Originally Posted by
rickair7777
No I think it's a ridiculous unintended consequence that's bad for everybody and the law should be changed by Sac, or overruled by congress.
Reality: The highest cost for airlines is pilots or fuel, depending on the price of oil. If you increase their biggest or second biggest cost by 50% to allow IRO's for lunch breaks, something is going to have to give. If nothing else that would limit future opportunities for contractual gains.
Actually as the law is currently written, you'd need to land the plane and get everybody off for 30 mins on any transcon+ leg. Not even sure how you do that over water. Pontoons? Maybe have a cruise liner pre-positioned so after you land on floats people can get off? The USAF is actually working on that believe it or not.
We don't have any say in which bases they maintain, or at what level. The legacies can't close their Pacific-gateway CA bases, but I wouldn't absolutely put it past AS to actually do that. I suspect there's a real potential for base staff reductions, if for some reason this law doesn't get fixed.
If the law is a ridiculous as you say, then why is ALASKA the only airline making threats about it?
Here's where your years of conditioning shows. You expect it to impact the employees. You even support it.
Your political biases mixed with Alaska indoctrination have actually made you anti-lunch break. It's impressive.
Rather than work to find a legitimate way to comply with the law, you're on your soapbox telling everyone that the most reasonable course of action in your mind is base closure. Not additional crews. Not schedule adjustments. Base closures.
Your tacit acceptance of abuse is the only thing that's notable here.