CWA-AFA · Spirit Airlines

Agreement Metadata

• Carrier: Spirit Airlines, Inc.
• Union: Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (CWA-AFA)
• Governing Law: Railway Labor Act (RLA)
• Recognition: NMB certification R-6767 (Nov. 6, 2000)
• Scope posture: Broad “operational control” coverage including wet leases; limited time-bounded contracting-out window (90 days per occurrence) with no-furlough constraint

Contract Architecture Overview

Spirit’s agreement reflects a modern, systemized operational contract architecture built around explicit scheduling subsystems (Transition, Credit Restoration, Seniority Open Time, Daily Open Time, and near–real time trading), paired with a credit and pay structure that converts disruption into defined outcomes rather than informal discretion.

Several structural signals recur throughout the agreement: (1) a high reliance on documented processes (recorded scheduling lines, retained transaction logs, audit access for union representatives); (2) explicit conversion of disruptions into pay/credit restoration paths (e.g., Day Off Restoration, Time Recoverable Status); and (3) a built-in “exception taxonomy” for irregular operations (including the agreement’s “ADP3” definition for severe network disruption).

The architecture also preserves management rights broadly, but constrains their operational exercise through process: formal order-of-assignment sequencing, positive-contact requirements, caps on junior assignment and reroute frequency, and explicit compensation triggers (150% and 200% constructs for defined scenarios).

Implication summary: This agreement is best read as a scheduling-and-credit machine: it reduces ambiguity by (a) forcing operational actions into named pathways with timing, notice, and audit rules, and (b) compensating flexibility through defined premium and restoration mechanisms. Its practical strength depends on process integrity (logging, recordings, and correct classification), but where those mechanisms function, the contract is structurally defensible under operational stress.

Scheduling & Assignment Framework

Scheduling is organized into discrete, time-bounded stages with clear sequencing: Monthly Bid → Initial Award → Transition (trip drops for conflicts) → Credit Restoration → Relief Line award → Final Award → Seniority Open Time rounds → Daily Open Time and near–real time trading. This reduces “hidden discretion” by making schedule change pathways visible and timestamped.

The agreement uses several unusually explicit structural controls:

• Schedule integrity as a defined concept. The agreement defines “Schedule Integrity” as the right to fly awarded trips and retain minimum days off, subject to legality and defined exceptions.
• Positive contact as an enforceable control surface. Assignment/reschedule/reroute actions are routed through “Positive Contact,” including phone or electronic means, and the Flight Attendant must confirm notification.
• Order of assignment is codified. Open flying is assigned through an explicit ordering (Time Recoverable → Reserves → Premium Pick-Up Folder → Reserves on movable days off → Reroute (out of base) → Junior Assignment).
• Time Recoverable Status. A named rescheduling state that limits what may be assigned (no reserve assignment), constrains assignment timing, and introduces automatic day-by-day release if a replacement is not assigned by defined deadlines.
• Day Off Restoration (DOR). A structured restoration mechanism with redemption restrictions (e.g., not on Critical Days or Holiday Weekends) and an alternate “cash-out” option (4:00 credit above guarantee).

Reserve protections are particularly explicit: reserves have immoveable “Guaranteed Days Off” (GDOs) designated partly by the Flight Attendant and partly by the Company, moveable days off with restoration rights, five shift-based notification windows (A–E), minimum notice to report, bucket assignment ordering, real-time transparency requirements, and partial exemptions from Ready Reserve assignment by base size and seniority preference.

Analytical lens: Spirit’s scheduling framework is constraint-forward but not rigid. It permits flexibility, but the flexibility is forced through named channels with recordkeeping, defined timing windows, and pay/restoration consequences.

Economic Structure

Spirit’s pay/credit architecture is built on a 72-hour bid period guarantee with layered pairing guarantees that reward time away and duty construction: duty-period minimums (4:30 multi-day; 4:00 single duty period), an additional duty-period credit for extended layovers beyond 22 hours, and a time-away-from-base credit mechanic (1:00 per 4.20 hours TAFB).

Premium and penalty economics are not incidental; they are used as structural constraints: reroute/reschedule pay protection uses “greater-of” logic with 150% pay for additional pairing credit above the original trip, junior assignment pays 1.5x above guarantee, company-designated premium flying pays 200% trip credit above guarantee, and holiday pay is 200% subject to completion conditions. Deadhead pay is credited at 100% (flight deadhead), which is a notable valuation choice in a domestic ULCC context.

Key insight: The economic system is constructed to make schedule integrity and disruption pathways auditable and compensable. Rather than relying on informal practices to “make people whole,” the agreement embeds explicit restoration and premium triggers that activate when defined states occur.

Enforcement & Dispute Resolution Architecture

Enforcement is a standard RLA grievance and System Board model, with an additional front-end non-disciplinary intake step: a Complaint Resolution Form (CRF) is required prior to filing a non-disciplinary grievance, with defined deadlines and escalation rights. Monthly grievance meetings function as a structured resolution stage before System Board appeal.

A notable enforcement feature is the agreement’s multi-layer mediation design: quarterly mediation for System Board-submitted grievances, and optional mediation with an NMB mediator that can produce an advisory decision (adoptable by mutual agreement). This increases throughput in a fact-intensive system without collapsing entirely into arbitration.

The contract also hardens evidentiary leverage in scheduling disputes: Crew Scheduling/SOD calls are recorded and retained, the union has access rights, and if a recording is not available, the issue is resolved in favor of the Flight Attendant in the absence of additional evidence. That is a rare, structurally meaningful enforceability clause.

Structural takeaway: Enforcement remains retrospective, but the agreement’s audit architecture (transactions + recordings) materially improves enforceability. The mediation layers provide additional mechanisms for resolution without waiting for full System Board arbitration.

Structural Strengths, Weaknesses & Comparative Flags

Structural strengths: Highly modular scheduling ecosystem (Transition/Credit Restoration/SOT/DOT); explicit order-of-assignment controls; strong reserve design (GDO immoveables + shifts + bucket ordering + real-time transparency); robust pay/credit “greater-of” logic with defined premiums; and strong evidentiary enforcement tools (recordings + presumption when missing).

Structural weaknesses: High cognitive load due to subsystem density; reliance on correct classification and process execution; and continued management rights breadth (though bounded procedurally) that can shift outcomes through designated exceptions (e.g., Critical Days / Holiday Weekends).

Comparative flags: This agreement is a “process-and-audit” contract: it assumes a high volume of scheduling transactions and builds enforceability through logs, recorded lines, and named states (Time Recoverable, DOR, premium folders) rather than simple prohibition.

Standardized Contract Scorecard

Context Notes

This agreement explicitly defines severe irregular operations states (e.g., “ADP3”) and embeds operational exceptions (Critical Days / Holiday Weekends) into drop/trade and restoration logic. Readers should interpret these as structural “pressure valves” that preserve system integrity under stress, while compensating or restoring through defined pathways when those valves are used.