Skip to content
Log in
Log out
  • There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.
  • There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.

Implementation Dispute Resolutions

Share links
As outlined in the Implementation Letter of Agreement (LOA #18) in the JCBA, any disputes regarding the Implementation of provisions of the JCBA that are unable to be resolved by the Joint Implementation Team are to be referred to the MEC President and the Senior Vice President of Inflight Services. 

As outlined in the Implementation Letter of Agreement (LOA #18) in the JCBA, any disputes regarding the Implementation of provisions of the JCBA that are unable to be resolved by the Joint Implementation Team are to be referred to the MEC President and the Senior Vice President of Inflight Services. If the issues remain unresolved, the items are to be process through the resolution procedure provided for in LOA #18.

In the most recent Mediation Arbitration Process provided for in paragraph C of LOA #18, the parties engaged in negotiations mediated by the neutral (arbitrator). The specific items that were in dispute included the following:

  • Rescheduling of Deadhead Flight Attendants to working status
  • International Reassignments
  • Report Time – Section 6.R. 
  • Personal Drops

Deadhead Reschedule to Work

United and AFA agreed to clarify the JCBA terms regarding the rescheduling of deadheading Flight Attendants to working status on the flight they were scheduled to deadhead as follows:

1.    United may reschedule deadheading Flight Attendants to work the flight in order to:

a.     Maintain Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required number of Inflight Crew, including any required augmentation, and

b.     Reschedule Flight Attendants up to United’s Established Staffing Guidelines (“ESG”) to prevent understaffing.

2.    Nothing in this settlement limits United’s right to supplement additional staffing above the ESG through the creation of additional open positions.

Examples:  

Paragraph 1.a (Domestic). – North American flight CUN to EWR – a 777Q requires eight (8) Flight Attendants. For some reason a Flight Attendant who was scheduled to work the flight becomes unavailable leaving the scheduled number of crew at seven (7).  In this circumstance, the company may reschedule a deadheading Flight Attendant, if available, in inverse order of seniority, to cover the open position and to return the staffing to the FAA requirement of eight (8).

Paragraph 1.a (International). – International Flight from SFO to SYD on 777Q requires eight (8) Flight Attendants plus augmented staffing of two for the duty period of 15:45. The ESG requires 11 Flight Attendants for a full flight. The company may reschedule deadheading Flight Attendants to the ESG of 11 Flight Attendants to meet the FAA staffing or the ESG. (It is understood that no flight may depart with less than the number of Flight Attendants required by the FAA for the aircraft type and/or duty period.)

Paragraph 2– Supplemental staffing. In a situation where the company were to determine that additional staffing above the ESG is warranted for any flight, the company may not reschedule a Flight Attendant from deadhead to working status. They may, however, create additional pairings that are to be placed in open time and made available for trade or pick up. In the event those positions are not filled by trades or pick up, the company may not reassign a Flight Attendant from deadhead to working status to fill the position that is above the ESG.

International Reassignment – Section 7.Q.4.c.

The company and AFA have agreed that a reassignment pursuant to Section 7.Q.4.c. may interfere with the next scheduled trip in the Flight Attendant’s line. That trip will be pay protected (Guaranteed) and the Flight Attendant will:

1.    Be subject to further reassignment if that next trip was on the Flight Attendant’s line as the result of a trip trade that required a waiver of the home domicile rest (reduced rest).  If this is the case, any reassignment may also interfere with the next scheduled trip on the Flight Attendant’s line for which she/he will be pay guaranteed and not subject to further reassignment, or

2.    Be guaranteed for the next trip, but not be subject to further reassignment if that next trip was on the Flight Attendant’s original line or was the result of a trip trade that did not require a waiver of home domicile rest (reduced rest).  

 

Report Time – Section 6.R.

The company and AFA have agreed that Section 6.R. of the Agreement is to be applied as follows based on a reissue of the December 16, 2016 Letter of Agreement:

1.    Where the word “layover” is used in the Letter of Agreement, it is limited to layovers at Flight Attendant bases.

2.    Upon request, the Senior Vice President of Inflight and the MEC President will meet to discuss operational issues warranting an extension of the report time (consistent with the Letter of Agreement) at a layover city that is not a Flight Attendant base, which request AFA will not unreasonably deny.

Personal Drops

In lieu of processing MEC 7-18, the company and AFA have agreed that the issue of Personal Drops will be addressed through the Implementation Dispute Resolution Process.