Q:     If this TA passes, will the current VX Commuter Policy remain in place (covering non-AAG flights) for pmVX FA and will pmAS have a different Commuter Policy?

A:     Yes. pmVX FAs and pmAS FAs will be on separate commuting policies until Full Implementation (estimated March 2019). After that, pmVX FAs will fully transition to the AS Commuter Policy.

Q:     Can a L-VX FA be forced out of a L-VX base by L-AS FAs?  

A:     No. Neither can L-VX FAs be forced out of a L-VX base by L-AS FAs, nor can L-AS FAs be forced out of a L-AS base by L-VX FAs as a direct consequence of the merger.

A Flight Attendant may not be forced out of her/his base by another Flight Attendant except in very specific circumstances such as a domicile closure. Even then, a “master re-bid” (i.e. “base-re-bid” or “bump and flush” bid) is done in Occupational Seniority order according to contractual rules. There will be no such master re-bid as a direct consequence of the merger. The L-VX and L-AS Flight Attendants must stay within their respective partition until after Full Implementation, at which point they may voluntarily swap or transfer domiciles pursuant to contractual requirements. Vacancies will be awarded in Occupational Seniority order from the Integrated Seniority List (ISL).

[See also Healthcare Insurance: Coverage [JCBA] and Healthcare Insurance: Coverage 2 [JCBA]]

Q:     If this TA is voted in, would our “me too” clause with the pilots be null and void because we froze our rates? Meaning we somehow are not attached to the “me too” clause because we froze rates and the pilots rates are not frozen?

A:     No. The “me-too” with the pilots’ CBA is for the actual provisions of the medical insurance (e.g. deductible amounts, out-of-pocket maximums, prescription drug co-pays, service allowances, etc.). The contractual language in §23.A [Insurance Benefits: FA Insurance Plans] clearly indicates that the Flight Attendant insurance plan must be comparable to the pilots’ plan for everything except the premiums (i.e. the rates). If the Merger TA is ratified, the “me too” clause would continue in full force and effect for everything except the rates.

Q:     Are we the last group that needs to be settled before AS and VX are one?

A:     It depends on what you mean by “settled.” The dispatchers, who are represented by the Transport Workers Union (TWU), and the mechanics, who are represented by the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA), still do not have ratified agreements. However, most labor groups have yet to achieve full operational integration. You can view management’s Labor and Integration subsite (SSL required) for more info.

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.