January 22, 2015 15:28

Flight Attendant Health Study

Dear Seattle Flight Attendants,

On February 6^th -8^th Dr. Sara Gale and Dr. Eileen McNeely of the Harvard School of Public Health will be visiting Sea-Tac Airport. They are visiting our base to recruit for a new Flight Attendant Health Study. They will be on the concourse and have informational materials in our ready room for your convenience. You may see Sara and Eileen in the concourse throughout their stay and they invite Flight Attendants to engage in discussions regarding the health study and participation. If you would like additional information please visit their website at www.fahealth.org.

January 22, 2015 13:39

What is the definition of a Jet Bridge Trade?

A Jet Bridge Trade is a trade between Flight Attendants at the same domicile. Flight Attendants may trade or give away a sequence or a portion of a sequence at any station. The trade or giveaway may occur no earlier than three hours prior to departure from domestic and international flights, but no later than the commencement of boarding. SIPs are not considered a Jet Bridge Trade. See Section 5 Definitions and Section 12 Exchange of Sequences paragraph C.7.

If Flight Attendants are Jet Bridge trading how low can either FA waive their Domicile Rest (rest between sequences)?

Either Flight Attendant may contractually waive their rest down to nine hours release to report. In order to comply with CFR rest requirements, rest may be subsequently scheduled or operationally reduced to eight hours. See Section 8 Hours of Service paragraph M and the Addendum to Section 8 #13.

Why can FAs not waive their own rest down to eight hours between sequences?

14 CFR 91.1062 requires that Flight Attendants be scheduled with nine hours of rest in order to have no other scheduling restrictions for the following duty period.

If I Jet Bridge Trade, then add the portion of the Jet Bridge Trade to another sequence is that considered a Base Turn?

Yes, if the Jet Bridge Trade attaches flying on the last day of a sequence or portion of a sequence to flying on the first day of another sequence already on one’s line and combines them into the same duty period. There must be no less than one hour forty-five minutes (1:45) block to block between the last flight of the first sequence and the first flight of the second sequence. If a Jet Bridge Trade is made after the completion of a sequence and there is no additional scheduling obligation on one’s line, then it is not considered a Base Turn and only Jet Bridge Trading rules apply.

What is the maximum Base Turn duty period?

The Base Turn duty period cannot exceed fourteen hours per CFRs. See Section 8 Hours of Service paragraph T.

Why would a Jet Bridge Trade not be approved?

The trade or give-away will be granted unless doing so would cause an illegality (CFR) or delay in boarding. If the Jet Bridge Trade request is made less than one hour prior to departure, trades will be processed only if Crew Scheduling has the capacity to handle the request. The Jet Bridge Trade must be made with less than three hours to departure of the outbound flight.

If Flight Attendants complete a Jet Bridge Trade who will receive the hotel?

The inbound FA will keep the hotel, unless otherwise mutually agreed between the Flight Attendants completing the Jet Bridge Trade. Crew Scheduling and management will not get involved in disputes over hotel accommodations affected by Jet Bridge Trades.

When does the inbound FA’s per diem end and the outbound FA’s per diem begin pursuant to a Jet Bridge Trade in which a sequence is split?

The inbound FA’s per diem will start at the beginning of her/his sequence and end forty-five minutes prior to the departure of the outbound flight given away in the Jet Bridge Trade.

The outbound FA’s per diem will begin forty-five minutes prior to the departure of the outbound flight picked up in the Jet Bridge Trade and the per diem will end at release of the sequence.

January 21, 2015 19:11

Weekly Implementation meeting

AFA has established a weekly Implementation meeting with management to review, track and clarify issues related to implementation of the new c0ntract. The first meeting occurred yesterday—Tuesday, January 20, 2015. It was a very productive introductory meeting and AFA is pleased to report that overall everything appears to be on track with the timelines set forth in the Implementation Schedule.

TFP Calculators are not accurate

It seems all of the TFP calculators are not accurate at this time. AFA and management continue to work with the Information Technology (IT) department to resolve the discrepancies.

When will a final version of the new contract be published?

The Negotiating Committee is working very hard to get the document finalized for publication. Just developing the index is a very time consuming task all by itself. Keep in mind that not only is AFA involved in this process, but also so is management.

AFA and management have agreed to meet for three and a half days during the first week of February. We will be meeting outside of Seattle in order to minimize distractions and focus on the task. Once we are closer to finalizing the document then AFA will provide an estimate for the published contract.

In the meantime, you may access an electronic version of the TA2 document here.

Rumor patrol: “secret section” of the contract

AFA is aware of rumors that a new “secret section” of the contract is being written for the purposes of inclusion in the final document. This rumor is absolutely false. Be assured there are no new contract sections pending or being considered.

New Contract Q&A and email address

Have questions about the new contract? Contact your respective Local Executive Council (LEC) officers or you can email the Negotiating Committee at contract@afaalaska.org. We have added a section to the AFA Alaska website called “Contract Q&A” at http://afaalaska.org/contract/qa. Going forward any posts related to provisions in the new contract will be located here for easy access. Be looking for our first article about Jet Bridge Trades in the very near future!

* * *

In solidarity,

Your Contract Committee—MEC President Jeffrey Peterson, Kristy Stratton, Lisa Pinkston, Jake Jones, Christina Frees and AFA Senior Staff Negotiator Paula Mastrangelo

January 19, 2015 16:30

The Master Executive Council (MEC) will be conducting interviews for the AFA Scheduling committee chairperson at the AFA MEC office on February 10-11, 2015. The AFA MEC office is located in suite 280 of the Alaska Airlines Flight Operations and Training Center in Seattle, WA. This is a new position created under 27.P.2 of the 2014-2019 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Potential applicants will find the following information helpful in determining interest and suitability:

Scheduling Committee Chairperson

MEC Chairperson Addendum

Scheduling Committee Member

Applicants should submit a declaration of interest and a resume to MEC Secretary Treasurer Yvette Gesch at yvette.gesch@afaalaska.org, who will contact you to schedule interviews. Applications will be accepted through January 31^st.

In solidarity,

Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt

January 11, 2015 15:23

Friday’s communication misstated an important fact

Soon after sending the “Payroll Error Results in a Signing Bonus of $3000 for Steps 15 and 16” communication on Friday, the Master Executive Council (MEC) became aware that the post misstated an important fact. The communication indicated that flight attendants do not have the right to file an individual contractual grievance. That statement is incorrect.

An individual flight attendant may file a contractual grievance on her/his own behalf

Under Section 19 of the contract, an individual flight attendant may file a contractual grievance on her/his own behalf. However, the MEC is the only appropriate legal body to file a contractual grievance on behalf of all Flight Attendants. When an individual contractual grievance is filed, AFA is not legally obligated to represent the flight attendant with respect to that grievance. In other words a flight attendant can file an individual grievance but only on her/his own behalf—not on behalf of a group of flight attendants. S/he would then be responsible for taking the grievance through the contractual steps.

An individual contractual grievance must be filed within 30 business days of the infraction in accordance with Section 19.B of the contract. Additional questions regarding filing can be directed to MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl at jennifer.wisemaccoll@afaalaska.org.

It is important all flight attendants understand their contractual rights

The MEC understands there is a difference of opinion regarding the appropriate remedy to the overpayment of the signing bonus. Regardless of our differences, it is important that all Flight Attendants have a clear understanding of their contractual rights.

AFA apologizes for the error and any confusion it may have caused.

* * *

In solidarity,

Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl; and AFA Senior Staff Attorney Kimberley Chaput

January 9, 2015 18:00

Contractual grievance requested

Recently a group of flight attendants sent a formal request to the Master Executive Council (MEC) seeking to file a contractual grievance. This is concerning the Company’s unintentional overpayment of the TA2 signing bonus to approximately 200 flight attendants. The request was filed in a timely manner but there seemed to be some confusion regarding the actual process.~~, so here is a quick reminder.~~

Individual flight attendants can file disciplinary grievances. Contractual grievances, however, may only be filed by AFA. It may be done on a domicile basis for individual flight attendants or for issues affecting a specific base. However, we typically file a grievance on the MEC level because the contract covers all flight attendants even when the particular incident affects only one flight attendant. Individual flight attendants or groups of flight attendants do not have the legal or contractual right to do so. [Note: Disregard struck text as this information is in error. See Important Correction to “Payroll Error Results in a Signing Bonus of $3000 for Steps 15 and 16” for more information.]

Now the MEC would like to explain our decision whether or not to file the grievance as requested and to make sure you understand the dispute, the context in which it arose and our legal analysis.

Background

Management committed to pay every flight attendant a signing bonus upon ratification of TA2. Probationary flight attendants would receive $500 upon completion of probation; flight attendants who had completed probation and up to 17 years of “occupational service” (i.e. as an Alaska Airlines flight attendant) would receive $2,000; and flight attendants who had completed 17 or more years of occupational service would receive $3,000.

Under our old contract, the top of scale was Step 17 at the completion of 17 years of occupational service. TA2 reduced the top of scale to the completion of fifteen years of occupational service (Step 15). When payroll began processing the signing bonuses, they realized some flight attendants who were at Step 15 or 16 actually had at least seventeen years of occupational service and should therefore receive the $3,000. (This unusual situation arose because these flight attendants were not credited with the 480 TFP per year required under the old contract to advance to the next pay step. TA2 eliminated that requirement.)

In attempting to fix that problem, payroll inadvertently paid an additional $1000 signing bonus to not only the “480 hold-up” flight attendants but also to approximately 200 flight attendants, all of those at Step 15 and 16. When management discovered the error, they contacted AFA—on Christmas Eve. AFA fully expected management to initiate an overpayment correction. However, management was concerned that not only was it Christmas Eve but the 200 or so flight attendants might have already spent the money and could have believed that they were entitled to it.

In discussing the issue further, AFA and management came to the conclusion that letting these flight attendants keep the money was consistent with earlier discussions between the MEC and management in regards to the signing bonus. You see, at one point AFA sought to have the $3000 signing bonus paid to all new top of scale flight attendants (i.e. Step 15 and above), but we were unsuccessful in our request. After some consideration, AFA and management orally agreed the Company would not seek to recover the additional $1,000 from these approximately 200 flight attendants on a non-precedential basis.

Subsequent to that conversation, Vice President of Inflight Services Andy Schneider sent two different emails to the approximately 200 affected flight attendants. Andy informed them they could keep the $1000 overpayment/signing bonus. The details of those emails eventually found their way to social media and other public forums. This prompted concerns from some of the other flight attendants, who learned of it second-hand and out of context, which has led to the situation we face today.

MEC Decision

After consulting with both AFA Legal and our Collective Bargaining departments, the MEC is disinclined to file a contractual grievance over this issue. Here is why:

TA2 clearly states that only flight attendants with 17 or more years of service will receive a $3,000 signing bonus. If we filed a grievance, management would grant it. But instead of awarding every other flight attendant an additional $1,000, management would likely then attempt to take the extra $1,000 back from the 200 affected flight attendants. We could continue the case to arbitration, but we believe that the arbitrator would enforce the Contract and side with management. Arbitrators routinely enforce clear and unambiguous language, and the law allows employers to recoup money erroneously paid to employees.
Additionally, AFA’s oral agreement to allow the 200 flight attendants to keep the $1,000 is binding. We cannot legitimately file a grievance to rescind our own agreement. We would likely lose that case, along with our integrity. When management makes an agreement, we expect them to uphold it. In turn, they can and should expect the same from us.
This is a tough case for the union because it necessarily pits members against members, with the leadership in the middle. We tried to do the right thing by the 200 flight attendants. Whether that was the right decision has certainly proved to be subject to debate. However, that decision was made, and we are standing by it.

Summary

The MEC recognizes timely communication was lacking and a full explanation of the circumstances would have been desirable. The MEC has learned a valuable lesson here and we will redouble our efforts to maintain open and forthright communications. If you have any additional questions or concerns, contact your Local Executive Council (LEC) president.

In solidarity,

Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt

January 9, 2015 13:04

The Master Executive Council (MEC) will be conducting interviews for the AFA Scheduling committee chairperson at the AFA MEC office in suite 280 of the Alaska Airlines Flight Operations and Training Center in Seattle, WA, on February 10-11, 2015. This is a new position created under 27.P.2 of the 2014-2019 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Potential applicants will find the following information helpful in determining interest and suitability:

Scheduling Committee Chairperson

MEC Chairperson Addendum

Scheduling Committee Member

Applicants should submit a declaration of interest and a resume to MEC Secretary Treasurer Yvette Gesch at yvette.gesch@afaalaska.org, who will contact you to schedule interviews. Please alter your PBS bid accordingly to accommodate a meeting on February 10^th or 11^th.

In solidarity,

Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt

January 8, 2015 20:25

Crewmember fatigue is a serious issue facing pilots and Flight Attendants and has gained considerable media attention over the last several years. New federal regulations addressing pilot fatigue contained in 14 FAR 117 took effect January 4, 2014. Despite the advances being made for pilots, federal regulations addressing rest and fatigue for Flight Attendants continue to lag behind.

Our Fatigue Policy: There Isn’t One

Neither our contract nor the Flight Attendant Manual addresses the issue of Flight Attendant fatigue. No provision exists for a Flight Attendant to call in “fatigued”. Despite numerous requests from AFA to discuss a fatigue policy, management will not enter into a discussion at this time. This leaves us as Flight Attendants with very few options when we are too fatigued to continue working.

I’m Too Fatigued To Fly, What Are My Options?

If you are unable to continue flying due to fatigue, management’s position is that your only option is to call in sick online (SO). Calling in sick online will remove you from your trip and you will receive corresponding attendance points and, if you have available sick leave, be paid sick leave for any flying not yet completed on the pairing. You’ll have the ability to submit a point reduction form to mitigate any points if you haven’t already submitted one for the quarter.

Write It Up—File an ASAP

The ASAP Event Review Committee (ERC) has starting tracking fatigue-related events separately for reporting purposes. If you experience a fatigue-related event, please document it on an ASAP report. The Master Executive Council (MEC) is tracking the information from these reports in hopes that the company will see the importance of entering into a discussion and eventual development of a fatigue policy to help improve safety for our Flight Attendants, coworkers, and passengers alike.

If you have any questions about Flight Attendant fatigue, please contact one of your Local Executive Council (LEC) Officers. Contact information is available on afaalaska.org under the Local Council menu.

In Solidarity,

Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt and MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise-MacColl

January 8, 2015 09:26

AFA Alaska Government Affairs

October/November 2014

Post-election and a Lame Duck Congress

The November mid-term elections saw a major shift in the balance of power in Congress with Republicans now in control of the Senate and the House.

AFA friend and advocate AK Sen. Mark Begich lost his senate seat to Republican Dan Sullivan. Senator Begich who sponsored both our knives and cellphone bills, worked closely with our ANC committee on his re-election campaign. I would like to give special recognition to ANC GA Chair Jan Bottini Strait for her tireless commitment to this election. Jan led and inspired her ANC Flight Attendant who talked to fellow Flight Attendants, wrote postcards, made phone calls and knocked on doors. ANC committee member Thresia Raynor, released to AFL-CIO and the Alaska State Fed, is to be recognized for her work reaching out to union members and their families to get labor-friendly candidates elected in Alaska.

With a Republican platform that doesn’t bode well for unions and collective bargaining rights, it remains to be seen how this will be played out in the next two years. Incoming Republican Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell has already made it known that he would like to make changes to the NLRB.

Congress is in a lame duck session and with just a few days left before members leave on vacation it looks like little will get done—except the looming government funding bill which much be resolved before the end of the year, the worst case scenario being a government shutdown.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid will attempt to keep the senators there well in to December to finish up executive branch appointments before Republicans take over. Recently Pres. Obama nominee Lauren McFarren was confirmed to the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board). McFarren completes the 5 member NLRB, now 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

AFA Agenda:

As the 114^th Congress approaches, the AFA Legislative Policy Committee has set about prioritizing issues. AFA GA Director Stephen Schembs has already met with members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee about the upcoming FAA Reauthorization. The AFA Policy Committee has keyed in on four areas for consideration:

International Issues—codify that Dept. of State and DOT continue to negotiate “air transport services”
Flight crew fatigue/rest requirements
Human trafficking/assault reporting
Full scale emergency evacuation tests

NAI Scheme

AFA. ALPA, TWU, and the TTD (AFL-CIO) and other organizations, including representatives from 3 major airlines, met in Washington DC for a one day “Fly-In” on Nov. 19 to take the message to Congress to “Deny NAI.” SEA Committee member Krystal Cook and I were among the 35 AFA members who visited members of Congress, asking them to sign on to the Collins-Sires Dear Colleague letter addressed to DOT Sec. Anthony Fox, encouraging him to reject Norwegian Air International’s application. By the end of the week over 180 House members had signed on to the letter. AFA flight attendants made calls to all 435 members of the House, started a social media campaign on “Twitter” and talked to dozens of House and Senate members and their staff. Hopes on the senate side is that language will be included in the omnibus bill that would essentially block NAI from moving forward:

1580

1 SEC. 415. (a) None of the funds made available by

2 this Act may be used to approve a new foreign air carrier

3 permit under sections 41301 through 41305 of title 49,

4 United States Code, or exemption application under sec-

5 tion 40109 of that title of an air carrier already holding

6 an air operators certificate issued by a country that is

7 party to the U.S.–E.U.–Iceland–Norway Air Transport

8 Agreement where such approval would contravene United

9 States law or Article 17 bis of the U.S.–E.U.–Iceland–

10 Norway Air Transport Agreement.

11 (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict or

12 otherwise preclude the Secretary of Transportation from

13 granting a foreign air carrier permit or an exemption to

14 such an air carrier where such authorization is consistent

15 with the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agree-

16 ment and United States law.

More on NAI:

The Norwegian Shell Game

AFA has been working with other aviation unions to block a scheme to outsource our jobs – #DenyNAI. If the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves Norwegian Air International’s application for a Foreign Air Carrier permit, it will set a dangerous precedent. The air carrier plans to fly to the US under an Irish certificate with Pilots hired in Singapore and Flight Attendants in the United States working under a constantly renewed contract that keeps base pay below $18,000 each year.

AFA leaders, activists and members have taken part in our coordinated #DenyNAI campaign. This is a complicated issue because of the shell companies involved and multi-faceted campaign we are waging against them. But the issue is very clear – if we allow this game to go unchecked, our jobs, collective bargaining rights and safety regulations could evaporate with a flags of convenience model for aviation.

What is Social Dumping?

Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS) is the third largest “ultra” low cost European carrier and operates several companies flying under the ‘Norwegian’ brand: NAS, Norwegian Long Haul (NLH)and Norwegian Air International (NAI).

NAS, headquartered in Oslo, Norway, has a fleet of 737 aircraft which primarily fly throughout Scandinavia and the European Union. NAS has an Air Operating Certificate (AOC) issued by the Norwegian government. NAS workers are represented by the Norwegian labor union, Parat, and thus have a seniority list and other negotiated benefits, in addition to strong job protections under Norwegian law. Their employer pays taxes to the government of Norway which administers extensive social protections including health care, paid parental leave, and other including benefits that make up a strong social safety net.

The company’s long-haul flying is done by NLH and NAI utilizing 787 aircraft from Scandinavia and the EU to Asia and the United States.

NLH has a Norwegian AOC but, having obtained an exemption from the Norwegian government, registers its aircraft in Ireland. This enables the company to hire foreign workers without Norwegian work permits. NLH has route authority to fly to the US under the US/Norwegian Air Transport Agreement (ATA), an open skies agreement.

On the other hand, NAI is an Irish company with an Irish AOC and aircraft registered in Ireland. The Norwegian government has no oversight over NAI, and so the company is not bound by the US/Norwegian ATA. Further, NAI does not employ flight crews: It uses a staffing company to hire and train crewmembers. NAI has hired Asian and US crews to lower their operational cost below what they would have to pay if they were to continue to operate under the Norwegian AOC. NAI currently operates flights from Scandinavia and the EU to Asia, with sights set on providing service to the US under a provision in the broader EU/US Open Skies Agreement.

Norwegian Bait and Switch
The NAI application to fly to the US is under review by the USDOT and NAI has also applied for exemption authority. The exemption would allow NAI to initiate service to the US without receiving a foreign air carrier permit. Instead of flying under the legitimate NLH structure, the parent company would use NAI to operate Irish-certified flights to the US. If the DOT approves the NAI application, the legitimate NLH will likely be merged under the Irish AOC and cease to exist. The provisions of the US-Norwegian ATA already accommodate all of the proposed NAI route structure, which could be operated with aircraft that is registered in Norway, abiding by Norwegian law.

AFA opposed the NAI application to fly the US on the basis that the Norwegian model, creating a new Irish company for the purpose of flying to the US as part the EU/US open skies agreement, violates Article 17 bis EU/US Open Skies Treaty. AFA has been working closely with allies such as ALPA, ITF/ETF, Parat, and TTD to put pressure on the US government urging them to deny the NAI application.

NAI was created to circumvent Norwegian labor laws and therefore amounts to social dumping of corporate responsibility.

If DOT allows NAI to set up a “flags of convenience” business model it will put downward pressure on US carriers to lower labor costs on transatlantic operations in order to compete with this new “ultra” low cost carrier model.

This opens the floodgates to duplicating the model throughout aviation as competition “requires” regulatory change or exemption.

Our Efforts to Fight Back

Since Fall 2013, AFA has also continued to work with the Senate and members of the House of Representatives to send letters to Secretary Foxx and the White House urging them to ensure the terms of the EU/U.S. treaty are upheld. AFA has worked with labor allies to encourage our members to sign a petition to the Obama Administration urging them to protect the US aviation industry and US aviation jobs.

In our continuing campaign, AFA has:

Met with Norwegian officials and other International aviation unions to join forces to prevent the flags of convenience business model from infiltrating our industry (February 2014.)
Submitted comment to the DOT rulemaking urging them to reject the NAI applications (February 2014).
Urged AFA members to sign the White House petition (February 2014).
Introduced a resolution at ITF meeting calling on European Commission and the US DOT hold NAI to the labor provisions of the EU/US Open Skies Agreement (May 2014)
Worked quickly through our Government Affairs activists to achieve the U.S. House of Representatives unanimous vote for the DeFazio/Westmoreland Amendment to H.R. 4745, the FY 2015 Transportation Appropriations bill (June 2014). The amendment requires DOT to follow U.S. law and labor protection provisions outlined in the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement when considering an application for a foreign air carrier permit.
Met with DOT Secretary Foxx and called attention to our filed comments (June 2014).

In July 2014, a US delegation from the Department of State and the Department of Transportation met with the European Commission. The EU requested the meeting to attempt to persuade the US DOT to approve the NAI application, or to tend an exemption. Meeting notice was posted to the U.S. federal register.

In August 2014, AFA supported ITF/ETF efforts to get EU member states to weigh in with the European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transportation, and submitted comments.

The DOT must rule on the exemption application by the end of August 2014. In the event the US government grants an exemption, we will keep up our fight to block the NAI foreign air carrier permit application and work to ensure that our jobs and Flight Attendant profession are not further eroded by any decision. We won’t back down – and until or unless the application is approved or an exemption given, we will work to defeat the outsourcing scheme outright.

(Temporary exemption was not granted in August}

Respectfully Submitted,

Beverly Bullock
MEC Government Affairs Chairperson

January 5, 2015 16:39

January 2015 uniform credit applied under the 2013 Uniform Changeover LOA

There has been some confusion in regards to the January 2015 uniform credit. The uniform credit was applied under the 2013 Uniform Changeover Letter of Agreement (LOA), which is still in effect and supersedes some of the new contract provisions for now. As a reminder, AFA entered into that agreement in late 2013 in order to transition Flight Attendants out of the TwinHill uniform and into the Land’s End Business Outfitters (LEBO) interim uniform in early 2014.

Flight Attendants will receive uniform credit under the new contract rules after this coming July. The next scheduled credit is slated for $700 on January 1, 2017, and will last for two years. If the aggregate uniform costs increase, the uniform credit will be increased proportionately. If we transition to a new uniform before January 2017, the Company will bear the cost of the replacing the uniform. Additionally, the uniform allotment will be reset to $350 and increased proportionately if the aggregate uniform costs increase.

Relevant language from the Uniform Changeover LOA

Flight Attendants who meet the requirements of [Contract 2010] Section 13.D.1.g [the 480 TFP requirement from 2014] will receive an additional $300 uniform allotment (plus applicable sales tax) on January 1, 2015, in addition to a credit for two (2) shipments at a flax rate of $14.50 (inclusive of shipping tax) per shipment for a total of $29.

Flight Attendants will be allowed free returns associated with each shipment.

If the interim uniform has not been replaced by July 1, 2015, an additional $300 uniform allotment will be given to all Flight Attendants who meet the requirements of [Contract 2010] Section 13.D.1.g [the 480 TFP requirement from 2014]. The Company will bear the burden of shipping, shipping tax, and applicable sales tax for any orders submitted on or after this date.

In the unlikely event that the interim uniform has not been replaced by January 1, 2016, Flight Attendants will begin receiving a uniform allotment consistent with Section 13.D.

It is understood the contractual citations stated in this agreement refer to the current Collective Bargaining Agreement or the applicable citation in a successor agreement.

2014 uniform rollover credits not displaying in allocation lookup

Uniform rollover credits from 2014 are not currently displaying in the uniform allocation lookup (Inflight webpage –> Links –> Uniforms-Land’s End –> Shop Women’s/Shop Men’s –> Allocation Look Up). The look-up function is only displaying the January 2015 credit. If you complete an order, then the correct total credit inclusive of 2014 and January 2015 is displaying on the back end when the order integrates. LEBO is aware of the issue and is working on a fix as soon as possible.

* * *

In solidarity,

Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt; and MEC Uniform Chairperson Bob Moore

Flight Attendant Health Study

What is the definition of a Jet Bridge Trade?

If Flight Attendants are Jet Bridge trading how low can either FA waive their Domicile Rest (rest between sequences)?

Why can FAs not waive their own rest down to eight hours between sequences?

If I Jet Bridge Trade, then add the portion of the Jet Bridge Trade to another sequence is that considered a Base Turn?

What is the maximum Base Turn duty period?

Why would a Jet Bridge Trade not be approved?

If Flight Attendants complete a Jet Bridge Trade who will receive the hotel?

When does the inbound FA’s per diem end and the outbound FA’s per diem begin pursuant to a Jet Bridge Trade in which a sequence is split?

Weekly Implementation meeting

TFP Calculators are not accurate

When will a final version of the new contract be published?

Rumor patrol: “secret section” of the contract

New Contract Q&A and email address

* * *

Friday’s communication misstated an important fact

An individual flight attendant may file a contractual grievance on her/his own behalf

It is important all flight attendants understand their contractual rights

* * *

Contractual grievance requested

Background

MEC Decision

Summary

Our Fatigue Policy: There Isn’t One

I’m Too Fatigued To Fly, What Are My Options?

Write It Up—File an ASAP

AFA Alaska Government Affairs

October/November 2014

Post-election and a Lame Duck Congress

NAI Scheme

January 2015 uniform credit applied under the 2013 Uniform Changeover LOA

Relevant language from the Uniform Changeover LOA

2014 uniform rollover credits not displaying in allocation lookup

* * *

Recent Posts

Local Councils

Master Executive Council

Negotiations

Contract

Committees

News By Month

News By Category

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Connect With AFA