Greetings,

March 6,2009

Dear Flight Attendants,

We have completed the base meetings and conference calls scheduled to answer
questions and address concerns regarding the proposed Tentative Agreement (TA).
The polls close the morning of Tuesday March 10th I wanted to get this out to
share some of the most frequently asked questions and most often expressed
concerns from the bases and on the calls.  My apologies if it doesn't flow well
I'm really just going to rattle them off!

A sentiment we heard loud and clear over the last two weeks, and it was
especially well articulated on Wednesday morning's conference call, is that the
members want and need to know what our MEC thinks about the proposed TA.  Many
said they understood and even appreciated the "neutral" position but that it
was causing growing levels of concern and confusion thus outweighing the
goodwill it had initially evoked. Your MEC supports this TA.  There are a lot
of factors involved.  We do believe we were able to negotiate successfully a TA
that contains pay scale increases that rise to, and exceed our historical
percentages.  And we did so during a period in which, as we learned from our
AFA Director of Collective Bargaining Clare Burt, very few of carriers are even
seeing increases on the table.  We did so without any increase to the formula
that governs our monthly insurance contributions, as was initially proposed by
management.  And we did it with a front-end, money-in-our-pockets bonus as a
result of being grandfathered into the 2008 Performance Based Pay (PBP)
program.  The VPP program is going to pay nothing for 2008.

We had a lot of questions regarding several aspects of the PBS re-ratification
vote.  Because the implementation of PBS was delayed we will be having the vote
in October of 2010 rather than March of 2009 as expected.  Without the
extension that puts the vote over 17 months into the negotiations we are
scheduled to begin this spring.  It will be next to impossible to negotiate
without knowing what line building program we will be using.  We won't know
what program/system we should be trying to improve.  Management won't know what
their costs will be so we won't see any proposals that involve money.  We won't
know what our vacation daily value or bidding/trading rules are, etc.  We will
tread water through the May 2010 without getting the 1.5% increase contained in
the TA, and very probably through the May 2011 1.5% increase.  With the
extension we will begin negotiations in May 2011 negotiating off of a 3.02%
higher wage scale and having the answer to the PBS question.  Without it we
will spend at least, at the very least, 17 months with no improvements in our
pay or working conditions and negotiating for the very increases we could lock
in today.  The current timing of the PBS vote will actually impede negotiations
and that was very important to the MEC as we evaluated the extension.

There was confusion regarding our monthly insurance premium contribution and
the language that will prevent any additional annual increases to our monthly
insurance contribution after we enter negotiations.  With the extension, if we
are still in the negotiations we would begin in May 2011, management cannot
pass on any increases in our monthly costs in January 2013.  Without the
extension, if we are still in negotiations we will begin in May 2009,
management may not pass on any increases in our monthly costs in January 2011.

Using the charts we distributed earlier, we can calculate the most (presuming
we suffer the 15% max increase in 2011 and 2012) we have to gain each month
from a "freeze" in 2011 and compare it to your benefits under the TA.. Here are
a couple results, both are using 80 tfp and insuring a full family:   At Step
4; $550.00 PBP in the bank April 2009 versus dodging, but not until 2011, no
more than $424.00 in increases..... Top of scale those figures are $1055.00 PBP in
the bank April 2009 versus dodging, again not until 2011, no more than $424.00
in increases ....  Depending upon who you cover those potential 2011 monthly
increases/"savings" are; $13.08: emp, $26.17: emp/spouse, $22.25: emp/kids,
$35.33. Here's the PBP math from my example: The Flight Attendant on Step 4 for
all of 2008 that flew 80 tfp @ month will have a PBP pay-out of (step rate x 80
x 12 x .025) of about $550.00.  The math used for top of scale is the same. I
know is not perfect because of where step increases might have fallen and where
pay increases fell, but I did control for the May 2008 raise.

You might want to do this for yourself using your actual W-2 earnings to get to
the PBP payout (W-2 x .025).

"But what about 2012"  Well we of course we hope the PBP will continue to have
a pay-out each year 2009 through 2012, it has never failed to pay at all, a
function of having both performance and profitability thresholds. But let's say
it doesn't, under the TA there will have been two pay increases before we hit
2012.  And many of us, certainly most of us that will be moving to the new step
17 in May, will be getting enough in the 2008 PBP pay-out to cover both 2011
and 2012.  Using your step rates/increases, flying patterns and the chart we
distributed (it is on the website as well) you can evaluate if the "promise" of
a freeze in 2012, by which time we will have been in negotiations for almost
three years, outweighs 2008 PBP and cumulative raises of over 3% in the same
period.  If you fly a normal schedule there are very few step rates that don't
fare better under the TA.  Clearly the very bottom of the pay scale is
impacted, but those steps are even more difficult to calculate because they are
on reserve so they get a 90 tfp guarantee versus the 80tfp we have been using,
and they get an additional $2.50 on each tfp flown.  But if the TA passes we
are making increases in the pay scale that they will benefit from for the rest
of their career.

There were a lot of questions about how the PBS re-ratification vote might be
giving us leverage in negotiations.  That sounds good?but has several flaws.
First and foremost it muddies the whole democratic process. Management would
not put any improvements on the table in the hopes of winning goodwill towards
PBS that were not directly tied to the re-ratification.  So, if you like PBS
you may be asked by co-workers to promise to vote it out as a threat to
management.  If you don't like it you may later be asked by co-workers to vote
to keep it in exchange for possible improvements.  Both of those are unfair and
from what we heard it has already made this a more divisive issue on the line.
PBS should stand or fall on its own merits.

"Why does management want this" was another big question.  This is a very
challenging time for us all, but especially for airlines. Labor peace reflects
well on a company and allows management and the frontline employees to stay
focused on the airline.  As we have said, this agreement includes increases
that are in line with our traditional interim or "downline" increases.  This
really isn't "too good to be true" in substance.  But in these economic times
it is refreshing to see a management mindset that understands the value of
cutting through the crap.  We believe we have a Flight Attendant group that
understands the value of that as well.  I'm sure they would have loved to have
gotten us to the 20% monthly premium contribution during this extension, but
they will get another shot at that in 2011.  If this TA fails, they will be
taking that shot in two months.

"What about the Pilots?"  We are all very happy to hear they have reached an
Agreement in Concept to take to their MEC. We hope that helps them regain
what they lost in 2005. The losses in pay rates alone ranged from 21.9% for a
12 yr Captain to 34.3% for a 3 yr First Officer.  By 2005 they had just finally
recouped the cuts they had incurred in the mid 1980's.  We look forward to more
details in the next week or so.

"Do they want our contracts closed so they can sell us".  Labor stability =
stronger stock value = less of a chance of being bought up.  Publicly held
companies such as Alaska get acquired when their stock price is low.  Recall
the flurry among the financial institutions last fall?  If someone wanted to
buy us it be more appealing for the purchaser if we were all sitting around
with open contracts.  Then they could step right in and put their agenda on the
table and wouldn't have to wait until we were officially "merged".
Please make sure you have the answers you need and VOTE.  It is why we have a
union, so we may exercise that right.  You can post questions/comments on our
discussion board or contact any of us individually with additional questions.
<alaskamec.org>  Use your arctic # and afa as the password

Kelle Porter Wells