Contract Analysis Criteria

Purpose and Method

CrewSignal evaluates flight attendant collective bargaining agreements using a structural and operational rubric. The goal is to assess how contract language performs under real operational pressure — including irregular operations — and how drafting choices allocate clarity, responsibility, and risk.

This rubric evaluates the contract as written. It does not assess negotiating intent, internal union strategy, or provide legal advice. Airline-specific analyses apply the same criteria to ensure consistent, comparable results across unions and carriers.

Interpreting Scorecard Profiles

The standardized scorecard used in Contract Architecture reports is designed to evaluate structural design choices within individual agreements, not to rank carriers or unions in isolation.

Differences in score profiles may reflect distinct operational models (e.g., long-haul vs. domestic), differing regulatory environments (e.g., FAA vs. EASA-anchored operations), or negotiated decisions to externalize certain constraints to binding law or regulation rather than embed them directly in contract language.

As a result, higher or lower scores in specific domains should not be read automatically as indicators of stronger or weaker bargaining outcomes. In some agreements, protections are enforced primarily through contract-internal mechanisms; in others, they are anchored to externally binding regulatory frameworks with the agreement providing compensation, clarity, and enforceability around those limits.

The scorecard is intended to support contract-specific analysis and reader understanding, enabling informed comparison across agreements over time. Broader qualitative analysis—such as evaluating negotiation patterns across unions or identifying recurring strengths in particular domains— will be addressed separately and explicitly in future comparative work.

I. Structural Clarity

Question: Is the contract logically organized and navigable under operational pressure?

• Clear section sequencing (definitions → rules → remedies)
• Consistent use of defined terms
• Amendments integrated vs. bolted on
• Cross-references that resolve questions (not scavenger hunts)

Why it matters: Poor structure increases interpretive discretion at the moment of enforcement.

II. Rule Construction & Precision

Question: Do provisions fully resolve situations, or leave ambiguity?

• Mandatory vs. discretionary language (“shall” vs. “may”)
• Closed conditional logic (“if / then / unless”)
• Explicit time windows, notice rules, and triggers
• No undefined “third states” of responsibility

Why it matters: Ambiguity shifts risk to the flight attendant during irregular operations.

III. Burden Allocation

Question: Who must act to preserve contractual rights?

• Automatic protections vs. employee-initiated claims
• Company obligations triggered by events vs. contact
• Default outcomes when no action is taken
• Silent forfeiture risks (procedural traps)

Why it matters: Contracts that require perfect member behavior to preserve rights are structurally weaker.

IV. Enforcement Pathway

Question: How does a violation actually get remedied?

• Self-executing remedies vs. grievance-dependent outcomes
• Time limits for correction and payment
• Retroactivity and interest provisions (if any)
• Discipline exposure arising from the same event

Why it matters: A right without a reliable remedy is not operationally meaningful.

V. Internal Consistency

Question: Does the contract contradict itself?

• Uniform treatment of identical concepts across sections
• Exceptions clearly bounded and visible
• No “silent overrides” in side letters or MOUs
• Consistent terminology across the agreement

Why it matters: Inconsistency is a primary driver of adverse arbitration outcomes.

VI. Operational Reality Alignment

Question: Does the contract reflect how airlines actually operate?

• Reserve vs. lineholder distinctions grounded in operational reality
• Integration of federal legality and duty/rest rules
• Assumptions fit national network operations and mobile crews
• Clear handling of irregular operations edge cases

Why it matters: Contracts written for static workplaces fail mobile crews.

VII. Transparency & Accessibility

Question: Can members realistically understand and use the contract?

• Plain-language drafting where possible
• Definitions and key concepts discoverable and consistently applied
• Length vs. density tradeoffs managed
• Usable under time pressure (not just at a desk)

Why it matters: Opacity consolidates interpretive power away from the membership.

Standard Output

Each airline-specific review includes:

• Structural strengths
• Structural weaknesses
• High-risk ambiguity zones
• Enforcement reliability (qualitative)

Topic-based modules (e.g., reassignment, pay protection, duty-day legality) apply standardized hypotheticals across multiple contracts after structural baselines are established.