IAM · National Airlines

Agreement Metadata

This report examines the collective bargaining agreement covering Flight Attendants employed by National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a National Airlines (“National Airlines”), represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). The agreement applies to Flight Attendants assigned to domiciles located in the United States, its territories, and possessions, within Railway Labor Act jurisdiction. The agreement references NMB Certification Number R-7565 (January 21, 2022) recognizing the IAM as bargaining representative for the covered craft or class.

Architecturally, this agreement is compact and operationally oriented. Several articles are explicitly “Reserved,” and core work-rule concepts (guarantees, days off, call-out structures, deadhead valuation, and premium logic for day-off work) are concentrated in the Scheduling and Wage/Compensation articles. The contract also contains strong structural clauses typical of first-generation airline agreements: scope framing for Flight Attendant work, an alter-ego restriction, and successorship protections.

Contract Architecture Overview

National Airlines’ IAM agreement reflects a “minimal-but-functional” architecture designed for a small Flight Attendant group operating under a high-variance, non-mainline environment. The contract prioritizes baseline predictability (minimum days off, a bi-weekly guarantee) and codifies basic assignment mechanics (report/release definitions, short/long call notice windows), while leaving substantial operational discretion with the Company through an expansive management rights clause.

The agreement’s structure indicates a deliberate trade: it provides a clear floor for pay and scheduling while relying on the grievance/system board process for enforcement rather than embedding self-executing constraints. The presence of “Reserved” articles further signals that the agreement is intended to function as an initial framework with room for future expansion and modular strengthening.

Implication summary: This agreement is best read as an early-stage architecture that establishes enforceable baselines (guarantees, days off, day-off premium rules, deadhead valuation) while preserving broad management discretion. Its practical strength depends on whether process enforcement (grievance handling and System Board access) is utilized consistently.

Scheduling & Assignment Framework

Scheduling rules are centralized in Article 3. The agreement provides a bi-weekly minimum guarantee (30.0 hours) for Flight Attendants who are available for duty, with proration for days unavailable and an option to apply PTO to cover absences. A monthly minimum of twelve (12) days off is guaranteed.

Duty Time is defined as Report Time to Release Time. Normal report time for a revenue flight is 1:30 prior to scheduled departure. Normal release time is 0:30 after block-in, or at hotel arrival if the hotel is more than one hour from the airport. The Company may alter report times as operationally necessary. Duty time limits are stated to comply with FARs.

Reserve-like availability is expressed through “Short Call” and “Long Call” constructs: 4-hour and 12-hour notice requirements beginning upon positive contact, with a 15-minute callback window and repeated contact attempts. These mechanisms are clear, but they function primarily as availability rules rather than as constraint systems on assignment authority.

The agreement also defines day-off utilization rules with both voluntary and involuntary pathways. Voluntary work on a guaranteed day off is awarded through a volunteer system, with pay constructed as the greater of (hours worked + 2) or a 5-hour minimum, and paid above the bi-weekly guarantee. Involuntary day-off work uses the same floor but adds a stated premium (at least 150% for involuntary hours on guaranteed days off).

Analytical lens: Scheduling protections are present but are baseline-focused. The contract defines key timing and pay mechanics for day-off work and call-out, but it does not build a dense constraint structure (ordering rules, hard reassignment ceilings, or self-executing release triggers).

Economic Structure

Wage and compensation rules are consolidated in Article 24 and rely on an hourly pay model by longevity, with a published rate table and annual progression. The agreement explicitly applies pay rates to related compensated activity (e.g., training and deadheads), subject to agreement-defined valuation rules (including 50% pay for training and deadheads where specified).

Deadhead pay is explicitly valued at 50% for assigned deadhead flights and surface transportation deadhead (based on normal travel times). Per diem is specified separately for domestic and international operations.

Premium architecture is narrow but direct: the agreement provides a $7.50/hour Purser premium for time spent working in that position, and defines minimum-pay logic for day-off work (greater of hours+2 or 5 hours, with a 150% premium on involuntary day-off hours). The contract also allows the Company to increase Flight Attendant pay up to 25% at its discretion with advance notice and a meet-and-confer opportunity.

Key insight: The economic structure is designed to provide a clear floor (bi-weekly guarantee + minimum day-off pay logic) and simple valuation rules. However, the presence of unilateral wage-increase discretion (with notice) is an atypical feature that increases variability and reduces predictability in how total compensation evolves across the agreement term.

Enforcement & Dispute Resolution Architecture

The agreement establishes a multi-step grievance system that includes local handling, a Grievance Review Board process, and escalation pathways culminating in a System Board of Adjustment. Time limits are defined, and failure to meet time limits generally causes decisions to become final, while certain Company failures can advance a grievance automatically. The System Board includes a neutral referee selected by agreement, with a panel/strike process if the parties cannot agree on a neutral for a specific case.

Discipline protections include “just cause” framing and defined timelines for issuance and hearings, but probationary Flight Attendants are excluded from the disciplinary grievance pathway. The agreement also provides discipline sunset rules (letters removed after a defined period absent similar infractions), which improves long-term member protection but does not create punitive remedies against the Company.

Structural takeaway: Enforcement is procedurally complete for a compact agreement and includes multiple resolution stages. Remedies remain corrective rather than punitive; the agreement relies on the throughput and discipline of the grievance pipeline to make baseline protections meaningful.

Structural Strengths, Weaknesses & Comparative Flags

Structural strengths: Clear scope and successorship framing; an alter-ego restriction; simple and understandable baseline scheduling floors (12 days off; 30-hour bi-weekly guarantee); explicit short/long call notice constructs; defined minimum pay logic for day-off work (including a stated involuntary premium); and a fully formed grievance/System Board framework with a neutral referee.

Structural weaknesses: Broad management rights; limited self-executing constraints on scheduling authority; extensive “Reserved” articles that reduce modular completeness; reliance on procedural enforcement for most protections; and limited economic sophistication beyond defined floors and narrow premiums.

Comparative flags: This contract functions as a first-generation baseline for a small Flight Attendant group. Readers should expect future bargaining rounds to expand modularity (reserve architecture, reassignment limits, pay/credit definitions, and QoL protections) if the parties elect to mature the framework.

Standardized Contract Scorecard

Context Notes

The agreement’s signature block indicates signing on November 6, 2023, while the cover page is dated September 20, 2024. This report uses the signing date as the effective anchor because the Effective Date & Duration article ties effectiveness to signing.

Several articles are marked “Reserved,” signaling an initial framework that may be expanded in future bargaining rounds.