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.

Q:     Some VX ITLs (steps 1-5) will be receiving pay cuts with this TA. Can you please explain this?

A:     When evaluating pay step increases it is very important to compare apples-to-apples. Every step, including current ITL’s and those affected by the Red Circle LOA will receive a pay increase (and retroactive 1/1/2018). When a Flight Attendant works in the A position, they receive $2.26 / block-hour ($2.00 / TFP) A pay “override” in addition to their regular (base) step rate of pay. When a Flight Attendant does not work in the A position, s/he does not receive the A pay override. This is a similar application as at L-VX: a ITL has her/his ITL rate reduced by 13% when not working in the ITL position, which equals the appropriate ITM rate.

Management has made it clear that they wish to eliminate the ITL program as quickly as possible. In order to align VX and AS as much as possible until Full Integration, and to work within IT constraints, the A Position bid (formally ITL program) will be open to all Flight Attendants on a monthly basis. In addition, all open time will be available on the 12th of the month to all Flight Attendants within the base to allow schedule modifications.

Example 1: A Year 3 ITL is currently making $31.35 / block-hr for ITL under the VX pay scale. At DOR (+2 bid periods, s/he will make $33.56 / block-hr if s/he works in the A position ($31.30 / block-hr base rate + $2.26 A pay = $33.56 / block-hr).

Example 2: A Year 3 ITM is currently making $27.26 / block hr under the VX pay scale. At DOR, s/he will make $31.30 / block-hr when s/he does not work A position.

In summary, the JNC believes that no ITL is taking a pay cut when comparing the pay rate for working the appropriate position (ITL vs A and ITM vs “not A”).

Q:     If Alaska management doesn’t meet the Mar 2, 2019, goal and must apply L-AS rules on L-VX, who won’t have the coverage to comply what happens? Cancelled flights? Altered schedules? Operational assignments? Shouldn’t these kinds of penalties be more one sided and less disruptive?

A:     Flight Attendants have voiced concerns that management will either willfully delay Full Integration or because the IT systems will not be capable of integrating at the time. However, if the TA is ratified and if management does not meet the target goal of March 2019 to combine the Flight Attendant Groups, then management must build the pairings on the L-VX partition under the same duty-time limitations and rest provisions as the L-AS Flight Attendants.  While this is a “penalty” for the Company in terms of productivity, it is a great protection for the L-VX Flight Attendants.

Management will have ample warning and time to prepare for this deadline, and they will take measures to avoid disruption in the network.  However, it will be inefficient for the Company and an inconvenience that may involve moving around flying.  Again, this provision was put into place as an incentive for management to meet the deadline and as a long-term protection for the L-VX Flight Attendants.

Q:     Why can’t the GST transfer be grandfathered in? Seems like forcing AS rules on VX retroactively is unfair. I don’t think GSTs would have transferred in knowing their pay would be frozen for years. Can you please explain?

A:     Management initially took the position that all rates should be re-set to Flight Attendant Occupational Seniority. However, the VX Red Circle Pay Rates Letter of Agreement provides for L-VX Flight Attendants  whose Company Seniority is greater than their Occupational Seniority to remain at their current pay step. Other Alaska Airlines employees who transfer into Inflight as a FA do not receive pay rates based their Company Seniority. Additionally, Horizon Air (QX) FAs “transfers” do not receive credit for time served as a QX FA to establish their pay step.  

AFA proposed full Air Group Seniority for pay purposes, but management would not agree due to cost. The red-circled rates was the best we could achieve given the totality of circumstances.

Q:     How many pmAS FAs are there and how many pmVX FAs are there for voting purposes?

A:     As of noon PT 2/21/2017, there are 895 L-VX FAs and 4164 L-AS FAs eligible to vote.  Under AFA’s Constitution and Bylaws, L-AS Flight Attendants must be in good standing (i.e. dues current) to be eligible to vote, and L-VX Flight Attendants must have a completed AFA membership application on file with AFA Membership Services in order to be eligible to vote.

Click here for additional voting info >

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).