From: Dear AFA

We have heard from a number of you about your concerns regarding the recently issued new uniform purse and the Prop 65 Notice that accompanies it. Considering the content of the Prop 65 notice, the concerns being expressed are understandable. It is equally understandable why many are asking, “What is AFA doing about this?”

AFA learned about the inclusion of this Prop 65 Notice when Flight Attendants began to call their Local Council offices and raised this as an issue.  When this was brought to our attention, we immediately contacted Inflight Services management and identified our specific concerns. In addition, our professional AFA staff began to research the issue to get a better understanding of California Proposition 65 and what was contemplated by this legislation as well as to understand the specific risks associated with the uniform purse.

As with any legislation, the issues are complex. On its face, the legislation is an effort to protect consumers from certain chemicals that are known to be carcinogenic.   How this legislation is implemented is left to the manufacturers of products sold to consumers. Manufacturers have some choices to make relative to this issue. In order to comply with Prop 65, they may elect to test the consumable materials for the presence of more than 900 chemicals – a process which can be cost prohibitive. As an alternative and to comply with Prop 65 and alert consumers of any potential danger, the manufacturer may simply elect to include the “notice” information contemplated by the language in Prop 65. As a result, it is important to understand that the presence of the Prop 65 notice, in and of itself, on the consumable item does not nor should it be construed to indicate that any definitive safety hazard exists. In fact, this Prop 65 notice is an ever-present part of much of the landscape within the State of California appearing in restaurants, theme parks and even the airports we transit to get to work on the aircraft.

AFA, in our representational role, has requested specific information from the company about the purse. It is our understanding that the company is working to obtain for AFA the information we have requested. While we do not know at this time if the uniform purse presents any of the dangers contemplated by Prop 65, it is suspected that the testing for specific chemicals was not completed and the Prop 65 notice was placed into the purse out of an abundance of caution and to comply with this California law. The notice appears in all of the bags because any of them could be distributed to Flight Attendants living and working in the State of California.

We have confirmed that uniform regulations provide that only the uniform purse may be visible while in uniform. The company and Union share the mutual understanding that Flight Attendants are not required to carry a purse and the decision to do so is at the Flight Attendant’s individual discretion.   However, as we do today, when carrying any alternative purse that is not part of the uniform it must be carried inside other luggage – either the tote or the suitcase.   At this time, it is unlikely that the company will reconsider and offer an alternative purse.

We will continue our advocacy in resolving this issue in the best interest of Flight Attendants.  Should you have additional questions please contact your Domicile supervisor.