_edited.png)
Hawaiian Airlines AFA
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO
Stronger Together, Better Together!
What is Section 6?
The negotiation of industry-leading collective bargaining agreements covering Flight Attendant rates of pay, benefits, work rules and working conditions, and retirement forms the “bedrock” reason for the existence of all labor unions, and is a key aspect of the Mission Statement of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA. To achieve that end, the Union is committed to establishing policies and practices that ensure that its members obtain the greatest benefit possible from the collective bargaining process. Most significantly, AFA-CWA negotiates contracts that reflect the priorities of the membership and raise the standard of living for all Flight Attendants
Who is part of Section 6 Negotiations?
The Negotiating Committee is responsible for leading contract negotiations on behalf of the union. With guidance from the Staff Negotiator, they have the authority to finalize agreements, following the union’s Constitution and Bylaws. To be effective, all committee members, including alternates, must complete training before drafting an initial proposal. They must stay informed about union policies, industry trends, and company financials, ensuring they understand management structures, communication methods, and airline operations. Additionally, they should actively gather feedback from flight attendants through surveys and meetings to represent their interests in wages, work conditions, and rules.
The committee also leverages union resources, including legal, retirement, and wage experts, to strengthen negotiations. They are responsible for keeping members informed about negotiation progress through newsletters, hotlines, and other communication channels. A complete and detailed record of all negotiation activities, including proposals and meeting notes, is maintained and shared with the International Office. This ensures transparency and continuity in the bargaining process.
Why is Section 6 Negotiation so important?
-
Bridge to the JCBA: Until a JCBA is ratified, our current contract governs our pay and work rules. If we do not negotiate improvements by April 2025, we will continue with our current pay rates and work rules until the JCBA process is complete. As mentioned earlier, this timeline is unknown.
-
Pay Increases and Protections: The Section 6 process allows us to advocate for pay increases and improvements now, ensuring we do not fall behind industry standards during the merger transition.
-
Strong Representation: This committee will be your voice at the bargaining table, advocating for your priorities and ensuring our union’s needs are met.
Resources & Information
General Information
Frequently Asked Questions
New Questions as of March 25, 2025 Communications
Q1: What is the number for profit sharing?
• 5% of annual pretax profits minus performance bonuses and special bonuses (not minus incentive compensation program), divided amongst all participating employee groups based on each group's pro-rata share of W-2 wages, then allocated to the employees in each participating work group. HA's profit sharing is outlined in "Bonus Compensation Provisions" sideletter 34-21 in the 2020 Agreement.
• Alaska's profit sharing program was analyzed by the AFA-appointed Board Member on the Hawaiian Airlines Board of Directors, airline industry economist and expert Dan Akins who found the Alaska provision would be more beneficial to FAs than HA's current profit sharing provision.
Q2: Recently, the bid rules for RSA have become very restrictive, what was the catalyst for this change? / in order for scheduling to relax the bid rules for RSA what metrics need to be met?
• The basic self-assignment requirements are outlined in section 8.J., which also gives scheduling the ability to relax the requirements at their discretion and as the needs of service allow 8.J.5.a.
• Scheduling has full discretion to decide to relax the self-assignment requirements, but any relaxing of the requirements must be announced to the reserves at least two days prior, i.e. with enough time for reserves to meaningfully participate in the rsa program 8.J.5.a.(1)
• If by becoming "restrictive" one means scheduling isn't relaxing the self-assignment requirements (e.g. not allowing 5-day rsvs to self-assign to 2-day trips, in addition to 5- and 4- day trips) that means scheduling is following the basic contractual self-assignment requirements. There is no contractual requirement for scheduling to relax the selfassignment requirements. 8.J.5.(b). In the 2020 agreement, AFA was able to negotiate a required level of relaxation of self-assignment requirements to allow FAs to request trips that were shorter than their full availability, i.e. availability, and availability-minus-1-day, e.g. 5-day rsv can self-assign to a 4-day trip. This was a compromise with the company who wanted rsvs to be able to self-assign ONLY their full availability.
• AFA does advocate for scheduling to relax the requirements. For example, If the majority of the trips available are 2-day trips including hard-to-staff neighbor island layovers. Reserves should be allowed to bid for 2-day trips regardless of their full availability, but there are no contractual metrics that need to be met for scheduling to adjust the self-assignment requirements.
• And without having scheduling explain themselves, we can speculate why scheduling has not been relaxing the self-assignment requirements: higher than anticipated planned and unplanned absences, reserves calling out at 85 hours, company miscalculation of required reserve coverage vis-a-vis the number of monthly leaves and low times awarded.
Q3: Did we address getting vacation hours from 3 back up to 5? Also part-time flying?
• No. Once the decision was made to narrow the scope of the negotiations, the committee was focused on securing raises. Hawaiian already has top-of-industry vacation accrual and flexibility of use.
• It should be pointed out, vacation credit of 5 hours had a very limited application for a short period of time, i.e. in the 1993 agreement, during the transition from pre-build lines to PBS, international "open" FA during vac period of 7+ days got pay and credit of 5 hours per work day, or 3 hours per calendar day. Prior to PBS, lineholders got full credit for trips touching vacation, during the transition to PBS it was 4 hours, and it has been 3 hours since PBS took effect.
Q4: What would the pay scale be beyond 4/1/25 if it's a no on this contract? Any raises at all in April?
• If the TA is not ratified, the pay scale would be exactly the pay scale reflected in the 2020 agreement.
• There are two types of raises, commonly referred to as contractual - stepping one box to the right (labeled in the 2020 agreement as the April 3 raises) and longevity - stepping one box down (takes place on the FA date of hire anniversary). Longevity raise is not to be confused with longevity increase at 25 years.
• If the TA is not ratified, there will be no contractual raises in April as we have had for the last 5 years, i.e. one box to the right, bc there are no more columns to the right. Only FAs with less than 20 years of service would get raises on their FA anniversary date, i.e. one step down the pay scale in the right-most column. And FAs who have reached 25 years will receive the longevity increase.
Q5: If the TA is ratified, when will these provisions go into effect? Such as the color code indication for coverage in Opentime?
• Currently in discussion with CS, primarily with Terrance Chariandy (Director of CS). The company has indicated it will be about a month to get the provision in place. The NC will follow up and provide information when it is received from the company.
Q6: Any concessions?
• The AFA made no concessions during this negotiation.
Q7: Being that the merger went through, and we are now under Alaska Air Group, What was the company’s rationale for not giving us pay parity with Alaska, besides the reasoning that this was not a full Section 6 negotiation. Does this mean that we would have to perhaps give up things in order for us to gain pay equal to that of Alaska?
• We did initially propose pay parity with AS. However, the company’s rationale for not agreeing to it was that our contract includes very different work rules and often more costly benefits compared to Alaska’s.
• NC did ask for parity, after review of the AS contract and how the company responded with the opening proposal. It was in the best interest of the Hawaiian FAs to narrow issues and focus on ensuring that Flight Attendants continued to receive pay increases while the JCBA was being negotiated.
Q8: What happens if the TA is not ratified?
• The 2020 negotiations lasted 3-years from 2017 to 2020. There were no raises during that period because you don’t receive raises until you ratify the contract. If we don’t ratify this TA, we don’t get the raises that have been negotiated or benefits with the additional provisions.
• The AFA is the legal bargaining representatives for the FAs, so we would continue negotiating with the company. The company as the other party in the negotiations has already indicated that they’re not interested in continuing Section 6 Hawaiian contract negotiations. They would turn their attention to the joint contract with Alaska. The AFA at that point would file for the assistance of the NMB (National Mediation Board) and request that a mediator be assigned. When we were in mediation last with the company it took over a year with the NC traveling up to PDX once a month with the mediation setting the calendar for the negotiations including the date, time and location. The mediator’s job is to push the parties along, however, it is not a quick process and will most likely not be something that would come together as quickly as this TA.
• As long as the Section 6 negotiations are ongoing, the entire contract is open for the company to come at us for other things. By ratifying this TA it will close the book on the company coming at us for other concessions and close up the contract.
• The JN process is estimated to take between two and three years.
• A “NO” vote would mean no raises in April and potentially no raises until we have a JCBA in place with AS.
Section 3 - Compensation
Questions From March 20, 2025 Communication
Q1: Was the longevity increase addressed?
A1: No changes were made to the longevity premium in this agreement
Q2: Will there be a signing bonus?
A2: A signing bonus was not included in this agreement. However, the TA ensures wage increases for all Flight Attendants. Normally, if negotiations extend past the contract’s “amendable date” (the end date) a signing bonus is negotiated to compensate for the period of time that the employees should have gotten the increased pay rates but did not because negotiations were ongoing. The Hawaiian Flight Attendant negotiations were concluded before the end of the current contract.
Q3: What was the company’s initial proposal, and what did the union propose?
A3: AFA’s initial proposal sought pay rate parity, including boarding pay, with the Alaska Airlines wage scale, with a top-out rate of $84.24. Management initially proposed a 2% wage increase per year over a three-year agreement. This was later increased to 2.75% per year before the final agreement of 6%–3%–3% was reached. Management emphasized that this negotiation was intended as an extension only, not a full contract renegotiation, and therefore declined to engage in discussions around full parity with Alaska's pay scale.
Q4: How does the pay scale in the TA compare to Alaska’s?
A4: While Alaska’s scale is generally higher across most steps, the pay scale “slope” differs between contracts, meaning that the increase between steps is not identical across the two.
Q5: Was boarding pay discussed in this TA?
A5: Boarding pay was included in AFA’s opening proposal, consistent with Alaska’s structure. However, management declined to consider this provision as they were not willing to entertain parity with Alaska Contract provisions without concessions or tradeoffs, in other words without opening the current contract. They reiterated that boarding pay and other such enhancements would only be addressed during Joint Negotiations.
Section 8 - Reserves / LOA Incentive Pay
Q1: Were any enhancements made to the RSA program, such as increased flexibility for Reserves?
A1: Based on the feedback driven by Reserves there was an attempt to address issues, but the Committee was unsuccessful in getting issues addressed or resolved. These issues will require internal policy changes outside the scope of this TA.
Q2: When will the company inform Flight Attendants about designated months for 1.5x Reserve premium pay?
A2: Designated months will likely be determined during the month based on operational needs. However, we have told management that for this incentive program to work, as much advance notice is crucial in incentivizing Reserves to participate.
Q3: Is there an estimate of how frequently the company will implement Reserve premium pay?
A3: No specific number of months has been projected. Usage will depend on monthly Reserve staffing levels and operational needs.
Q4: Is there concern that Reserves working above 85 hours may earn more than lineholders?
A4: The 1.5x premium applies only during designated months and only for time assigned by Crew Scheduling or awarded through RSA. Lineholders retain benefits such as schedule flexibility, schedule control, ability to have more than the minimum days off and opportunities for recall at 2x pay.
Q5: Are lineholders eligible for the 1.5x premium over 85 hours?
A5: No. The 1.5x premium is limited to Reserve-assigned flying or RSA-awarded trips during company-designated months. This provision was intended to provide targeted operational flexibility during high-demand periods.
Miscellaneous – Reserve-Related Questions
Q1: Will RSA bid rules be revised to allow Reserves more flexibility when selecting trips?
A1: AFA advocated for greater flexibility in RSA rules, but management did not agree to modify these provisions during this round of negotiations.
Q2: Will there be improvements to Reserve Self-Assignment (bid rules or “call me first” options)?
A2: No changes were negotiated to the Reserve Self-Assignment system in these negotiations but can and will be addressed in the Joint Negotiations.
Section 12 – Pickups, Drops, Trades & Exchanges
Q1: Will Crew Scheduling publish a Reserve coverage grid similar to ALPA’s system?
A1: The color-based coverage system is modeled after ALPA’s approach. AFA advocated for daily numerical posting, but management opposed this. The color system represents a compromise and is subject to change based on daily open time fluctuations.
Section 34-21 – Profit Sharing
Q1: What would happen to Profit Sharing eligibility if this issue was not addressed in Section 6?
A1: Without the TA, eligibility for a more favorable Profit Sharing program would have been delayed until the JCBA is ratified. The current HA program is less generous compared to Alaska’s. AFA consulted with the International Office and industry experts prior to these discussions for a full analysis and comparison of the two programs.
General – Extension TA Questions
Q1: Were any concessions made in this agreement?
A1: No concessions were made. What we have published are the only amendments being made to the Hawaiian Airlines Flight Attendant Contract.
Q2: Will the finalized TA language be available for review?
A2: Yes. The language is finalized and will be distributed to Flight Attendants and uploaded to the AFA website.
Q3: What happens if the TA is rejected by membership?
A3: If the TA is not ratified, Flight Attendants will continue working under the current agreement. AFA would seek additional bargaining sessions. If management declines, AFA would file for mediation with the National Mediation Board (NMB), although the NMB is likely to prioritize JCBA negotiations.
Q4: What were the priorities going into this negotiation? Was interisland pay addressed?
A4: Compensation for all Flight Attendants was the primary focus, including boarding pay and interisland pay improvements. Other priorities included vacation and 401(k) enhancements.
Q5: Why didn’t AFA push for more improvements, similar to what the pilots received?
A5: AFA submitted a comprehensive opening proposal and did push for significant improvements, but management refused to consider significant enhancements without opening up the current contract. The most recent ALPA negotiations was a full contract negotiation with trade-offs and was reached well before the merger announcement. The Flight Attendant TA had a compressed timeline due to the start of JCBA negotiations.
Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA)
Q1: Will hourly pay continue under the JCBA? Was boarding pay discussed?
A1: This TA for the Hawaiian Contract maintains the hourly pay structure. The issue of TFP Vs. Hourly Pay will be addressed in JCBA negotiations. Boarding pay was proposed by AFA during the Hawaiian Contract negotiations, but management declined to negotiate it during this extension.
Section 32 – Insurance and Benefits
Q1: Will there be any changes to our current HMSA healthcare coverage?
A1: No changes to healthcare coverage were made in this agreement.