CWA-AFA · Air Wisconsin
Contract Architecture Analysis
Effective Period: October 1, 2020 – September 30, 2022
Amendable since October 1, 2022
Agreement Metadata
The Air Wisconsin Flight Attendant Agreement is a mid-length regional-carrier contract negotiated during a disruption-heavy period and now operating well beyond its amendable date. While the agreement contains numerous defined rules and procedural protections, its architecture reflects a pre-pandemic operational model that has not been substantively modernized.
Status note: This agreement has been amendable since October 1, 2022, yet remains the governing framework for current operations.
Contract Architecture Overview
The Air Wisconsin agreement is structurally detailed and rule-dense, with extensive procedural specificity across scheduling, reserve utilization, and pay crediting. Unlike highly modular contracts, many provisions operate through layered conditions, exceptions, and interaction between sections rather than through closed, self-executing logic.
Management Rights are asserted broadly and early (Section 3), with subsequent sections functioning primarily as carve-outs from that baseline authority. This creates an architecture where protections exist, but are frequently contingent on compliance with process, timing, and classification requirements.
Implication: The agreement relies heavily on procedural enforcement rather than structural constraint to protect Flight Attendant interests.
Scheduling & Assignment Framework
Scheduling rules are extensive and highly specific, covering bid line construction, relief lines, reserve categories (including Ready Reserve), drafting limits, reroutes, resequencing, critical flying, and open time assignment. Many protections are clearly articulated, such as caps on drafting frequency and defined reserve call-out windows.
However, the Company retains broad authority to designate open flying, critical flying, and operational adjustments. Numerous provisions require Flight Attendants to actively assert rights (e.g., requesting adjustments, calling scheduling, disputing awards within short windows) to preserve protections.
Analytical lens: High rule density with meaningful protections, but significant reliance on Flight Attendant vigilance and procedural compliance.
Economic Structure
The economic architecture is relatively robust for a regional carrier. Monthly guarantees are set at seventy (70) hours for both lineholders and reserves, with multiple rigs in effect, including duty rigs, trip rigs, minimum daily pay, drafting pay at time-and-a-half, and holiday premiums.
At the same time, pay construction is complex, with non-pyramiding rules, numerous conditional premiums, and distinctions between scheduled, actual, and credited time. While this allows for reasonable earnings stability, it also increases opacity and the likelihood of payroll disputes.
Key insight: Economic protections are solid on paper, but enforcement and verification burdens fall disproportionately on individual Flight Attendants.
Enforcement & Dispute Resolution Architecture
The agreement contains a formal grievance procedure with defined timelines, investigation rights, and access to a System Board of Adjustment. Importantly, failure by the Company to meet grievance timelines results in the grievance being granted, while Union failure results in denial (Section 4.F).
Grievance mediation is available by mutual agreement, and arbitration costs are shared. While the structure is procedurally sound, remedies are typically retrospective, and there are limited interim protections during disputes.
Structural takeaway: The enforcement framework is formally balanced, but slow-moving and reactive rather than preventative.
Structural Strengths, Weaknesses & Comparative Flags
Air Wisconsin’s agreement reflects a highly negotiated regional-carrier contract with detailed work rules, respectable pay guarantees, and a comprehensive scheduling framework. Its strengths lie in specificity and the breadth of covered scenarios.
Its primary weaknesses are architectural age and over-reliance on process. Many protections require active enforcement by Flight Attendants, and the agreement lacks the modular, self-executing constraints seen in more modern CBAs. The extended amendable status further weakens leverage and reliability.
Standardized Contract Scorecard
| Domain | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Scheduling Protections | 3.7 | Extensive rules and caps, but broad company discretion and heavy process-dependence |
| Pay & Credit Quality | 3.9 | Strong guarantees and rigs; complex crediting and non-pyramiding reduce transparency |
| Work Rules & Quality-of-Life | 3.6 | Comprehensive coverage, but dated assumptions and limited modernization |
| Company Discretion Constraint | 2.9 | Management Rights section remains dominant, with protections framed as exceptions |
| Enforcement Power | 3.6 | Balanced grievance system, but remedies are retrospective and slow |
| Clarity & Modularity | 3.2 | High detail, but dense cross-conditions and procedural branching increase cognitive load |
| Total | 20.9 | out of 30 |
Context Notes
This agreement governs a regional carrier operating under capacity-purchase arrangements and has remained amendable since 2022. Scores reflect contract architecture as written and applied, not bargaining intent or external economic constraints.