Q:     What does the FMLA look-back entail? Could VX be placed on PIPs* (e.g. performance improvement plans, which is similar to written warnings at Alaska), points, termination? Could we be forced to see a Company appointed doctor? Why even have a look back?

A:     From L-VX FA Transition Agreement 2018 TA, §15.C:

C.     FMLA: At DOR, the standard for FMLA qualification used for the L-AS Flight Attendants will be applied retroactively to all L-VX Flight Attendant. The Company shall complete a twelve (12) 150 month “lookback” effective DOR to determine if L-VX Flight Attendants qualify for FMLA.

The FMLA “lookback” language is to clarify that as of DOR any L-VX Flight Attendant who did not qualify for FMLA (due to the duty hour requirement) would be reviewed under the Alaska FMLA policy standard of 504 duty hours.  During negotiations the JNC was made aware that VX (prior to January 1, 2018) was using a duty hour standard that was more restrictive.  The lookback only applies to those Flight Attendants who applied for FMLA and were subsequently denied (due to duty hour requirement).  Since the FMLA eligibility requirements are housed in federal law and applied via Company policy (and not contractual) the JNC sought to require a look back so that no L-VX Flight Attendant would be required to spend an additional year qualifying for FMLA leave.  

If a Flight Attendant qualifies for, and uses, FMLA, there can be no discipline attached to the FMLA use (i.e. no PIPs, points or termination for appropriate use). Please note that after transition to Section 32 [Attendance Policy],  attendance points apply for short calls (even if covered by FMLA).  

Q:     There seems to be concern that the pay raise offered in the TA is not enough given the contributions made by the FA group during this long streak of Alaska Airlines profitability.  There is also concern that the extension will leave too much money on the table for a period of time well beyond 2021. With the introduction of retro pay in this TA, and if it were to be ratified, what is the likelihood that retro pay will be a precedent that is set for future negotiations to hold management’s feet to the fire, so to speak?

A:     The TA rates true Alaska back up with the Southwest rates.  In 2014, the top of scale CBA rates put us within 9.3% of the top of scale Southwest rates.  The 2018 JCBA TA rates at top of scale bring us back to within 9.2% of the Southwest rates at top of scale. Alaska also ends up at #3 in the industry in December 2020 at top of scale and several other step rates of pay.

AFA will always strive to achieve retro pay, but Alaska Airlines management is extremely resistant to retro pay. The JNC does not believe the retro pay in the Merger Agreement makes management more inclined to offer retro pay in the future.

Q:     I didn’t see any mention that our VX files would be wiped up to the past 18 months. Is that in this TA? If so can you point it out please?

A:     The L-VX Flight Attendants are currently covered under the AFA VX Grievance Procedures and System Board of Adjustment Letter of Agreement (LOA), which was signed on June 2, 2017.  The language from the LOA is as follows:

Corrective Action Eighteen (18) Month Removal

All letters of discipline (warning or suspension) will be expunged after eighteen (18) months after the date of issuance, or, if a lesser period is provided in the letter, the letter will be expunged at the expiration of such lesser period. At the request of the Flight Attendant, the letter will also be removed from the Flight Attendant’s personnel  file.

L-VX Flight Attendants are already under the “18 month” rule, unless the discipline they have received has an earlier expiration, then it expires on the earlier date.  Under former VX discipline policy, PIP’s had varying time periods. For example if you received a PIP2 for a six (6) month duration, it would be removed at the expiration of six months.  The LOA  will continue in full force and effect until Full Integration when Section 19 of the JCBA is implemented for L-VX Flight Attendants

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.