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.

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? 🤔🤔🤔

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.

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.

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? 🤔🤔🤔