Help AFA Defend Your
Contractual Right to Fly
Your Trip!
More
MEC
Grievance Update November 2007
By: Debora Sutor AFA MEC Grievance Chair
Dear AFA Members,
The Association of Flight
Attendants has filed two new MEC Grievances that
you should be aware of. MEC Grievances challenge
the Company’s actions and provide relief on
behalf of all American Eagle Flight Attendants.
22-99-2-90-07 Vacation Pay Involving a
Trip Conflict & 22-99-2-91-07 PVD Payment and PO
to PVD Conversion Payment
The first grievance
challenges the Company’s improper method of
calculating vacation pay when a Flight Attendant
is removed from a trip sequence(s) or portion
thereof due to conflicts involving the trip with
a scheduled vacation period. The second
grievance challenges the Company’s improper
practice of requiring a Flight Attendant to
utilize more than on Personal Vacation Day (PVD)
when she/he desires to be fully reimbursed for
lost compensation when taking a PVD or when
converting a PO day to a PVD day.
This is a little difficult
to explain in writing, so it might be helpful to
let you know how this issue arose in the first
place. I sent an e-mail sent to Pay Comp in
which I posed the following question:
“I have a question with
regard to PVDs and vacation and how they are
handled in the case of bridge trips that do not
return to domicile.
Lets say a flight
attendant has a four-day bridge trip that does
not return to domicile until the last day. Now
lets say that this same flight attendant is
given a PVD for the first day, only of that
trip. Is the flight attendant removed from the
entire trip, and if so, how is the scheduled
time for the sequence paid and credited? Is the
flight attendant deadheaded to pick up the
remainder of the trip and if so, how is the
scheduled time for the sequence paid and
credited?
I have the same question
only instead of a PVD, I'd like to know how this
would be handled if the first day of the same
bridge trip falls on the last day of a flight
attendant's vacation block and they have not
chosen the DTS option?”
The Company responded they
will deadhead, when possible. In instances where
the trip doesn’t come back to the Flight
Attendant’s domicile and when the trip is
structured such that it is possible to deadhead
the Flight Attendant to meet up with her/his
trip, crew scheduling will schedule them for a
deadhead leg so they can work the remainder of
their trip sequence. Crew scheduling will not
automatically remove the entire sequence, a
practice that could pose financial harm to a
Flight Attendant.
As for the second part of
the question, the Company has responded that
since the inception of the new collective
bargaining agreement, a Flight Attendant will be
deadheaded to meet up with the rest of their
trip. However, they will only be paid and
credited for one touching/incidental leg that
starts in their domicile or the one
touching/incidental leg that ends in their
domicile; in other words, one
touching/incidental leg on either end of the
vacation block.
If the first leg in, does
not return to the Flight Attendant’s domicile,
as is the case with most bridge trips, they will
not get paid/credited for that leg. AFA made the
company aware, that we believe such a practice
violates Section 10.D.1. Specifically, in cases
where the trip sequence’s structure will require
the removal of more than one leg in order to
resolve a conflict created by the scheduled
vacation period or PVD.
An additional question
arose; how will the company split bridge trips
when deadheading a Flight Attendant is not
possible or the trip is structured such that it
requires more than one leg, to be removed in
order to reposition the Flight Attendant back
onto her/his trip? Additionally, how will the
Flight Attendant be paid and credited when
requesting a PVD or converting a PO to a PVD
when the trip sequence’s structure requires the
removal of more than one incidental leg?
*Please see following
first example:
SEQ 15502 BASE SJU DOM
ATR
FA2
OPEN
FA1
OPEN
DT EQ FLT STA
DEP STA ARR AC FLY GTR GRD ACT
SKD 19 14 5058 SJU 1415 SLU 1620
2.05 0.25
SKD 19 14 5058 SLU 1645 CIW 1725
0.40
D/P SKD 2.45 P/C 0.00 TL
2.45
HALF DAY COUNT CIW
2
SKD TL 2.45 ACT TL 0.00
SKD ONDUTY 4.40 ODL
12.35
SKD 20 14 5059 CIW 0715 SLU 0755 0.40
0.25
SKD 20 14 5059 SLU 0820 SJU 1020
2.00 2.35
SKD 20 14 5080 SJU 1255 LRM 1400
1.05 0.30
SKD 20 14 5081 LRM 1430 SJU 1535
1.05 1.20
SKD 20 14 5094 SJU 1655 POS 1945
2.50
D/P SKD 7.40 P/C 0.00 TL
7.40
HALF DAY COUNT POS
2
SKD TL 7.40 ACT TL
0.00
SKD ONDUTY 13.45 ODL 9.45
SKD 21 14 5095 POS 0645 SJU 0940
2.55
D/P SKD 2.55 P/C 0.00 TL
2.55
SKD TL 2.55 ACT TL
0.00
SKD ONDUTY 4.10
SEQ SKD 13.20 P/C 0.00 TL 13.20 TAFB
44.55
In the example listed
above, the Flight Attendant requested a PO the
20th. It was impossible to remove him from the
20th without also removing all flying on the 19th.
No deadhead was possible because the trip did
not come back to SJU at any time on the 19th.
So, the Flight Attendant was removed from both
the 19th & the 20th. This
counted as one PO for purposes of attendance. It
counted as two POs for purposes of the 2% cap
(19th & 20th).
Later, the Flight Attendant
wanted to convert the PO to a PVD. He was
advised that since PVDs are counted based upon
number of days, not occurrences, he would need
to use two PVD days for the
conversion.
Now lets use the trip
sequence above to demonstrate the Company’s
position with regard to a regularly scheduled
vacation period. The 20th is the
first day of this Flight Attendant’s scheduled
vacation period and no DTS option was entered.
All flying on the 19th would still
have to be removed in order to accommodate the
vacation period. The Company’s position is that
the flying on the 19th would not be
credited for purposes of determining the greater
of 18.75 hours per week or the amount of
scheduled flight time of the trip
sequences(s) or portions thereof from which
relieved, as found in Section 10.D.1.
AFA disagrees with the
Company’s position in both these matters. We
believe the Company has a responsibility to
remove both dates (19th & 20th) with pay under
the language found in Section 10.D.1., whether
it be a regularly scheduled vacation period or a
PVD. Further, we believe that a Flight Attendant
should only be required to utilize one PVD. This
is why we have filed the two new MEC Grievances.
What Can You Do To Help?
We know that there are past
instances out there amongst you in which you
were removed from all flying on bridge trips,
particularly in conjunction with a scheduled
vacation period, and paid and credited for the
flying the Company removed. In order to
demonstrate, during an arbitration hearing, how
we were removed, paid and credited in the past,
we need you to provide AFA with your records. We
may also need you to testify in an upcoming
arbitration. Please provide the following
information to a Local Council Officer or
Representative:
- A brief write up
describing the events that took place
- Copy of your past HI1
showing you were removed from all flying on
a bridge trip
- Copy of your vacation
block for that month
- Copy of trip
sequence(s) affected
- Copy of the paycheck
showing you were paid and credited for the
flying removed
- Copies of any
correspondence between you and Crew
Scheduling, In-flight Manger, pay comp or
any other Company representative.
If you believe your rights
have been violated by the Company’s new policy,
you will need to provide the following
information to a Local Council Officer or
Representative:
- A brief write up
describing the events that took place.
- A copy of your HI1 for
the month affected.
- Copy of your scheduled
vacation block or date you requested a PVD
or PO to PVD conversion.
- Copy of the trip
sequence(s) affected.
- Copy of paycheck to
demonstrate the absence of pay/credit.
- Copies of any
correspondence between you and Crew
Scheduling, In-flight Manger, pay comp or
any other Company representative.