CWA-AFA · Omni Air International

Agreement Metadata

• Carrier: Omni Air International, Inc. (OAI)
• Workgroup: Flight Attendants in the service of Omni Air International
• Union: CWA-AFA
• Labor framework: Railway Labor Act (RLA)
• Stated certification: NMB Certification (R7298) dated October 26, 2011
• Agreement term architecture: Effective on DOS; amendable (Section 6 notice) no earlier than DOS+48 months; runs through DOS+60 months and remains in effect until amended under the RLA

Document limitation: This agreement copy uses “DOS” (Date of Signing) as the effective anchor and does not specify the actual signing date within the provided text. Term and amendable timing are therefore expressed using the agreement’s DOS-based formulas.

Contract Architecture Overview

Omni’s agreement is best understood as a charter-program operating model contract rather than a conventional scheduled-service domestic carrier contract. The architecture repeatedly anticipates (and normalizes) variability in flying: customer contracts (including governmental and military charters), wet lease/damp lease and interchange constructs, program-specific qualification requirements, TDY staffing, dedicated crew assignments, and irregular duty-day shapes including long deadhead-only duty periods.

The agreement’s structural center of gravity is scope + scheduling mechanics. Scope is broad (“all flight attendant work performed on revenue flying on the Company’s aircraft… under the Company’s operational control”) but contains explicit carve-outs for customer-furnished cabin crew, wet leases, interchange, and customer-requirement staffing exceptions (e.g., language/security clearance/physical capability) — a design choice that reflects the carrier’s charter and contract-driven operating reality. That same pattern appears in scheduling: the contract builds a modular system (bid lines, reserve, open time, TDY/program flying, dedicated crew) that assumes assignments will evolve after publication and channels that evolution through defined processes.

The economic subsystem reinforces this model: a 65:00 monthly pay guarantee (MPG) for full-month availability and a “greater of MPG or pay credit hours” calculation. Credit construction includes 1:1 live block, 1:2 deadhead, and discrete pay credit for training/CBT/airport standby and vacation. Premiums are targeted (call-out/holdover on days off, extended duty premiums, galley pay, cleaning/catering premiums) rather than multiplier-heavy.

Enforcement is a conventional RLA grievance pathway with a single neutral system board, defined timelines, document exchange, subpoena authority, and a notable optional grievance mediation layer with NMB training and mediator advisory opinions (non-binding unless settlement). This is a structurally meaningful “pre-arbitration valve” for a contract operating in high-variance, fact-intensive dispute environments.

Implication summary: Omni’s architecture trades the categorical constraints typical of scheduled-service CBAs for a framework optimized for program/charter variability. Where protections are strong, they are process-bound and documentable. Where constraints are weaker, it is often because the contract must preserve operational flexibility to satisfy external customer and program requirements.

Scheduling & Assignment Framework

Scheduling is organized as a modular system: bid line packages (monthly or multi-month), line construction rules (duty periods + days off), reserve and airport standby constructs, open time award/assignment ordering (reserve → volunteers via Will Fly List → management FAs → involuntary days off), trip displacement rules, and structured processes for TDY, program flying, and dedicated crew assignments.

Two structural features define this agreement’s scheduling posture:

• Days off are treated as the hard boundary. Published assignments on duty days are “for planning purposes only” and subject to change, but scheduled days off are not subject to change. This is a clear architectural line that improves predictability in a variable-duty environment.
• Open time is economically optimized, then seniority-resolved. Volunteer award selection prioritizes operational efficiency (geography, available duty days), using seniority only when other factors are equal. This is consistent with charter economics, but it also means “procedural fairness” can be driven by cost logic rather than pure seniority.

Reserve is strict (physical presence at a designated location, 2-hour report standard with a 1-hour option if the Company provides lodging/transport). Airport standby is capped (10:00) and credited toward duty limits. Scheduling communications are unusually formalized for a non-mainline carrier: recorded phone lines with retention rules, limits on random review for discipline, and routing illegality disputes to an inflight supervisor rather than schedulers.

Analytical lens: Protections here are strong when the issue is “structure” (days off boundary, defined processes, recorded interactions). They are weaker where the agreement explicitly preserves discretion for program/customer requirements (qualifications, dedicated crew interviews, and operational efficiency selection criteria).

Economic Structure

The pay system is built on a guarantee spine + auditable credits rather than premium-multiplier density. A full-month available Flight Attendant receives a 65:00 MPG, reduced in 3.43-hour increments for unprotected unavailability. Base pay is the greater of MPG or cumulative pay credit hours (PCH). PCH construction is explicit: 1:1 live block, 1:2 deadhead, day-based training credit (3.43 per day), CBT credit on a 1:2 basis, airport standby credit on 1:2, and vacation at 3.43 per day.

Premium architecture is modular and targeted: day-off call-out/holdover ($200 + greater of 3.43 or actual live/deadhead hours), galley pay on widebody, extended duty premiums, plus discrete task premiums (cleaning, catering) rather than broad “time-and-a-half” type constructs.

Key insight: This is an economics model optimized for a charter carrier where deadhead time, program constraints, and long duty constructs are structural realities. The agreement prioritizes defined valuation rules and predictable guarantee outcomes over high-variance premium systems.

Enforcement & Dispute Resolution Architecture

Enforcement follows a standard RLA pattern (grievance steps → system board), with “just cause” discipline language, investigation/hearing rights, timeline discipline on both parties, and system board limits (no power to modify the agreement). The system board is built around a single neutral arbitrator selected through mutual agreement or NMB panel/strike procedures, with written decisions and defined hearing location rules.

A notable structural feature is the optional grievance mediation layer: NMB training, mediator conferences, closed record rules, and an “advisory decision” concept if no settlement (unless both parties agree no opinion will be provided). This is an explicit architectural attempt to resolve high-friction disputes earlier in a fact-heavy environment without collapsing into arbitration-only dynamics.

Structural takeaway: The dispute system is procedurally complete and unusually intentional about pre-arbitration settlement pathways. Remedies remain retrospective (as in most RLA systems), but the mediation valve improves the contract’s practical throughput for resolving disputes.

Structural Strengths, Weaknesses & Comparative Flags

Structural strengths: A clear days-off boundary; highly modular scheduling subsystems (reserve, open time, TDY/program/dedicated crew); explicit credit construction and guarantee spine; recorded scheduling communications with retention and anti-random-review constraints; and a complete enforcement stack including optional mediation.

Structural weaknesses: Scope contains explicit operational carve-outs that can function as pressure relief valves for customer-driven staffing; management rights are broad; volunteer open-time award selection is efficiency-first; and several high-impact areas (program qualification gating, dedicated crew interviews, operational necessity exceptions) preserve substantial discretion.

Comparative flags: This agreement’s architecture is shaped by charter-program variability. Readers should expect the contract to optimize for process control and auditable rules more than categorical limits typical of scheduled-service agreements.

Standardized Contract Scorecard

Context Notes

This agreement’s core design challenge is integrating charter/program variability into a contract that remains enforceable and auditable. Many provisions that appear “discretionary” in isolation (qualifications, dedicated crew, TDY/program constructs) operate as structural necessities in a customer-contract-driven carrier model. The most durable protections in this agreement tend to be the ones that (a) create hard boundaries (days off), (b) create recorded or documentable interactions, and (c) convert complex operational realities into defined credit/guarantee outcomes.