Q: What does “Trade Jail” mean in management’s opening proposal?
“Trade Jail” from the 2006-2010 CBA Section 12.E and Addendum to Section 12 #2 was related to No-Shows on sequences picked up or traded into from FA trades or Open Time as applicable.
The language reads as follows:
Is there any consequence that relates to a No-Show on a sequence I received through a trade with another Flight Attendant or Open Time?
Yes. If you No Show a sequence you received by trading you will lose the ability to trade with Flight Attendants or Open Time for the next calendar month. Pickups are allowed. For sequences picked up, you will receive only the no-show. (Section 12.E.)
By context we assume that management would like to potentially resurrect trade jail (i.e., inability to trade) under certain circumstances.
Trade jail, in my opinion is UNNACCEPTABLE; one cannot foresee if they will become ill or not on any sequence. Further, if you do become ill, in order to avoid “trade jail”, one will probably report to work ill…that is UNACCEPTABLE!
Thank you for the feedback, John. Just to clarify: The parties have not yet discussed management’s intentions with regard to trade jail, but trade jail in previous contracts occurred when you no-showed a trip received by trading — trade jail did not apply to sick calls.
This a defiantly NO! We aren’t going back to draconian practices . 👎🏼👎🏼
Is trade jail a hard no for the committee?
Apologies for the very tardy response, Paige!
In negotiations it’s almost impossible to deal in absolutes — especially considering that the parties haven’t even discussed this specific proposal yet. The AFA Negotiating Committee is only speculating what management means by “trade jail” based on historical context. However, I am very comfortable saying that the NC is very strongly opposed if management is looking to resurrect trade jail as it previously existed.
The double punishment of a No Show plus the inability to trade sequences for the next bid period is unacceptable!