TWU · Flight Services International

Agreement Metadata

This analysis examines the collective bargaining agreement between Flight Services International, LLC (FSI) and the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (TWU) covering Flight Attendants in the craft or class certified by the National Mediation Board in Case No. R-7445 (January 12, 2016). The agreement is effective from March 1, 2021 through February 28, 2026 under the Railway Labor Act.

Architecturally, this agreement is unusual among flight attendant contracts because FSI operates as a service provider to multiple Company Airline Clients. As a result, many substantive work rules governing scheduling, compensation, benefits, and travel are incorporated by reference to client-specific policies rather than being fully defined within the agreement itself.

The agreement includes multiple Letters of Agreement, including an Atlas-specific LOA, an implementation agreement, and a grandfathered seniority rights LOA. These documents underscore that the agreement is designed to support multiple operational contexts rather than a single carrier model.

Contract Architecture Overview

FSI’s agreement functions as a framework contract rather than a comprehensive internal work-rule code. It establishes recognition, scope, seniority, and enforcement rights while explicitly deferring many substantive terms to Company Airline Client guidelines.

This design choice produces a structurally “thin” contract: protections are concentrated in process, scope, and enforceability rather than in dense scheduling or pay mechanics. Day-to-day operational outcomes depend heavily on the stability, transparency, and consistent application of client policies.

Implication Summary: The agreement’s strength lies in its enforceable scaffolding—scope, seniority, and access to grievance remedies—while its limitations arise from externalizing substantive work rules to documents that are not themselves collectively bargained.

Scheduling & Assignment Framework

Scheduling and assignment are governed primarily by Company Airline Client guidelines. Published schedules are designated “for planning purposes only,” subject to operational change, while scheduled days off remain anchored to the Flight Attendant’s assigned base.

The agreement defines categories of assignment authority—reassignment, extension, junior assignment—but the substantive rules governing those actions are largely client-driven. One notable contract-level constraint is a cap on involuntary work on scheduled days off: no more than four (4) days in a bid month, absent force majeure.

Reserve is treated as a flexible availability construct rather than a tightly constrained subsystem. The agreement allows multiple reserve types (residence, hotel, hot standby) and permits reserve location changes within a day. Contactability rules are explicit, but assignment content and valuation depend on client policy.

Analytical Lens: Scheduling protections here are procedural rather than substantive. The agreement establishes boundaries for contact, days off, and reserve status, but leaves most scheduling outcomes to external client rules.

Economic Structure

Compensation under this agreement is not internally standardized. Outside of Atlas-specific provisions, pay rates, per diem, and certain benefits are governed by Company Airline Client policies rather than by a unified contract pay table.

Where the agreement does establish economic rules, it does so through baseline constructs such as the Bid Month Guarantee (BMG), loss-of-guarantee rules for unpaid statuses, and expense/travel frameworks. Deadhead, training, and duty valuation are likewise dependent on client policy.

Key Insight: Economic outcomes are structurally variable by design. The agreement prioritizes staffing flexibility across multiple clients at the expense of uniform, contract-internal compensation architecture.

Enforcement & Dispute Resolution Architecture

The agreement provides a conventional grievance and System Board of Adjustment process with defined timelines and escalation steps. Violations of published client guidelines are grievable when those guidelines are applied inconsistently or conflict with the agreement’s scope or seniority provisions.

Recorded scheduling communications may be requested for administrative review, but recordings are not intended to function as automatic evidentiary presumptions in discipline cases.

Structural Takeaway: Enforcement leverage is strongest where disputes implicate scope, seniority, or process. It is weaker where disputes turn on the substance of client policies that sit outside the negotiated agreement.

Structural Strengths, Weaknesses & Comparative Flags

Structural strengths: Clear recognition and scope framing; enforceable seniority concepts; a functioning grievance/SBA framework; and adaptability to multiple operational contexts.

Structural weaknesses: Substantive work rules are externalized to client policies; reserve and scheduling constraints are light; and compensation lacks internal standardization.

Comparative flags: This is a framework contract, not a carrier-specific rule set. Readers should evaluate strength here as enforceable scaffolding rather than as comprehensive work-rule protection.

Standardized Contract Scorecard