|
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?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:09 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands