|
Potentially no California crew bases
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3464372)
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. What have airlines done when oil cost increased 50%? I may be convinced this law is whacky but I do agree that your stance on the consequences to pilot wages is a defeatist attitude. |
I’m curious, as someone already pointed out, as far as I can tell, there’s virtually no discussion by other airlines, at least in the public sphere, about this situation. You’d think if it’s a huge deal there’d be all kinds of chatter about it across the board….. but, once again…. Only seems to be and Alaska problem. Wonder why? 🤔🤔🤔
|
Originally Posted by av8or
(Post 3464851)
I’m curious, as someone already pointed out, as far as I can tell, there’s virtually no discussion by other airlines, at least in the public sphere, about this situation. You’d think if it’s a huge deal there’d be all kinds of chatter about it across the board….. but, once again…. Only seems to be and Alaska problem. Wonder why? 🤔🤔🤔
This uproar is ludicrous. Just enjoy your extra 18 hours of pay per month and stop defending your domestic abuser. |
Could it be that they just spent 6 years and millions of dollars on a frivolous claim by some FA’s that were hoping to just shake Richard Branson’s money tree. The spotlight is on Alaska because they alone have been dealing with this California garbage….They have had to plan for this eventuality and have years to run the scenarios/ ghost bid the flying minus most of the California FA’s…We will hear from all the rest when it sinks in. Or they have the political horsepower to just get the law changed to exempt airlines. This entire goat screw is bad for all airline crew and all airlines.
|
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3464862)
Could it be that they just spent 6 years and millions of dollars on a frivolous claim by some FA’s that were hoping to just shake Richard Branson’s money tree. The spotlight is on Alaska because they alone have been dealing with this California garbage….They have had to plan for this eventuality and have years to run the scenarios/ ghost bid the flying minus most of the California FA’s…We will hear from all the rest when it sinks in. Or they have the political horsepower to just get the law changed to exempt airlines. This entire goat screw is bad for all airline crew and all airlines.
Given how badly you Alaska old-timers are reacting to this, I'd say that strategy has been quite effective in the past. |
Wow, Woke Airways doesn't want to comply with a labor law from the wokest state in the union. How can this be?
|
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3464866)
Or this is all part of strong arming the labor groups: Pretend that drastic and punitive steps are on the horizon... and then pressure for concessions.
Given how badly you Alaska old-timers are reacting to this, I'd say that strategy has been quite effective in the past. |
Originally Posted by FXLAX
(Post 3464655)
What have airlines done when oil cost increased 50%? I may be convinced this law is whacky but I do agree that your stance on the consequences to pilot wages is a defeatist attitude.
If business is bad, even if you don't think that impacts potential CBA pay, it obviously impacts seniority progression, upgrades, and bonuses. Simple-minded pilots think the company is an unlimited source of potential endless largess, with no upper limit, if only their union can squeeze blood from the stone. Unfortunately there's more to it than that. And I don't like it when .gov artificially creates circumstances which are bad for business. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3464866)
Or this is all part of strong arming the labor groups: Pretend that drastic and punitive steps are on the horizon... and then pressure for concessions.
Given how badly you Alaska old-timers are reacting to this, I'd say that strategy has been quite effective in the past. |
Originally Posted by av8or
(Post 3464851)
I’m curious, as someone already pointed out, as far as I can tell, there’s virtually no discussion by other airlines, at least in the public sphere, about this situation. You’d think if it’s a huge deal there’d be all kinds of chatter about it across the board….. but, once again…. Only seems to be and Alaska problem. Wonder why? 🤔🤔🤔
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...rest-break-law |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3465056)
Because Alaska - as the heir to Virgin - is actually the airline that LOST the case maybe?
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...rest-break-law Sort of it. The ruling clearly applies to all air carriers. In theory. In order to apply in practice one of these things has to happen... 1. Other carriers voluntarily comply. 2. Their crew file a complaint, triggering enforcement. 3. CA Labor Dept. attempts to enforce it. Doubt that #1 will happen at this point, they're either taking a wait-and-see, or there's some behind-the-scenes lobbying to get this fixed. #2 will happen eventually, if for no other reason than it's an obvious outlet for some disgruntled troll. #3 does not appear to be happening... CA may recognize this as an unintended consequence of a poorly-worded law, and they may be working to fix the issue too. I have not seen any statements from the CA gov to the effect that they think this ruling is correct and will be enforced. I haven't delved into the court proceedings, not sure of anything was said there. The state may have wanted the lawsuit to succeed, in order to affirm the broad applicability of their law while not actually believing or intending that it should apply to crew... in that case the CA DOL will be working with legislative staff to get it fixed. |
Legacy Alaska FAs most flights have "break" time. VX flight attendants on the other hand were absolutely hammered by the on demand ordering system. Imagine 700+ Coke orders on sfo-iad then quick turn and fly back the same day.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3464977)
If business is bad, even if you don't think that impacts potential CBA pay, it obviously impacts seniority progression, upgrades, and bonuses. Simple-minded pilots think the company is an unlimited source of potential endless largess, with no upper limit, if only their union can squeeze blood from the stone. Unfortunately there's more to it than that.
And if you think adding crews is too much for the company bottom line, then that would firmly put you in category of management sympathizer.
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3464977)
And I don't like it when .gov artificially creates circumstances which are bad for business.
Rickair also works in *checks notes* a highly regulated industry governed by an independent government agency. Methinks that since this is coming from librul commie Cali, you're automatically inclined to be against meal breaks. Which is a shame. One final point, if AS does follow through and shutter SFO, LAX, and SAN, the fallout will be catastrophic. The displacements alone will force all the fencesitters to leave. Even cheerleaders like ShyGuy would leave. The company would not survive. |
Originally Posted by CordovaCA
(Post 3465067)
Legacy Alaska FAs most flights have "break" time. VX flight attendants on the other hand were absolutely hammered by the on demand ordering system. Imagine 700+ Coke orders on sfo-iad then quick turn and fly back the same day.
Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465179)
You're not thinking this through. The worst case scenario is not landing at MCI during a transcon, You're being ridiculous. The worst case is augmenting crews and blocking seats, something that's happened at other airlines since the invention of large fuel tanks. Augmenting crews will actually improve your career progression, as it will require additional pilots and FAs to be added to the company rolls.
And if you think adding crews is too much for the company bottom line, then that would firmly put you in category of management sympathizer. Second, I am not a management sympathizer if I feel like I have zero problems flying LAX to EWR nonstop. Rickair hates government intervention. Rickair also works in *checks notes* a highly regulated industry governed by an independent government agency. Methinks that since this is coming from librul commie Cali, you're automatically inclined to be against meal breaks. Which is a shame. One final point, if AS does follow through and shutter SFO, LAX, and SAN, the fallout will be catastrophic. The displacements alone will force all the fencesitters to leave. Even cheerleaders like ShyGuy would leave. The company would not survive. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3465209)
First, your augment solution doesn’t work. The break needs to be off premise per law. You’re not off premise at FL350 just because you are sitting in a passenger seat.
Second, I am not a management sympathizer if I feel like I have zero problems flying LAX to EWR nonstop. The point is that you're not a lawyer, but you're all speculating these asinine scenarios of landing on pontoons.
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3465209)
Thats cute. I’m in LA because I was displaced here. Let them close CA bases, I don’t think I’d care. Then we might actually get other bases like LAS, PHX, AUS, BOI, or even NY again. Doubtful. In the end, I’m sure CA will cave somewhere and realize we’re stuck in a metal tube. Augmented crews for domestic flights is ridiculous. Nice political commentary by the way, unnecessary jab. But since you’re there, I’m sure you are a nanny-state loving guy who wants his hand to be held at all times by the government with a pacifier in the mouth. No thanks. Been an airline pilot for a wee bit, somehow managed to survive without having to divert every 4 hrs for a meal. I’m good.
|
Here is the law, as written. Emphasis mine. Closing bases over a 4th or 5th flight attendant is really petty. And shame on anyone who took the company's side in this matter.
11. MEAL PERIODS (A) No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee. (B) An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived. (C) Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an ” on duty” meal period and counted as time worked. An on-d uty” meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time. (D) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided. (E) In all places of employment where employees are required to eat on the premises, a suitable place for that purpose shall be designated. (F) The section shall not apply to any public transit bus driver covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly provides for meal periods for those employees, final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its meal period provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked, and regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more than the State minimum wage rate |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465260)
Here is the law, as written. Emphasis mine. Closing bases over a 4th or 5th flight attendant is really petty. And shame on anyone who took the company's side in this matter.
|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3465276)
That’s only the meal break. Now find the rest break.
12. REST PERIODS (A) Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof. However, a rest period need not be authorized for employees whose total daily work time is less than three and one-half (3 1/ 2) hours. Authorized rest period time shall be counted as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages. (B) If an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided. (C) This section shall not apply to any public transit bus driver covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly provides for rest periods for those employees, final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its rest period provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked, and regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more than the State minimum wage rate. |
So there’s nothing in the law about rest break having to be on versus off site?
|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3465283)
So there’s nothing in the law about rest break having to be on versus off site?
Now there is a new court decision that has added 1 hour premium pay per workday for employees who does not feel free to leave. The Estrada decision leaves no doubt that California employees must be free to leave the employer’s premises during meal periods, except with narrow exceptions. If they are not, an employer faces liability for wages for that time, as well as premium pay for a meal period violation. Employers should make sure that their policies and practices comply. And there it is. They are threatening to close bases and throw lives into chaos over 1 hour of pay for us. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465286)
That's the difference between a paid and unpaid meal break. Again, that sounds extremely reasonable. Since the FAs are not free to leave, it is considered a "paid" lunch.
Now there is a new court decision that has added 1 hour premium pay per workday for employees who does not feel free to leave. https://www.natlawreview.com/article...g-meal-periods And there it is. They are threatening to close bases and throw lives into chaos over 1 hour of pay for us. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465260)
And shame on anyone who took the company's side in this matter.
You've already written you basically couldn't care less about their meal or rest breaks as long as they get their 1 hr additional pay per day. So that proves this isn't about safety or what's best for their health, we're just buying them off based on how the existing law is written. I'm sure the company and other airlines will figure out something for California based crews, time will tell. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465179)
You're not thinking this through. The worst case scenario is not landing at MCI during a transcon, You're being ridiculous. The worst case is augmenting crews and blocking seats, something that's happened at other airlines since the invention of large fuel tanks. Augmenting crews will actually improve your career progression, as it will require additional pilots and FAs to be added to the company rolls.
It wouldn't help our career progression much since the IRO's would be junior new hires, not CA's. So it might help the career progression of CFI's. But again, I don't think they'll augment pilots. I like driving to work, don't want to commute to the nearest base east of the CA line.
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465179)
And if you think adding crews is too much for the company bottom line, then that would firmly put you in category of management sympathizer.
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465179)
Rickair hates government intervention.
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465179)
Rickair also works in *checks notes* a highly regulated industry governed by an independent government agency.
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465179)
Methinks that since this is coming from librul commie Cali, you're automatically inclined to be against meal breaks. Which is a shame.
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465179)
One final point, if AS does follow through and shutter SFO, LAX, and SAN, the fallout will be catastrophic. The displacements alone will force all the fencesitters to leave. Even cheerleaders like ShyGuy would leave. The company would not survive.
I am worried about shenanigans with crew staffing in CA bases, moving some crew out of state, etc. And doesn't matter which airline you work for, if AS ends up having to make structural changes so will others. I still think this will ultimately go away with legislative adjustment. I don't care if airlines have to pay FA's an extra hour or something like that, although it would set a bad precedent that other states could do dumb stuff too. |
Forum needs a like button. Well said, rickair.
|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3465519)
You've already written you basically couldn't care less about their meal or rest breaks as long as they get their 1 hr additional pay per day. So that proves this isn't about safety or what's best for their health, we're just buying them off based on how the existing law is written. I'm sure the company and other airlines will figure out something for California based crews, time will tell.
You know what I care about? The company threatening the nuclear option whenever they lose. The AFA scored a win in the California courts, and the company threw a tantrum like children. They threatened to take their ball and go home. They were petulant and abusive. Of course, the flight attendants need breaks. If their CBA doesn't have language for meal breaks (90 years) then I'm happy that any government agency is stepping in for them. So don't you dare to presume to know what I care about. I support labor. You only support yourself. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465277)
Okay.
There's even a carve out for public sector unions in this agreement. There are payouts if a meal break or rest break cannot be provided. The more I look at this, the more unreasonable the company's stance becomes. |
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3465644)
Of course there is a carveout for bloated public sector unions in California…Of course AFA, ALPA etc are not that or those. Where is the carveout for private sector trade unions….5th FA adds 20% to the FA staffing requirement for the company. You do realize you work in the private sector.
The IWC rules are flexible and amendable. This is potentially an easy fix. Thanks for following along. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465645)
That's exactly my point. The IWC rules are flexible and amendable. This is potentially an easy fix. Thanks for following along.
|
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 3465608)
Oh ShyGuy, we had left it amicably, but that wasn't good enough for you.
You know what I care about? The company threatening the nuclear option whenever they lose. The AFA scored a win in the California courts, and the company threw a tantrum like children. They threatened to take their ball and go home. They were petulant and abusive. Of course, the flight attendants need breaks. If their CBA doesn't have language for meal breaks (90 years) then I'm happy that any government agency is stepping in for them. So don't you dare to presume to know what I care about. I support labor. You only support yourself. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3465653)
I think you need a care bear. Or a hug. Or both. Life must be hard to be constantly pi$$ed at all things related to your own employer. I support myself? I thought I support management. I can’t keep up with the internet tough cats these days.
|
Originally Posted by NotTellin
(Post 3465656)
And your standard response is we are angry. It is never that you might be in the minority and possibly out of touch.
|
Alaska is it not the only Airline concerned about this. Delta hinted at closing our LAX crew bases but still Hubbing PAX from there if this goes into effect in some way. I am sure other Airlines with CA bases are closely watching this.
Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 3465668)
Alaska is it not the only Airline concerned about this. Delta hinted at closing our LAX crew bases but still Hubbing PAX from there if this goes into effect in some way. I am sure other Airlines with CA bases are closely watching this.
Scoop |
Wouldn’t hotel costs and per diem for overnighting crews would be more costly than an extra hour of pay? I’m not seeing how closing the base saves money.
|
Read the transcript of the Q2 earnings call. When asked about the future of the CA bases and the effects of this lawsuit, Ben and Shane both dodged answering. Their answers were non-answers. They sounded as confused as the rest of us.
There's no-way California loses all of its crew bases. Something will give. The CA legislature will change the law. They will carve something out for flight crews. Or, maybe not? Maybe all hubs and bases will move to the most labor unfriendly states in the union? You thought the RLA and union dues were bad? Just wait until your only recourse is Texas's right to work laws. |
Originally Posted by ExFokkerFlyer
(Post 3463699)
Alaska's legal team appealed that, and SCOTUS elected to not take the case. So it's actually settled law. I'm sure there will be filings and motions around the edges, but from what I understand. It's done. If the Supreme Court does not take a case that's made it all the way up to them... it's over.
Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk |
I meant that this case is over. Specifically THIS CASE. There was speculation here in nerddome that it could be sent back up. It can't.
But you are correct the issue at question has a variety of ways to be solved. Another case would take years but yes that could be an avenue. Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk |
People have been saying California would pay a price for its policies ever since the 60s when they passed vehicle emissions standards and basically made the rest of the country follow. Almost anything you can buy in a hardware store carries a warning label that that item "is known to the state of California to cause cancer". California has the highest taxes, the most wacko leftist policies, out of whack home values, filth, homeless taking over the streets, and public drug use, yet people keep flocking there and the policies get even more nutty. We can complain all we want to but California will be just fine this time too and people will continue to flock there. Californians deserve California. Live and let live. Keep all the leftist nut jobs concentrated in one place I say.
But what's truly funny is the most leftist, woke airline of them all is complaining about California's leftist policies and threatening to leave CA over them. |
Originally Posted by NotTellin
(Post 3465656)
And your standard response is we are angry. It is never that you might be in the minority and possibly out of touch.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:03 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands