Q:     I’m wondering why AFA was able to negotiate the current VX commuter policy for VX, however not for AS in the JCBA.

A:     The JNC did push for implementation of the current VX commuter policy for all Flight Attendants.  We were able to attain ground commuting provisions for all Flight Attendants.  However, management was unwilling to allowing the Commuter Policy provisions to cover non-AAG flights. Management refuses to assume “liability” for flights that they did not control.

Q:     I was wondering why our commuter policy doesn’t apply to other airlines? I live at Orlando Fl, I was told our LAX-MCO route will be taken away. How can I be protected if I can’t fly on my own metal? Also what’s the chance of this policy be updated.

A:     The AFA Negotiating Committee tried to achieve extending the Commuter Policy protections to non-AAG flights in the last round of Section 6 negotiations and the JNC attempted to do so again in these Merger negotiations.  However, management’s very firm position is that they have no control over other airlines’ flights and will not assume that liability. Consequently, you are not protected for off-line commuting, and management does not seem willing to revisit its position on the issue any time in the near future.

Q:     If you are an air commuter from a city that is not serviced by an Alaska, Horizon, or Virgin America flight, you may not use the commuter policy. Is this correct?  Without that protection may I ask what recourse a commuter has in the event of bad weather or some other event making commuting difficult?

A:     That is correct: You cannot use the Commuter Policy in that situation. However, you may register out of an AAG city closest to your residence or the closest AAG city to your residence that has the most service. Commuters do not have recourse in the provided example. Unfortunately, management has stated on more than one occasion that commuting is a choice, and commuters must make their life choices accordingly.

Q:     Why only a 0.5% increase to our 401k match when the pilots get 13% match?

A:     In a prior negotiations, the pilots traded their very generous defined benefit pension plan for a high-percentage match 401(k) plan.  Flight Attendants have not had a defined benefit plan for years.

Q.  It seems we could have asked for a higher 401k match.  The pilots have 13% and WN (Southwest) gets 9.3%.  What happened?

A:     Negotiating 401(k) increases are some of the most expensive improvements in contract negotiations.  The 401(k) touches every dollar and translates into significant cost increases. It has nothing to do with whether Flight Attendants deserve it; or whether Flight Attendants need it in order to secure a retirement. Be assured that the JNC pushed for a larger increase. However, it is a cost analysis that management calculates at the bargaining table, and management was unwilling to do more.

Q:     It has been suggested that our company has been as profitable as it has ever been.  Why did the JNC not bargain for a higher raise and higher 401k match when our company wants to have an integrated seniority list?  We may not have this kind of leverage again for quite some it not ever.

A:     The JNC did bargain hard for higher wage increases and also a higher 401(k) match.  The TA package does not represent management’s “first offer” to the JNC.  Many, many proposals were rejected and pushed back against. Even without a ISL, management can still merge the rest of the operation around the Flight Attendant groups despite separate inflight operations.  

Q:     I would like a 401(k) comparison chart.

A:     Below is the current 401(k) provisions in the industry:

Q:     Why couldn’t VX just come in under our contract? Since we acquired them, did that mean the contract had to be opened for negotiations, therefore giving AFA a chance to improve our contract? Were the negotiations basically to make improvements on our existing contract while we had the this opportunity, or was it more of a full blown contract negotiations, and how long were the company and AFA in negotiations?

A:     There really is no specific roadmap for merger negotiations. Management wanted to negotiate only transition items that would bring the L-VX FAs over to the L-AS CBA.  Management maintained that the AS CBA was closed and because AFA Alaska does not the same language as the pilots, there would be no improvements negotiated for the L-AS FAs. The JNC pushed back and strongly advocated for pay raises and other improvements for the L-AS FAs, which also accrue to L-VX FAs.

The parties entered merger negotiations in June 2017 and reached a TA in February 2018.

Q:     Why were certain provisions negotiated and not others?

A:     The final TA does not indicate the scope of all provisions that the JNC proposed. We brought forward several items that management rejected. For example, we especially pushed on retiree medical insurance, improving the 480 provisions and securing pay improvements targeted towards senior FAs (in addition to the general pay raises for all FAs).  However, management was adamantly opposed to agreeing to these proposals.

Q:     Who decided on what provisions to seek improvements on and which ones to not even try to address right now?

A:     The JNC went to the bargaining table with a limited number of issues based on membership feedback from the merger negotiations survey and in consultation with the MEC. It was a different approach than regular Section 6 negotiations in which the entire CBA is potentially open.

Q:     I read the Medical Insurance Premiums post on the JNC Blog, but could you elaborate a bit more? I understand that contractually AS must offer us a comparable plan/coverage  to the pilots although my concern is not the coverage itself as much as the other items such as deductibles and the amount the Company has contributed to the HSA. Is there any protection or cap on the deductibles they can offer with a plan?  Could the Company retract the money they have contributed to the HSA in the past?

A:     The deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, co-insurance, life-time caps, even prescription costs are all detailed in the pilots’ CBA.  The Company must offer the same plans and provisions to the Flight Attendant group.  The HSA company contributions (currently $1,000 employee only and $2,000 for family) are not contractual for ALPA.  In years when management was attempting to increase participation in the high-deductible PPO plan, the contributions were increased.  

Important note:  The Alaska PPO plans are self-insured, so changing plan administrators can not bring significant change.  

The Premera plans (Regular PPO and Consumer Choice PPO) are self-insured by Alaska Airlines and Premera is the administrative services provider.  Negotiated plan terms cannot be unilaterally altered by the Company so the health plan provider doesn’t matter as long as the health plan provider can accommodate the services needed to comply with the contract.   The Company has changed service providers before (e.g. from Aetna to Premera) and the labor group leaders were invited to participate in the process before a decision was made.

Q:     Can we see the plan that the pilots have to research if our current providers, services, etc/, are in the plan?

A:     AFA has verified with the ALPA Alaska Benefits representative that the pilots have the exact same network coverage as the FAs. Here is the relevant contractual language for your reference:

ALPA CBA Section 27 Health Insurance >

ALPA Alaska’s contract is amendable April 2020.

Q1:     Why is the agreement so long? Why not make it a year to get the processes in place and then revisit it later? With the cost of living going up in almost every base city, why chain us to an agreement until 2021?

Q2:     What are the benefits to AFA/flight attendants in extending our contract?  What is the benefit to the company?  Who asked for the extension? AFA? Company? Or mutual?

A:     The JNC did not go into merger negotiations with the intent of negotiating a mid-term JCBA. We went in focused on securing sensible and fair transition provisions for the L-VX FAs and tangible improvements for the L-AS FAs. However, management was adamant that there would be no improvements for the L-AS FAs without a mid-term JCBA.

A mid-term JCBA was not necessarily a negative development in itself. If the term of our current CBA had remained unchanged (amendable 2019, early re-opener 2018), AFA would be back in negotiations in October 2018 (of this year!), and the L-VX FAs would not yet even be on the L-AS work rules. From a bargaining leverage standpoint, that is a difficult position to be in for AFA. Consequently, the JNC pushed for an amendable date of 2020 (early re-opener 2019), but management was unwilling to agree. In fact, management initially proposed an amendable date of 2022 (early opener 2021), and the parties ultimately agreed to an amendable date of 2021 (early re-opener 2020).

Due to other recent Flight Attendant contracts, L-AS pay rates had fallen behind, so the JNC negotiated the 4.5% increase (coupled with the 1.5% in place for December) to bring back up the pay rate rankings compared to industry. In fact, we have closed the gap between Alaska and #1 Southwest to a better position on a percentage basis for top of scale rates than we were in 2014 (9.2% to WN now vs. 9.3% to WN in 2014).

Section 6 negotiations can take years, which can translate into longer periods of time without pay raises. The JNC saw an opportunity to secure pay and other improvements now, which sets us up for an improved bargaining position once we have all been flying together as a unified group. The early re-opener negotiations would begin in October 2020.

Q:     In the TA the 1/12 requirement of paid time is eliminated.  What are the implications of that for an FA that does not achieve the hard time 480 in a year?  What are the implications of not having paid time in a month for those who do fly above the 480 hard time?

A:     The current CBA requires that a FA’s vacation accrual is reduced by 1/12th for every month in which s/he does not have paid time in that month.  This is addition to the 480 requirement. The JCBA would completely eliminate the 1/12th reduction for each month in which a FA has no paid activity.

If a FA achieves more than 240 but less than 480 TFP in a year and s/he also has 2 months in that year with no paid activity, then s/he will receive half vacation credit unpaid. Under the current CBA s/he would receive a 1/6th reduction to her/his half vacation credit (unpaid).

Under the JCBA, a FA would receive full paid vacation credit if  a FA achieves the “hard 480” but also has unpaid time in several months.

Q:     According to the TA we no longer have to have paid time in a month to accrue 1/12 vacation credit for the next year. As a full time flyer I have never had a single month without paid time so I have no idea what happens with regards to medical insurance payments and union dues, etc. Would we just receive a bill for those months and how many months in a row could this go on? You technically aren’t taking a leave since you bid but but not having any earnings to deduct these items is something I am not familiar with.

A:     Medical insurance payments would be double deducted in the following month. If you do not have enough paid time to cover the double deduction, then COBRA Management Services will send you a bill for COBRA. At that point you would have to do coordinate with the Employee Benefits Department to manage coverage and payments. (Your AFA LEC officers are available to help navigate that quagmire.) Union does, however, do not auto-deduct. You will be sent a bill by AFA after that first month if you do not arrange payment directly.

Q:     Why are the furlough protections only for one year?

A:     The furlough protections actually will remain in place for over a year and a half (April, 2018 – December 2019).  This will carry the Flight Attendant group through Full Integration.  The JNC advocated for a longer period of time for this protection, but management was unwilling to extend the protection past December 2019.

Q:     If the date of the furlough protections ends in 2019 does that mean they can furlough after that for the remainder of the extension?

A:     The term of the furlough protection is separate from the duration of the mid-term JCBA.  Today, management can furlough at any time, but must use the protective provisions in Section 18 Reduction in Force of the current CBA.  The same would be true for a JCBA, except that management would be prohibited from furloughing Flight Attendants during the period of the furlough protection (through December, 2019).

Q:     I was asked by about 7 different people in the current initial class, “Should I be looking at going to Delta?” by trainees who were offered positions at both. The furlough protection clause is making them think that furlough is being talked about.  Many on their training flights were told “I don’t why we are hiring you, we are so over staffed,” so that made them go into panic mode!

A:     The Supplemental Reduction in Force Protection LOA for the JCBA was negotiated as a temporary measure to cover the period of Full Integration, and is a not uncommon provision in a merger situation. The design of the furlough protection is to allay fears that, due to the combining of the Flight Attendant workforce, the Company may find itself significantly over-staffed and furlough Flight Attendants while re-allocating network flying.  It was in no way intended to signal management’s desire or intent to furlough.

Often in an airline merger situations there exists a staffing imbalance (i.e. overstaffing on one side and understaffing on the other) when the partition separating two work groups is still in force.  It is important to remember that once all Flight Attendants are flying on the JCBA work rules, it will require more total Flight Attendants than today to complete the current flight schedule. The 10.5 hour duty day and the increased rest provisions among other things will translate into significantly changed pairings on the L-VX side, which will require a larger workforce in total.

AFA  is proud of the work- life balance we have achieved at Alaska Airlines over more than 70 years of bargaining history.  We believe Alaska Airlines is a great place to work and would not advocate choosing a non-union carrier over the contractual protections at Alaska Airlines. That said, the choice of a career path is a personal one for each individual and there are many criteria to consider.

Q:     Scenario:  A FA is on a RON and is scheduled to depart on a holiday.  The flight cancels before the FA reports, and is stranded for the entire calendar day on which the holiday falls.  Does the stranded FA get the holiday pay for the flight that cancels?

A:     No. A FA must report in order to initiate holiday premium.

Can the Company Get the ISL without a JCBA?

Q:     If the TA is voted down and if we enter full Section 6 negotiations with the groups remaining separate, can the Company sue AFA to be legally compelled to produce the ISL?

A:     The Company can sue AFA for any reason.  The question is: “Would the Company be successful?”  The answer is NO.  There is no “legal standing” or “legal cause of action” that would result in a lawsuit of this type being successful.   

Merging without the JCBA?

Q:     I had a question and wanted to get an answer from reliable sources as there seems to be a lot of rumors. Are we required to have a JCBA before our seniority lists can be merged and full integration?

A:     In accordance with AFA’s Constitution and Bylaws, a contract (e.g. JCBA) must be in place in order to give the company the Integrated Seniority List (ISL).  The provisions governing seniority are very specific in our contract and govern who can perform work on the Alaska Aircraft.  Additionally, the Merger Negotiations Process Agreement* requires that the pmAS and pmVX Flight Attendant groups remain separate until a JCBA is ratified and the ISL has been delivered to the company.

Q:     Can the Company complete the merger, or even just merge our workgroups without having us on a single JCBA?

A:  It depends on what is meant by “complete the merger.”  The Company cannot merge the FLIGHT ATTENDANT group absent a single JCBA.  However, the Company can merge the operation around the Flight Attendants (i.e. merge the rest of the Company except the Flight Attendant groups).  

Examples: US Airways and America West rejected two TAs over a period of many years and the FA groups of the two carriers were kept separate the entire time. The United (pmUAL) and pre-merger Continental (pmCAL) FA groups are still flying separate, but the pmUAL and pmCAL pilot groups are now combined as are the ramp groups. 

All labor groups in the Alaska Airlines-Virgin America merger are on different integration timelines. Some groups are already working together. Management has been combined. Management’s target for combining the Flight Attendant groups is March 2019, if the JCBA is ratified.

Can pmAS FAs work on Airbus a/c and pmVX FAs work on Boeing a/c prior to Full Integration?

Q:     If the TA fails, will pmAS FAs still start flying on the Airbus after they are trained? If the TA fails, will pmVX FAs start flying on the Boeing after they are trained?

A:     No. Until the groups reach the point of Full Integration (targeted for March 2019 if TA is ratified), Negotiations Protocol Agreement* would remain in place and that document stipulates that pmAS FAs work on Boeing aircraft and pmVX FAs work on Airbus aircraft.

* ALASKA AIRLINES-VIRGIN AMERICA MERGER NEGOTIATIONS PROTOCOL AGREEMENT (4/27/2017)

K. Separation of Groups – Until the implementation of an agreement and the merger of operations following the issuance of a single operating system, the Company agrees to keep the operations of Alaska and Virgin America separate.  During this period of separate operations, the Company shall provide the following protections.
1. The Company shall not utilize in its flight operations of one airline a Flight Attendant employed by the other airline, except as may be needed to comply with conditions prescribed by a governmental agency for the purpose of transition to, and eventual operation under, a single operating certificate.
2. Except for the circumstances described in paragraph K.1., above, no Flight Attendant of either Alaska or Virgin America shall fly as a working crewmember on an aircraft in the Fleet of the other airline. The “Fleet” of each airline shall be defined to include all aircraft in the service of or stored by the airline or on order or option by the airline, as April 1, 2016. In addition, Virgin America Flight Attendants shall not fly on Boeing aircraft as a working crewmember and Alaska Flight Attendants shall not fly on Airbus aircraft as a working crewmember.
3. The Company will not open a new Flight Attendant domicile in any location in which either Alaska or Virgin America has an existing Flight Attendant domicile.