We got a lot of feedback that Flight Attendants preferred hard dates for snapbacks rather than a formula tied to profitability. Through a lot of effort we were able to get the company to agree to modify the snapback language to guarantee all provisions snapped back, regardless of profitability.

Profitability is not guaranteed. Date certain snapbacks mean all concessions will be temporary, and if ratified, our CBA remains intact with full snapbacks. Our new snapback language also mirrors the pilot snapbacks.

The company was not interested in negotiating a cap - it doesn’t save the company money.

Our financial analyst is able to review and assess management’s numbers on a confidential basis only. The information is proprietary and governed by non-disclosure agreements. This is standard in labor negotiations where the company provides information but does not allow the distribution of costing on particular items because it could be used by business competitors to back into confidential information.

AFA fought hard to ensure that there is no wage freeze or reduction to wages. Hourly rates based on longevity wage will continue as outlined in Section 3.B.

There are no changes to our insurance as a part of this LOA. AFA fought HARD to keep our insurance intact. The company originally sought $32 million in concessions, including changes to our health insurance. A No vote puts that in significant jeopardy.

We needed to get to $15 million worth of cuts. One of the ways we can get to the $15 million is by capping per diem at $2.99 for a period of time. This is our way of minimizing the impact on Flight Attendants as much as possible while getting to the required $15 million.

Unfortunately, items like these don’t add enough value to the required $15 million cuts – they do not have a big enough impact on the concessions to avoid cuts to the other items in the LOA.

Cutting or even eliminating the 401(k) match would not have supplied enough money to meet the $15 million and avoid other cuts such as OT. Additionally, disrupting a retirement plan can produce longer term harm to Flight Attendants, and the 401(k) match is a certainty as opposed to the OT which may or may not be available in an environment such as bankruptcy.

No, ALPA did not say that, it is simply the way that bankruptcy works. As part of the bankruptcy process, it is typical for each employee group and all stakeholders to be required to take cuts. Here, the company sought cuts from the pilots which ended up being $85 million. They originally sought $32 million in cuts from us but we were able to get that amount down to $15 million, which represents almost half the value of cuts to our contract as opposed to the value of cuts to the pilot contract. It’s also important to stick together as workers and hold management accountable throughout this process.

Our efforts in this entire process were to limit the impact of the cuts for Flight Attendants. Pay is guaranteed and flows through to the value of everything else in the contract such as the value of overtime, ground holding time, training pay, vacation, and sick leave. Overtime hours are not guaranteed. Spirit’s restructuring and reduced operations mean that there will likely be fewer and fewer opportunities to earn overtime. 

We may not be able to get as much overtime as we are used to earning, but we were able to get the value of current overtime to count toward the required 15 million dollars of temporary concessions. We also prioritized overtime in the snapback schedule and if Spirit recovers hopefully this will coincide with a return of more flying to pick up.

A pay cut, combined with fewer opportunities to earn overtime, would result in less money in our pockets than temporarily eliminating overtime hours alone. Pay ripples through the entire agreement.

If we vote down the proposed changes now, the company has fulfilled its obligation for our input and will ask the court to make changes to our CBA. We will not have any say in the changes management makes to our Contract. Management has stated that they will seek changes that also include pay rates, healthcare and are more extensive than the changes outlined in the LOA. AFA will of course fight that in court, but we need to be direct with you about the bankruptcy process that does not favor workers’ needs.

The company asked for concessions totaling $32 million. AFA was able to negotiate the company down to $15 million and avoid the changes to our healthcare and base pay that management stated they were originally seeking.

There was simply no time to conduct any kind of survey. ALPA was able to because they were already in active Section 6 negotiations. We had to reach an agreement quickly because there was a deadline to secure continued debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing for Spirit to keep operating.

The vote count was 6-0 in favor of the agreement to minimize cuts and keep our contract intact.

It doesn’t work that way. If the LOA is ratified our contract remains in full force and effect. The company will not pursue an 1113 motion to reject our CBA if the LOA is approved.

There are certain funding dates the company must meet throughout the bankruptcy process. 

These dates are essentially checkpoints with financial benchmarks that the creditors use to evaluate whether Spirit has restructured enough debt and cost obligations to continue operating. December 13th is the next date the creditors will decide whether they are confident enough to keep funding.

We don’t know right now. Things change very quickly in a bankruptcy. When Spirit emerges from bankruptcy, it will have half the debt and lower operational costs, meaning it will be much cheaper to acquire the company. A merger may be the only way for Spirit to survive. However, Spirit must still be able to operate on its own while the merger is implemented.

We cannot go into one of these with our concessions. We have merger protections in our CBA, Section 1, Recognition and Job Security. That Section includes Scope language protecting our right to Spirit flying, successorship language requiring an acquiring or merging partner to assume our agreements, and merger protections. All of these will be in full force and effect with the approval of the LOA.

This agreement includes limited cuts but also now includes firm date snap backs, which means that all of the concessions are temporary and each item is still technically in our contract. Together with our scope and successor protections discussed above, that places us on the best possible footing entering a merger. Protecting our base pay and health care would allow us to enter into potential merger discussions from a higher level rather than after deep cuts.

Section 1113 is the bankruptcy rule that governs how a company can seek changes to a union contract. Before going to court, the company must make a written proposal, provide financial information to support that proposal, and meet with the union to bargain in good faith. Once the company completes those steps, it can file a motion asking the court to approve the changes if the union and company are not able to reach an agreement.

The judge reviews three legal standards, but which offer limited protection for the union.

First, the company’s proposal must be “necessary” for the reorganization. Courts interpret “necessary” broadly. It does not mean the employer’s proposal is the only or least burdensome to employees but rather it is needed for the reorganization. 

Second, the proposal must be “fair and equitable,” but this does not require treatment be exactly the same among all groups. It’s also important to note that this means it must treat the debtor, creditor and other parties fairly and does not mean it will be what we would consider fair from a frontline worker perspective. In fact, quite the opposite. 

Third, the company must bargain with the union. This does not mean it needs to agree with the union or even lower its overall ask. The company must share info with the union and be responsive to alternatives but the court is not wading into the substance of any negotiations. Overall, the bankruptcy process is set up to allow companies to shed contracts and that includes labor contracts. Our experience and that of other unions is that the bankruptcy courts are employer friendly overall which is why we push to reach a consensual agreement we can shape.

Spirit met with Flight Attendants and complied with the provisions of 1113. Their initial plan was to seek over $32 million dollars from Flight Attendants but with the assistance of finance and bankruptcy experts we were able to get that amount down to $15 million. We were able to reach an Agreement in Principle which limits the impact of the concessions, and includes firm snapbacks and other protections. That agreement is now subject to your vote.

If the LOA is approved it becomes effective on January 1, 2026. This affirms our contract is in full force and effect, including the snapback of the temporary cuts. 

If the Agreement does not ratify, the company has indicated that they will file an 1113 motion in the court to abrogate our collective bargaining agreement and ask the court to approve their plan for cuts to the contract. That means that they will likely go to court seeking the original $32 million in cuts without snapbacks. 

We would anticipate this would come pretty quickly following the rejection of the Agreement. The statute provides that a hearing will be held within fourteen days of the 1113 motion. Things move very fast in bankruptcy.

As stated above, the company will move its 1113 motion and at this point the bankruptcy court will take over. There will not be the opportunity to fashion a new agreement in principle and go through another ratification process. Additionally, since the company will likely be proposing more cuts than in any rejected agreement, our efforts would be to try to limit the damage.

If the judge approves the motion, the company can impose the exact terms of its final 1113 proposal. The union remains the representative, and bargaining continues, but the day-to-day working conditions shift to the company’s imposed terms. After that point, it is much more difficult to regain what was lost because the imposed terms become the new baseline.

If bargaining does not produce an agreement, the judge can only approve or deny the company’s request. The judge cannot write a compromise or pick the parts they think are reasonable. If the judge approves the motion, the company gains the ability to impose its full proposal. This is why understanding Section 1113 is important when Flight Attendants consider whether to accept or reject the LOA.