I'm not sure that Q&A speaks to intent.

 

You’re incorrect about your understanding of the law. Providing the extra hour of pay is not a workaround to bypass the requirements of the law. It is meant for the few situations where it is out of anyones’s control to provide the break at the specified time(i.e. weather delay, medical emergency, etc).

If you actually took the time to read the law, you’d see that simply arbitrarily providing the extra pay in lieu of the break would not be in compliance with the law still.

 

In fairness, it's bs that airlines are subject to state or local whims with regards to actual air ops. Ground employees yes. Crew, no.

 

​​​​​​It's generally understood that congress alone has the right to regulate Interstate commerce. The FARs and the RLA are federal laws. If every state could iset its own rules for flight crews, we'd have a giant mess. This is the kind of situation that commerce clause of the US Constitution is supposed to prevent. Right? That's what they taught us in aviation law 101. But, not so fast, turns out that there's more to this issue...

A quick Google search of US Commerce Clause shows that throughout our history there has been disagreement on how to interpret the commerce clause. Various Supreme Courts have at times expanded Congress's mandate while other Supreme Courts have sided with states rights an pulled back the power federal congress. It appears that the pendulum is swinging in the direction of states rights once again with this conservative congress. The airline industry was built on one interpretation of the commerce clause, but now it looks like everything has changed.

As organized labor, we need to look at how this court decision can advance our goals. For generations we've negotiatied under the RLA and were subject to FAR duty time limitations. Now, there's a new player in negotiations: state governments.

 

I believe this is correct. Look at the railroad and trucking systems and regulations. Same should hold true for the airlines.

Just because a state Supreme Court upholds it, doesn’t mean it’s fine under Federal law.

ETA: Alaska Airlines Cares, just not about you.

 

I think the only reason it went back to the state court and the supreme court didn't want it was that it needed the state to clarify the law better and how it will directly apply in this case. Maybe when it is clear then the supreme court can hear the case.

 

It was not a state Supreme Court that upheld it. It was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That's Federal Court, and the last step before the US Supreme Court.

Not picking on anybody here, I'm not a lawyer either. But, if you read the 9th Circuit's decision it talks about who has control here, federal or state. They provide reasoning for what they found citing precedent. Read it, its interesting.

Obviously the expectation in the industry is for the FAA to be exempt from this and provide in their own regulations. The 9th Circuit felt differently. The SCOTUS felt it was a state problem and declined to hear the case.

To me, that means there is likely a legislative solution that Sacramento can pull together should enough pressure ($$$) be applied.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

 

You think this is a "conservative congress"?

Standby to be surprised what a "conservative congress" really looks like after November.

The constitution clearly defines the role of the Fed government. Besides common defense, regulating interstate commerce is one of the few things its supposed to do.

Congress actually likes to abdicate it's job as much as possible and instead rely on "executive orders" or supreme court codifying policies that apply to all states.

Mandating rest breaks for aircrew members sure seems like regulating interstate commerce to me, but I'm not a supreme court judge or an FAA administrator.

We already have some differences in the way employees of different bases are taxed and use sick leave for example, but those differences from state to state apply just to the taxation and benefits of employees and not the actual working condition.

 

Did the federal court uphold it or didn't they just send it back to the state court for clarification?

 

9th circuit upheld a majority of the lower courts decision and tossed out a few things including but not limited to plantiff attorney fees and some penalties to be paid to the plaintiff from Virgin (AK).

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.

It's worth knowing too that when they appealed the case to SCOTUS, numerous states filed motions (I know there is a more accurate term for this but again, not a lawyer) to go along with the appeal to try to argue for or against SCOTUS taking the case. Also, the US Solicitor General filed brief/motion/whatever in kind.

There is a lot behind this.

Aside from that, I would not be surprised if a legislative solution cannot be found. The Robert's court seemed to like throwing things back to the states these days.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk