that management did not bring the L-VX Flight Attendants up to the full Alaska rates in order to maintain pressure on AFA in merger negotiations. That is the real reason.  

AFA represents both the L-VX and L-AS Flight Attendants. AFA fought for the L-VX Flight Attendants to enjoy the L-AS pay and work rules from the very moment we represented the group in April 2017. Although management agreed to interim pay rates back then, it held out agreeing to closing the remaining gap in wages as leverage to reach an agreement on the merger. AFA can and has put its proverbial foot down, but mutual agreement with management is required in order to achieve improvements to wages and work rules.