CWA-AFA · Air Transport International

Agreement Metadata

This agreement is a compact, plain-language collective bargaining agreement covering Flight Attendants at Air Transport International (ATI). It is structurally lean relative to major-carrier agreements, with low cross-reference density and comparatively few layered exceptions. The contract’s core strengths are clarity, predictability, and an enforcement system that is unusually well-defined for its size.

Source note: This analysis is based on the 2025–2029 ATI Flight Attendant Agreement. (See cover page and Section 16.)

Contract Architecture Overview

ATI’s agreement follows a straightforward sectional design: recognition and scope, definitions, scheduling and reserve, compensation and benefits, travel/expenses, vacations, training, leaves, seniority, furlough/recall, general provisions, and a dedicated investigations/grievance/arbitration section. Because the contract is short and generally self-contained, most outcomes can be determined without extensive cross-walking across multiple articles.

The tradeoff for this clarity is that some protections are less “systematized” than in larger agreements. Rather than complex procedural tracks and layered remedies, the contract relies on direct rules, defined premium payments, and a grievance process designed to move disputes to a System Board when necessary.

Implication: The agreement is highly navigable, but its overall protective strength depends heavily on how broad management rights and operational discretion are interpreted in practice.

Scheduling & Assignment Framework

Scheduling protections are expressed through concrete, operational rules: report and release standards, duty and rest constructs, bid line posting and award timelines, open time processes, trade rules, reserve contact/response requirements, and a defined junior assignment/extension framework. This architecture is more “rules-forward” than “policy-forward” and is therefore relatively accessible to line-level users.

However, the agreement expressly reserves the Company’s right to change operations and scheduling practices based on business judgment, subject to notice and effects bargaining. This creates a structural tension: day-to-day rules are clear, but the Company retains meaningful discretion to alter scheduling practices in ways that can reshape the operating environment.

Analytical lens: Strong baseline clarity and several concrete protections, tempered by a broad operational-change lever.

Economic Structure

ATI’s economic architecture emphasizes readability and reliability. The Bid Unit Guarantee is explicitly stated as 56 hours, with pay calculated as the greater of the guarantee or credited hours. Live flying credits on a one-for-one basis using the greater of scheduled or actual block time. Deadhead credit is generally one-for-two, with specific rules for company aircraft, commercial international segments, and surface transportation.

Premium and additional compensation provisions are enumerated rather than heavily layered: junior assignment/extension premium above guarantee, aircraft cleaning premium, passenger-onboard delay credit, and a check flight attendant premium. Payroll procedures include an explicit mechanism for timely correction of pay shortages above a threshold, supporting enforceability and trust in the pay system.

Key insight: The agreement is not optimized for maximum upside, but it is structurally strong in transparency and payment reliability once credit rules are applied.

Enforcement & Dispute Resolution Architecture

The enforcement system is one of the agreement’s strongest architectural components. Discipline is governed by just cause, written notice requirements, and an investigation framework that permits representation. Grievances are defined as disputes over interpretation or application of the agreement, must be filed within a specified window, and proceed through defined meeting and decision steps.

Importantly, if the Company fails to hold a hearing or issue a decision within the prescribed time limits, the grievance is treated as denied and automatically advances to the System Board. This mechanism reduces the incentive to delay and improves procedural reliability. The agreement also includes an expedited arbitration pathway for certain scope-related disputes.

Structural takeaway: Clear timelines plus automatic advancement reduce enforcement inertia and strengthen the practical value of negotiated rights.

Structural Strengths, Weaknesses & Comparative Flags

ATI’s agreement is a strong example of a “compact contract” model: relatively short, direct language, low cross-reference burden, and a pay system that is easy to audit. Its enforcement section is comparatively well-designed, including a default pathway that advances disputes when time limits are missed. These characteristics support line-level usability and reduce ambiguity-driven friction.

The principal structural weakness is the breadth of management rights and operational discretion. While many day-to-day rules are clear, the Company reserves authority to change terms not specifically provided for, and to change operations and scheduling practices subject to effects bargaining. This can reduce the stability of protections over time and shift key outcomes into policy space rather than contract space.

Standardized Contract Scorecard

Context Notes

ATI operates in a cargo/charter environment with heavy reliance on deadheading, irregular operations, and customer-driven flying. This agreement’s architecture prioritizes readability and enforceable process over layered economic systems. Scores reflect contract structure as written, not bargaining intent or external market constraints.