AFA Alaska + Hawaiian

Representing the Flight Attendants of Alaska + Hawaiian

Click here to report an issue to AFA
You are here: Home / Latest News

AFA and management work through potential disputes prior to engaging in the arbitration process in the hopes of coming to a fair resolution. The process is called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). To access the ADR log, which is a record of issues being addressed via ADR, click here. Alternatively, you can point your browser to www.afaalaska.org –> Committees –> Grievance Committee, then scroll down and select “View the ADR log.” AFA has diligently advocated on your behalf; here is a small highlight of issues that are resolved and pending.

 

Resolved

 

ADR 004-15A- Probationary Flight Attendants (CBA §7 & 32)—It will not be considered an unsuccessful month for a probationary Flight Attendant if his/her crew is coded with a delay provided the delay is not caused by a late report, failure to brief the exit row, etc.

 

ADR 019-15A- Appearance of Sleeping—Management instituted a new policy regarding sleeping in public view. AFA stringently objected to the original policy and after much discussion management issued a much preferred policy change.

 

ADR 024-15A- Fatigue Policy—AFA worked diligently to establish a way to assist fatigued Flight Attendants. As a response management issued a labor memorandum to inflight Crew Scheduling to advise “fatigued” Flight Attendants to call out sick if they are not fit for duty; and fatigue like any condition rendering a Flight Attendant not physically fit for duty is a legitimate reason to call out sick.

 

ADR 028-15A- Stranded and Sit Pay (CBA §21.D.5.)—Management believes that stranded and sit pay would not be included in the same pairing. AFA believes that stranded and sit shouldn’t be paid in the same stranding, but there could be more than one issue per pairing. AFA’s argument prevailed, and we added contract language for the extra pay and protection.

 

ADR 033-15A- Flight Attendants Deadheading on Flights Over 4 hours (CBA §10.X.2.d.)—Management agreed to instruct Customer Service Agents to refrain from asking Flight Attendants deadheading on flights over 4 hours to sit in the jump seat. The same courtesy is already given to Pilots and will now be extended to Flight Attendants.

 

ADR 039-15A- Jury Duty and Subpoenas (CBA §32)—After AFA brought forward some applicable laws regarding subpoenas; management agreed to treat subpoenas the same as jury duty in regards to attendance points.

 

ADR 061-15A- Overlapping Multiple Pay Rules (MPRs)(CBA §21.F.)—Management agreed that if a Flight Attendant is on a month end overlapping trip and wishes to be paid for the MPRs for the pairing during the first month’s pay period s/he can do so by filling out an activity pay form.

 

ADR 076-15A- Trading a Premium Trip with a Non-Premium Trip in Open Time (CBA §8.D.)—After many lengthy conversations management agreed to process the trading of premium with non-premium trips.

 

Pending

 

ADR 084-15A- Open Time (CBA §21.E.1.d.)—AFA alleged that Crew Scheduling is holding trips out of open time and when caught doing so is paying contractually mandated 1 TFP as a type of penalty.

 

ADR 085-15A- Crew Scheduling is Posting Premium Trips in Open Time (CBA §9.E.)—Crew Scheduling posted premium trips in open time and then revoked them and gave them to line holders as a reassignment or put them back into open time without the premium pay attached in violation of the contract. Management agreed and will take action to address this with Crew Scheduling.

 

ADR 001-16A- Coordinating Sick Leave While on Paternity Leave (CBA §15.E.2.)—Flight Attendants should be able to coordinate sick leave while on paternity leave; it should be treated like a maternity leave. Management will be reviewing this issue, and AFA will continue to pursue.

 

ADR 002-16A- Crew Duty Time (CBA §21.J.1.)—Flight Attendants given a day room after check in due to delay should be paid delay and stranded pay from check in to departure. AFA believes Flight Attendants are considered to be on duty if given a day room and not put into rest. Payroll analysts believe that when the FA is in a day room they are not on duty and do not get ground delay pay. AFA will continue to pursue this issue.

 

ADR 006-16A- Supervisors are asking Flight Attendants on a Leave why they are traveling (CBA §15.J.)—AFA believes that Supervisors are not to ask Flight Attendants on leaves of absence why they are traveling. Management agreed, and will take action to address this issue in their spreadsheet.

 

ADR 011-16A- Sick Child Online (CBA §32.C.6-7)—AFA believes Flight Attendants are allowed to call in sick child/sick family on-line per Washington Family Care Act. Management agrees and will follow up on the issue with a labor memo.

 

ADR 015-16A- Long Term Disability (LTD) (CBA 23.C.6.)—AFA believes when a Flight Attendant is receiving LTD, a Flight Attendant may continue to receive health care at active-employee rates for the duration of the benefits or 24 months. Management is investigating this issue.

 

ADR 016-16A- Insurance Issues (CBA §23.C.6.)—AFA alerted management that Flight Attendants are getting frustrated with the difficulty in resolving benefit/insurance issues. Management is looking for a solution, and AFA will continue to persist in finding a solution.

 

* * *

 

As we work through these ADR issues you will see more information on the ADR log. Until then, if you have any questions or concerns about these issues please contact your local Grievance Committee.

 

In Solidarity,

 

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and MEC Grievance Committee Member Stephanie Adams

AFA EAP Logo

Acts of terrorism and threats of continued attacks are purposefully designed to scare people and to disrupt lives. For most people, it is common and normal to experience feelings of anxiety, sadness, grief and anger. It is important to remember, however, that everyone may react differently. Some people may have a more profound reaction to these events than others because each of us has our own tolerance level for difficult feelings. To cope with these emotions, the National Mental Health Association offers you and your family some tips to help manage distress and build resilience.

Take a News Break

Find your personal balance between staying informed and listening to or watching too much coverage of terrorism. Excessive exposure can negatively impact your ability to cope. This includes social media sites that can also be a source of distress.

Maintain Daily Routines and Connections

Make time for your own tried and true stress management techniques which could include regular exercise, social outings, favorite pastimes and spiritual services. Routines provide a sense of “normalcy”, comfort and stability. They are helpful in diverting us from anxious thoughts and worries. Our social connections can also serve as valuable outlets for sharing feelings and relieving stress.

Have A Plan

In times of uncertainty, take control of what you can reasonably control. Having an emergency plan in place will make you feel more in control and prepared for emergencies. Establish a clear plan for how you, your family, friends and flying partners will respond and connect in the event of a crisis.

Seek Out Professional Care If You Are Having Trouble Coping

If you are feeling stuck or overwhelmed and unable to use the tips listed above, you may want to consider talking to a professional. Professional guidance may help you strengthen your resilience and perseverance through difficult times. Your local AFA EAP committee representatives can provide you with peer support and help you locate a professional referral. You can find the roster and contact numbers of your local committee representatives at http://www.afacwa.org/eap under “Your Local EAP Rep”.  You can also call (800) 424-2406 for your local EAP committee representatives’ phone numbers.

Your AFA Alaska Master Executive Council (MEC) has been very busy pursuing contractual compliance on your behalf.

 

Grievances recently filed and sustained:

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-3-16: Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 13.G. [Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it failed to: (1) Consult with the Flight Attendant Uniform Committee and consider their recommendations before making any change in the style, color or material of the uniform; and (2) Consider the recommendations of the Association Air Safety, Heath and Security chairperson in regard to materials available, including application FAA or NTSB flammability standards.

 

For management’s response sustaining the grievance, click here.

 

Grievances recently filed and settled:

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-9-16: CBA Section 9 [Junior Available] Violation

 

The details of this grievance were communicated in a recent standalone communication. For details, click here.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-11-16: Incorrect Application of EOR for February 2016 LIH Pairings

 

This grievance alleged the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 21.D.2. [Compensation/Minimum Pay Rules (MPRs)/Extended Overnight Rule (EOR)], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it incorrectly calculated the extended overnight rule for February 2016 LIH pairings in the Seattle domicile.

 

The settlement agreement states: Those Flight Attendants identified by their specific PBS bid who could have been awarded such pairings and were affected by the error, will be paid four (4) TFP….

 

Grievances recently filed and now awaiting arbitration dates:

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-32-15: Concourse Uniform Shoe Standards

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 25.B. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and past practice when it issued Revised Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) requiring Flight Attendants to wear concourse shoes: With a defined heel between a half inch and three inches in height; with added restrictions, i.e., solid black in color, single functional strap with a plain silver or gold buckle, button, or snap smaller than a quarter, and no textured leather, suede, cloth fabric, color threading, or separate colored trim styles; and during boarding up until the aircraft door closes. These restrictions essentially limit Flight Attendants to wear a pump type shoe only, and unlike past practice eliminates many ‘healthy shoe styles’, e.g., Danskos, Naot, and makes them non compliant.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-33-15: In-Flight Uniform Shoe Standards

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 25.B. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and past practice when it issued Revised Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) requiring Flight Attendants to wear in-flight shoes with all concourse shoe requirements except the defined heel (with at least half inch height) requirement until the aircraft door closes. Unlike past practice these restrictions eliminate many ‘healthy shoe styles’, e.g., Danskos and Naot, and makes them non compliant.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-34-15: Uniform Luggage Standards

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it issued Emergency Interim Bulletin 15-23 (Inflight Bulletin 2015-0179) which says: Designated “Crew” luggage tag and/or Company-approved recognition luggage strap is the only permitted accessory/adornment that may be attached on luggage items; recreational equipment must fit into company issued luggage; and individual or union lanyards with personal pins may not be worn.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-41-15: Section 34.C.3. Alternative Hotel Selection/Site Visit

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 34.C.3. and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to include the hotel committee in the selection of alternative hotels; and when it failed to provide site visits on alternative hotels.

 

Grievance No.: 36-99-2-2-16 Violation of ASAP and Discipline LOA

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Letter of Agreement: ASAP and Discipline July 2006 and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it failed to allow the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) process to complete prior to disciplining and terminating a Flight Attendant. The Letter of Agreement specifically states, “Flight Attendants participating in the ASAP program, whether reporting or non-reporting as defined in the ASAP Memorandum of Understanding, will not be subject to discipline. Neither the written ASAP report nor the content of the written ASAP report will be used to initiate or support any company disciplinary action.”

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-4-16: Order of Reserve Assignment

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 11.E. [Order of Reserve Assignment], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it out of order assigned reserve Flight Attendants to pairing 1164 on June 12, 2015.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-5-16: Non-negotiated Compensation

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 21 [Compensation] and Section 32 [Attendance Policy], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it awarded, without prior consistent notice, policy and application, $5 gift cards to all Anchorage based Flight Attendants for meeting the daily attendance goal (in December 2015).

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-10-16: Mandatory Attendance Counseling in Violation of Section 32

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 32.A. [Attendance Policy/Reporting Procedure], Section 32.E.1. [Attendance/Control Procedure/Attendance Policy Disciplinary Action], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act when it required Flight Attendants to attend meetings to discuss sick leave under the guise of an investigation when in fact it was a counseling in violation of Section 32.E.1.

 

Grievances previously filed and currently awaiting arbitration dates:

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-15-15: Limiting Access to the SAN Domicile

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 28.I [Company Provided Computers and Printers at Domiciles], when it limited access to the SAN Domicile including contractually required resources to only those Flight Attendants based in SAN.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-19-15: Failing to Pay Flight Attendants for Reasonable Suspicion Drug/Alcohol Testing

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Addendum to Section 21 [Compensation], when it failed to pay Flight Attendants for reasonable suspicion drug & alcohol testing.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-20-15: Converting a Line Holding Flight Attendant to ER Reserve Outside of her/his Contactable Period

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 11.C.3.b.6 [Conversion of Reserves to ER] and 11.C.3.c [ER Contactability], when it converted a line holding Flight Attendant to ER Reserve outside of her/his contactable period.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-21-15: Section 21.M Compensation

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 21.M [Pay Protection Due to Weather, Mechanical or to Suit Company Convenience], when it removed a Flight Attendant from a trip and failed to pay protect her.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-22-15: Violation of Past Practice Regarding Manual Revision/Emergency Interim Bulletin (EIB) Insertion Timelines

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of past practice regarding manual revision/emergency interim bulletin (EIB) insertion timelines, which fails to provide Flight Attendants sufficient time to thoroughly read and insert their revisions and/or EIB’s. Long standing past practice is articulated in the prior referenced Flight Attendant Manual (FAM) 6.500 page 1, July 6, 2012, which states: Insert, post and record manual revisions within 14 days of receipt, no later than 30 days after distribution. A new EIB 14-40 effective November 25, 2014, now states: The holder of the FAM shall insert revisions/EIBs on or before the effective date or prior to the first assignment following the effective date, whichever comes first.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-23-15: Beyond Service Training Exceeding Contractual Training Hours

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 30.A.2 [Recurrent Training and Other Company-Required (Non-Computer-Based) Training; Hours], by conducting Beyond Service Training after 5:00PM local time, failing to provide a clear break between required training and the optional “Happy Hour” and failing to provide transportation information to Flight Attendants who choose to depart promptly at 5:00PM.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-24-15: Ground Floor Lodging While on Company Business

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 34 [Hotels], when it failed to avoid ground floor lodging for Flight Attendants attending company required Beyond Service training.

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-29-15: Section 28.G.6 Commuter Boarding Priority

 

This grievance alleges the Company’s violation of Section 28.G.6 [Commuter Policy], when it allowed Company employees (and their dependents) on pleasure travel to be given higher boarding priority than commuting Flight Attendants.

 

* * *

 

As we work through these grievances you will receive more information. Until then, if you have any questions or concerns about grievances please contact a member of your Local Executive Council Grievance Committee.

 

 

In Solidarity,

 

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and Committee Member Stephanie Adams

cropped-AFA-Alaska-Logo-Transparent-Background.png

 

 

 

Grievance No. 36-99-2-3-16 Association Consideration Pursuant to Uniform Change sustain letter

Here’s how you can help

 

On March 18th, AFA Alaska published our support for the application by Alaska Airlines to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for the Company to provide twice daily service between Los Angeles (LAX) and Havana, Cuba (HAV). Following that communication, Flight Attendants have been asking how they can help. Alaska Airlines management has made it very easy for employees to support the application to the DOT: Check out the “Do you want Alaska to fly to Cuba?” article on Alaska’s World (sign in required) for all the information about how to add your voice to the effort.

 

In solidarity,

 

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt

AFA Alaska Logo Transparent Background

Grievance filed

 

AFA Alaska filed Grievance No. 36-99-2-16 CBA Section 9 [Junior Available] Violation in response to the junior assignments around Christmas. See Holiday JA … Updates, No JA for … Premium OT Returning on December 24th or 25th, Temporary Waiver to Allow CSKD to Withhold Trips from OT for Assignment to Reserves at Noon and JA December 2015 for more background information. This grievance alleged the Company’s violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Section 9.D.2. [Junior Available/Company’s Right to Assign JA], past practice and all related sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act on December 23, 2015, and December 24, 2015, when it junior assigned Flight Attendants out of order.

 

Settlement agreement

 

After several meetings between AFA and Alaska Airlines management, this grievance was resolved via a settlement agreement that states:

 

  • In addition to the contractual pay outlined in 9.D.1.e. [Company’s Right to Assign JA], Flight Attendants junior assigned out of order will be paid an additional one-half times (0.5x) the trip rate for a total of one times (1.0x) the trip rate for the sequence assigned in error excluding Minimum Pay Rules per §21.U. [Minimum Pay Rules];

 

  • Flight Attendants who should have been junior assigned to the sequence will be pay protected at two and one-half times (2.5x) the trip rate for the sequence excluding Minimum Pay Rules per 21.U. [Minimum Pay Rules];

 

  • As outlined in 9.D.1.e. [Company’s Right to Assign JA], Flight Attendants who picked up and flew an out of order junior assignment will be paid an additional half-times (0.5x) the trip rate for the sequence assigned in error excluding Minimum Pay Rules per §21.U. [Minimum Pay Rules]; and

 

  • A Flight Attendant will be paid four (4.0) TFP due to incorrect junior assignment, which required her to utilize FMLA.

 

AFA and management developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Junior Assignments

 

It is the Association’s goal that management utilizes junior assignment (JA) only as a last resort. However, AFA and management are working together to develop a Junior Assignment (JA) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) just in case it happens again. Both parties would like to ensure that JA out of order is eliminated—or at least greatly reduced—just in case. AFA is currently reviewing a formal draft of the JA SOP. It is our hope that this new SOP will ensure out of order JAs are eliminated—or at least greatly minimized.

 

Additionally, AFA is seeking clarification to how the provisions of §3.D.2. [Scope: Management flying to prevent a cancellation] interact with the provisions of §9.D.2.h. [Junior Available & Premium Open Time: Company’s Right to Assign JA]. This is specifically in relation to the order of release from JA for Flight Attendants (if the operation allows) and how this affects the order of release by management in order to prevent a cancellation. Both provisions were actively in effect at the same time over the holidays, which caused confusion and, in our opinion, the inappropriate application of the provisions. AFA anticipates these provisions will again be utilized concurrently, so we would like to prevent the same outcome from occurring in the future.

 

Via the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, AFA has stated our position that management personnel assigned to a flight pursuant to §3.D.2. [Scope: Management flying to prevent a cancellation] should be considered the most junior Flight Attendant on that flight consistent with §3.D.1.C.2. Therefore, AFA contends that management personnel must be released after all other JA’d Flight Attendants for that day have been released—or have declined release—pursuant to §9.D.2.h. We have stipulated that this understanding must be incorporated into the JA SOP.

 

Use of the new Premium Open Time provisions prior to JA

 

AFA leadership will continue to push management to make the most of the new Premium Open Time provisions—with escalating premiums if necessary—prior to JA. We never want to see JAs unless trips have been offered at no less than two and one-half times (2.5x) premium for a reasonable period of time prior to JA. After all, doesn’t it make sense to offer Premium OT at 2.5x for voluntary pick up, rather than force a JA on a flight attendant for the same premium?

 

* * *

 

Questions? Contact one of your Local Executive Council officers or local Scheduling Committee members.

 

In solidarity,

 

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and Committee Member Stephanie Adams; and MEC Scheduling Chairperson Jake Jones

AFA Alaska Logo Transparent Background

Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants attended the March 16th RALLY FOR REST

 

Over 300 Flight Attendants from across the industry, including Alaska Airlines Flight Attendants, descended on Capitol Hill on March 16th to RALLY FOR REST. Flight Attendants from the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the Transport Workers Union joined together to FIGHT FOR 10. They visited all 541 Congressional offices to advocate for these provisions.

 

What is the FIGHT FOR 10 all about?

 

Every three to five years Congress is required to authorize funding and set policies for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). AFA’s top legislative priority for this FAA reauthorization is to have Congress increase the minimum rest requirements for Flight Attendants. Seven Flight Attendant fatigue studies, commissioned by Congress, concluded that the best way to combat fatigue is to get more rest.

Currently, Flight Attendant rest can include passenger deplaning, preflight preparation and passenger boarding is included within the rest period which means that the opportunity to actually sleep is closer to four or five hours. Unless an air carrier is contractually required to provide more rest than the Federal Air Regulations (FARs), Flight Attendants could be facing a scheduled 14-hour duty day following that very short sleep opportunity. The goal of AFA’s FIGHT FOR 10 includes achieving an irreducible FAA minimum 10 hours rest for all Flight Attendants.

 

In addition to proper rest, the FIGHT FOR 10 includes a Fatigue Risk Management Plan (FRMP). The FRMP would provide a protocol for reporting instances of fatigue in order to take steps to correct it. The FRMP would also require education for Flight Attendants to determine when they are fatigued and how to avoid it.

 

What is the current status of the FIGHT FOR 10?

 

The House of Representatives and the Senate have two different versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, which both including language regarding Flight Attendant rest. The Senate bill includes proposed ten hours with “reasonable flexibility,” which means rest for Flight Attendants will most often be reduced to nine hours. The House version of the bill includes FAA minimum (irreducible) rest of ten hours and a FRMP.

 

Now that both the House and Senate have marked up FAA reauthorization bills, each chamber will schedule votes in their respective chamber. If the House and the Senate pass different versions the bill, a Conference Committee will work out differences between the two versions of the bill.

 

How would the FIGHT FOR 10 affect the contractual premium pay for going under 9 ½ hours?

 

If the FAA required minimum (irreducible) rest were to become ten hours, Alaska Flight Attendants would never achieve the two and a half times (2.5x) premium for receiving less than nine and one-half (9 ½) hours per CBA §8.K. [Hours of Service: Reduced RON Rest]. Instead, Crew Scheduling would always ensure that Flight Attendants received at least 10 hours of rest on layovers, even if that meant delaying a flight.

 

Why would the Master Executive Council support a legislative effort that could negatively impact a lucrative contractual provision?

 

The Master Executive Council (MEC) strongly believes that it would be near sighted of us to not fully support legislation that would greatly improve Flight Attendant rest across the entire industry. Not only that, but there are no guarantees the new provisions in §8.K will survive from one contract to the next. Did you know the Negotiating Committee sought such a stiff “penalty” for receiving reduced rest on a layover not for the purpose of consistently paying out, but rather to ensure Flight Attendants received improved rest? In other words, the new contractual provisions in §8.K were specifically negotiated to improve safety for Flight Attendants, not primarily as a windfall (although it is a nice bonus when it happens).

 

Proper rest for Flight Attendants is about safety, health and equality. Fatigue threatens safety throughout the industry. Consequently, the MEC officers feel it is our duty as safety professionals to advance the legislative agenda encapsulated in the FIGHT FOR 10.

 

* * *

 

Do you have any questions or want to know how you can help the FIGHT FOR 10? Contact your Local Executive Council (LEC) president or LEC Government Affairs Committee.

 

In solidarity,

 

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Satterlee, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; and MEC Government Affairs Chairperson Bev Bullock

 

cropped-AFA-Alaska-Logo-Transparent-Background.png

SECURE OUR SKIES ACT This legislation will save lives

Flight Attendants Achieve Introduction of Legislation Aimed at Stopping Human Trafficking (AFA media report)
Washington, DC (February 2, 2016) — The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA) today praised the introduction of the Secure Our Skies Act to fight human trafficking with proper training for aviation workers, led by U.S. Representatives Dina Titus (D-NV-01) and Barbara Comstock (R-VA-10).

“As aviation’s first responders we are charged with the safety, health and security of the passengers in our care,” said AFA International President Sara Nelson. “Traffickers steal lives. But for a window of time, we can see it and report it. Millions of innocent victims are trafficked throughout the world each year, and many are transported on our planes. We are proud to work with Representatives Titus and Comstock to move this important legislation to reality in our workplace. With proper training we can be 100,000 eyes in skies saving lives.”

The bill requires training for flight attendants, pilots and dispatchers of air carriers to to identify and report human trafficking.

“Human trafficking doesn’t happen just on the ground. That’s why members of the airline industry are in a strong position to help stop these crimes,” said Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV-01). “The SOS Act will close off the skies to traffickers by providing training to professionals who know their way around aircraft. I thank the nation’s flight attendants for their commitment to fighting these heinous crimes. They know we have to spot the signs to stop the crimes.”

The infrastructure and training mechanisms are already in place through the Department of Transportation’s Blue Lightning Initiative, launched almost three years ago on June 6, 2013. Blue Lightning teaches airline personnel on a voluntary basis about common circumstances with human trafficking in order to recognize and report these instances to law enforcement for swift action. AFA launched a public campaign on June 1, 2015 to promote the provisions of the SOS Act.

“It is critical that we are ever vigilant in the fight against the heinous crime of human trafficking,” said Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA-10). “Every day, flight attendants see and interact with children on the thousands of flights across our country and throughout the world. They are the eyes and ears in this constant battle, and this legislation will give them the tools

to save the most vulnerable in our society and fight this terrible scourge. I want to thank Congresswoman Titus for working in a bipartisan manner on this important legislation.”

“Everyone immediately recognizes the horror of human trafficking, but we must turn our outrage into concrete action to stop it,” Nelson concluded.

See Rep. Dina Titus introduce the bill on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUhhhCiWWGU

UPDATE ON THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION PROCESS

February saw the introduction of the much awaited FAA Reauthorization bill. I have included Gov Affairs Director Steve Schembs comprehensive update and explanation on the bill as it moves through Congress:

FEB 26, 2016 – The FAA Reauthorization Bill has been introduced in the House, reviewed and adopted by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as amended. Our 10 hours rest between duty periods and a Fatigue Risk Management Plan are included in the bill as well a AFA-promoted issues listed at the end of this update.

Now the Senate is writing its version of the bill, which is expected to be introduced in the coming days. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee “mark-up” will likely be scheduled prior to their Easter recess starting March 18th. This means committee action could take place on the very day of our March 16th Rally for Rest. Regardless, the Rally is well timed and it is assisting us in promoting inclusion of our rest/fatigue language. If you have not already RSVP’d, we encourage you to do that now: https://cdn.afacwa.org/ issues/rest/.

Once both House and Senate bills are introduced and adopted by the respective committees, each full chamber must also vote on the bill. Amendments could also be considered during this process, although sometimes the bill can only be considered as adopted by the committee.

Next, a conference between the House and Senate is held to write common language. This final version of the bill must again be adopted by both chambers before going to the President’s desk for signature. We must remain engaged throughout the process and continue to use the power of our numbers to take action in support of rest and recognition of Flight Attendant fatigue.

The FAA Reauthorization bill is must-pass legislation, although our experience shows this might include several extensions before the long-term bill is passed. Getting our rest provisions in these base bills now sets a foundation for inclusion in the final passage of the bill regardless of when that actually occurs.

This week AFA has ramped up our advocacy to the U.S. Senator’s writing the FAA Bill; Sen. John Thune (ND), Sen. Kelly Ayote (NH), Sen. Bill Nelson (FL), Senator Maria Cantwell (WA), Senator Cory Gardner (CO) and all of the members of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Thanks to a massive effort for calls from members, and special thanks to AFA Frontier for relentless efforts in generating calls from Colorado, we are making good progress with the Senate. But we can’t let up for a second. We have to keep up calls next week and right up to the point of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee vote on their version of the bill.

At the Rally for Rest on March 16, hundreds of Flight Attendants will urge members of the Senate to include the 10 hours minimum rest and a Fatigue Risk Management Plan into the Senate bill. We will also go to every House office to encourage support of our rest in the FAA Reauthorization bill and thank members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for recognizing the importance rest plays in supporting our health and the tools necessary to fulfill our duties as aviation’s first responders.

CWA NEXT GEN AT JOBS WITH JUSTICE

Government Affairs Committee members Kris Hall and Drew Lemish were the AFA representatives at the Jobs with Justice Next Generation conference in Washington DC, Feb. 12th and 13th.

JWJ activists joined sessions on organizing, social media, innovations in the labor movement, grassroots fundraising and much more as part of JWJ’s two-day national conference. CWA Next Generation leaders were on hand as former CWA President Larry Cohen was recognized for his years of building JWJ and his commitment to democracy and working families. (CWA Media report).

Kris had this to say about the experience: “I found it profoundly educational- every workshop, every caucus, every conversation. I made so many connections, met and listened to so many stories, discussed so many concerns that would not have been possible without JwJ!”

Respectfully submitted,

Beverly Bullock
MEC Government Affairs Chairperson

Steps in the right direction…

Inflight management recently revealed changes and clarifications to the Alaska Listens customer feedback process in the February 22nd communication “Customer Feedback.” The Master Executive Council (MEC) has heard you loud and clear that there is much confusion and discontent on the line regarding “red flags,” so any clarifications are a refreshing change to recent experience. According to the communication, management intends to balance the kudos and red flags going forward by treating them more equally than in the past. Although the MEC is not providing a blanket endorsement, generally speaking many of the stated changes to policy appear to be steps in the right direction.

…but…

However, it is disappointing that management did not do more to acknowledge the level of your dissatisfaction and did not even mention AFA’s advocacy on your behalf. The MEC firmly believes management would not have revised the program without the constant negative feedback from the line combined with the persistent pressure from your AFA leaders. Most of the time your AFA leaders are content to simply work in the background, and we do not find it necessary to communicate the details of how we work with management. Although the MEC very much appreciates management’s willingness to make adjustments to this policy based on feedback, in this case it is important for our members to know the full “behind the scenes” story.

The full “behind the scenes” story

From the very beginning, AFA advised management that this program would be received poorly if not administrated in a positive and non-punitive manner. AFA requested that any low level customer feedback simply be sent to the Flight Attendant via email without a required supervisor discussion or documentation. The MEC is pleased to see that the revised customer feedback policy now does just that.

 

In addition, AFA continued to seek clarification on the specifics of the program and clear communication from management to the Flight Attendant group over the past several months. Management appeared reluctant to clearly spell out the program in writing—until now.

 

So what changed? The MEC is not saying it was all due to our efforts, but you should know that we’ve had a very critical communication about red flags written and ready to go for some time now. We were strategically holding off on sending it out in order to accomplish miscellaneous business important to our flight attendants—including achieving clarifications and ideally policy changes to the red flag program.

 

Last week AFA engaged in several discussions with management about red flags and our intent to communicate to our members about our perspective regarding the red flag program. Late last week management requested that the MEC hold off for a few more days in order to have the opportunity to revamp the program prior to AFA communicating on the subject. The MEC reluctantly voted to wait until the new customer feedback policy was released on Monday. The reality is that this policy change was at least partially the result of multiple meetings and numerous back and forth communications between AFA and management over several months. So now here we are.

Red flags and the disciplinary timeline

AFA had made multiple requests for clarification regarding how far into the past management would refer to red flags in a Flight Attendant’s personnel file in order to take disciplinary action. In our opinion, management had been purposefully vague with respect to the timeline up until this latest communication. Management has now clearly stated that they will not utilize red flags that are older than 18 months in order to determine discipline. Upon a cursory review, this timeline appears to be contractually consistent with CBA §19.D. [Grievance Procedures: Disciplinary Eighteen (18) Month Removal], but the MEC will be more thoroughly evaluating the timeline at our monthly meeting this week.

Summary of the customer feedback process as we know it

Effective March 1st, all kudos and most red flags will simply be emailed to Flight Attendants—no response required.

First three general or relatively benign “red flags” in 18 months

Management says that the first two general or relatively benign red flags in 18 months will simply be emailed and will no longer require a conversation. The third general or relatively benign red flag will result in a record of discussion (ROD). For more information about RODs, see “What is a ROD?” below.

After three general or relatively benign “red flags” in 18 months…

After three general or relatively benign flags in 18 months, or if any Alaska Listens comment is deemed serious, then the Flight Attendant will likely be referred directly to his or her performance supervisor. Depending on the severity of the allegation, the Flight Attendant could be given a ROD or issued progressive discipline. If a Flight Attendant attends a performance meeting and there is any type of discipline issued, the contractual grievance process is available to dispute the discipline. For your information, Manager of Inflight Labor and Work Performance Leslee Cabulagan leads the performance group; and the performance supervisors are Michelle Kirschbaum (PDX & SEA: A), Beth Swanson (SAN & SEA: B-I), Tony Nichols (ANC & SEA: J-P) and Natasha Kemp (LAX & SEA: Q-Z).

Why is management not more supportive?

AFA understands the group’s frustration that many of these red flags stem from Flight Attendants’ compliance with FARs and Company policies. Why is management not more supportive of Flight Attendants in upholding the policies that management puts in place? The Association has repeatedly urged management to refocus energy on being supportive and encouraging of Flight Attendants and to recognize the excellent job we do—and we will continue to do so.

What is a ROD?

A ROD is not considered discipline. It is a record of a discussion with an employee outlining a company policy or procedure. A Flight Attendant should be provided a copy of any ROD and s/he may issue a statement in response to the ROD for her/his ROD file. A ROD stays in your file permanently—however, it can only be used to show that you were previously advised of a policy.

Although an ROD is a permanent part of an employees record, AFA stands firm on the fact that any ROD over 18 months old is not to be counted in the red flag total. AFA will file a grievance if management tries to use a red flag older than 18 months.

What can Flight Attendants do?

When flying, we encourage Flight Attendants to write up any incident or concern that they have with a customer. This will provide a record of the Flight Attendant’s side of the interaction. Many are using the notes function on their Inflight Mobile Device (IMD) to take a few notes when an event occurs.

Flight Attendants have the right to access their personnel and ROD files upon request and AFA encourages all to take a look at their files on a regular basis. A Flight Attendant must specifically request both files.

If a Flight Attendant is contacted to speak with a supervisor or manager regarding a red flag, the Flight Attendant may ask, “Is there a possibility of discipline?” If the answer is yes, the Flight Attendant should contact her/his local AFA representative. If the answer is no, ask the supervisor to verify if it will be noted as a ROD. If it is noted as a ROD, then you should be provided a copy. If you would like to add your own statement to the ROD, you may do so.

If, during a conversation with a supervisor, you become concerned and wish to have an AFA rep involved, you can stop the conversation and request one. If you are asked to write a statement, you should consult with an AFA rep before doing so.

* * *

AFA will keep you updated on further developments regarding the new customer feedback policy once it has been implemented on March 1st and we have had an opportunity to evaluate the new rules.

In solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow, Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Committee Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl and MEC Grievance Representative Stephanie Adams

AFA Alaska Logo Transparent Background

The AFA Alaska Master Executive Council (MEC) would like to thank Blair Kimball for stepping up and serving as MEC Chairperson of the AFA Inflight Service Committee over the past several years. Under Blair’s leadership, the committee has expanded involvement and helped to advocate for Flight Attendants as management has introduced major service changes. Blair will remain in position during the transition period as the MEC selects and appoints a new MEC Chairperson.

Background

The MEC Chairperson of the Inflight Service Committee is responsible for coordinating the activities of the committee at the airline level. The Chairperson works closely with each Local Committee Chairperson to gather feedback and input and represents the positions of the Committee and MEC in interactions with management.

Additional Information From the MEC Policy Manual

INFLIGHT SERVICE COMMITTEE

1. SCOPE

a. The Inflight Service Committee shall act to support the Union’s interest with respect to inflight service and sales onboard flights. The Committee shall meet with the Company to discuss any change in inflight service or sales, procedures to be followed and other pertinent matters prior to the implementation of such service

2. POLICY/RESPONSIBILITIES

a. The MEC Inflight Service Committee shall consist of the MEC Inflight Service Committee Chairperson and the Local Inflight Service Committee Chairperson from each council.

b. It shall be the policy of the Union to make any significant change in inflight service or sales subject to negotiations between the parties. The Union shall always place Flight Attendants’ health and safety as its first priority when considering the feasibility of any inflight service or sales change and the location of inflight service or sales items in galleys or other stowage locations.

c. The MEC Chairperson shall:

(i)  Immediately contact the MEC President should the Company override his/her objections and proceed to implement changes in inflight service or sales against his/her recommendation

(ii)  Compose informational and educational articles of interest to the membership and provide them to the MEC Communications Chairperson to be included in MEC communications and posted to the MEC website.

d. The Committee shall:

(i)  Represent the Flight Attendant point of view to the Company in all matters pertaining to onboard sales and service policies, procedures, and practices

(ii)  Work with the Scheduling Committee to determine available service time, projected loads and staffing when the Company determines a certain service is required on a flight

(iii)  Monitor feedback from all domiciles on flights where services, load, staffing, or flight time cause the Flight Attendants difficulty in completing the standards of performance

Qualifications

  • Robust working knowledge of inflight service procedures, including all positions and routes (including short haul, Mexico, Hawaii, midcon, and transcon)
  • Ability to attend meetings as required, including being present in Seattle on occasion
  • Strong computer skills. Excellent working knowledge of Inflight Mobile Device, Google email, and Microsoft Office.
  • Strong written and verbal communication skills. Ability to write membership communications, respond professionally to internal and external e-mail, prepare reports, and plan meetings agendas and take minutes.
  • Ability to meet deadlines, delegate responsibilities, and follow up on assigned tasks

Duties

  • Participate in reviews of inflight catering, packing, service, and sales with management
  • Review Flight Attendant complaints or concerns regarding catering and inflight service. Gather information and work with management to satisfactorily resolve each issue.
  • Schedule, plan, and conduct quarterly meetings of the committee and other meetings and conference calls as needed
  • Correspond with the Local Inflight Service Committee Chairpersons and MEC regularly to provide status updates. Prepare and send a monthly committee report to the MEC.

Time Commitment and Flight Pay Loss Reimbursement

  • This is position eligible for Flight Pay Loss (FPL) reimbursement by the Company under 27.P Company Business (CB) Flight Pay Loss with a 5% override and “A” pay. CB is compensated at 0.75 TFP per hour of work.
  • Estimated 8-10 hours per week (24 to 30 TFP per month). Some work may be accomplished remotely. Regularly required to be in Seattle to work on projects and attend meetings.

Working Relationships

With The Inflight Service Committee

Constant interaction with the Local Inflight Service Committee Chairpersons. Frequent interaction with Local Inflight Service Committee Members.

With The Master Executive Council

This position reports to the Master Executive Council. The MEC executive sponsor for the committee is the MEC Vice President.

With Alaska Airlines Management

Constant interaction with inflight management, particularly the Manager of Inflight Experience (Matthew Coder) and Director of Catering Operations (Susan Morse)

Expressing Interest and Interview Scheduling

  • The MEC will hold interviews during the April MEC meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2016. Bid around the interview date or plan to arrange your schedule accordingly to accommodate.
  • Interviews will be at the AFA Alaska MEC office in Seattle. Our office is located in the Alaska Airlines Flight Operations and Training Center, Suite 280 at 2651 South 192nd Street, Seattle, WA 98188.
  • Submit a declaration of interest and resume to MEC Secretary-Treasurer Yvette Gesch at yvette.gesch@afaalaska.org no later than 5 PM Pacific Time on Friday, April 1, 2016. Yvette will be able to provide additional information regarding transportation and booking of flights if necessary.

In Solidarity,

Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Lisa Pinkston, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt

AFA Alaska Logo No Tag

Reserve Committee Meeting Recap – 2nd Quarter 2026

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants On Thursday, June 4, representatives from our pre-merger Alaska AFA Reserve Committee met to discuss ongoing work advocating for Reserve Flight Attendants. Representing you at the meeting were Conner Gallager (SEA), Anthony Eskander (PDX), Kanako Yamada (LAX), Adrian Alcantara (SAN), and MEC Reserve Committee Vice Chairperson—New Hire […]

Joint Contract Negotiations Session 15 – June 2026

The JNC has been actively negotiating key sections of the contract, focusing on vacation, sick leave, and temporary duty assignments. A tentative agreement was reached on Section 37 (Temporary Duty Assignments), ensuring financial protections and fair treatment for Flight Attendants during temporary assignments. These ongoing discussions demonstrate a commitment to integrating the best benefits from both Alaska and Hawaiian CBAs for all members.

Celebrating LGBTQ Pride Month

Every June, we come together to honor LGBTQ Pride Month in the United States—a time to celebrate the remarkable resilience, diversity, and achievements of the LGBTQ community. Pride Month began as a tribute to the Stonewall Uprising in Manhattan in 1969, a pivotal moment that ignited the modern LGBTQ rights movement. The inaugural Pride March, […]

Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee Meeting Recap – May 2026

On Wednesday, May 20, our Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee (ASHSC) representatives met virtually to discuss ongoing safety concerns, operational challenges, policy updates, and workplace improvements impacting Flight Attendants across the operation. Representing you at the meeting were Deb Wallstrom (ANC), David Lake (SEA), Kalin Lackey (PDX), Bradley Young (SFO), Bryce Sarmiento (LAX pmAS), […]

Scheduling Committee Meeting Recap – May 2026

This message is for pre-merger Alaska Flight Attendants On Tuesday, May 26, our pre-merger Alaska AFA Scheduling Committee Chairpersons and Representatives met virtually to discuss their ongoing work to represent our Flight Attendants and push for improvements in our workplace. Representing you at the meeting were Rebekah Olds (ANC), Rita Tillou (SEA), Melodie Anderes (PDX), […]

Recent Posts

News By Month

News By Category

AFA News Now Air Quality Air Safety, Health, & Security Committee (ASHSC) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) AS/HA Merger AS/VX Merger Benefits Committee Committees Communications Committee Contract Contract 2014 Negotiations Blog Council 15 SAN Council 18 LAX (pmAS) Council 19 SEA (pmAS) Council 30 ANC Council 35 SFO Council 39 PDX Council 43 HNL Council 47 LAX/SEA (pmHA) EAP/Professional Standards Committee Extension 2021 Blog Featured Government Affairs Committee Grievance Committee Hotel Committee Human Rights & Equity Committee Industry News Inflight Service Committee Inflight Training Committee JNC Blog Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) Latest News Local Councils Master Executive Council (MEC) Membership Engagement Committee Message from the MEC President Mobilization Committee Negotiations Pairing Construction Preferential Bidding System (PBS) Press Releases Reserve Committee Retirement Committee Scheduling Committee Uniform Committee

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Stay up-to-date on AFA Alaska + Hawaiian news and information by signing up for our email and text message updates. Click a button below to get started or update your preferences if you're already a subscriber.
Sign Up for Emails
Sign Up for Text Updates