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.

 

Well as you succinctly pointed out, I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you. I’m sure the experts are advising the company what they need to do. It’s gonna be a waiting game until then.

 

No shame. It is my belief that we are obligated under the RLA for interstate business and that our federal laws should take precedence over what California has. This all becomes a slippery slope argument. Today we have to comply with California's rest and meal break every 4-5 hrs. Tomorrow New York could come out with their own rules that are more conservative (frequent) meal and rest breaks that would then apply to crews based in NYC. Then Chicago could do the same. Where is the line drawn? Every state could enact their own meal/rest rules and apply it to flight crews based there. That should not be the intent of these state laws. They were clearly meant for people working inside that state. Reality is if you fly out of LAX, depending on which direction you're going, you are out of California in less than 30 minutes air time (west, south, east). Or northbound you're out in about 1.5 hrs.


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.

 

They could probably augment FA's. They will not augment pilots much or at all, especially in this climate where market forces make us hard to find and expensive. They will find other options such as connecting folks via LAS, PHX, SLC, etc for distant points east.

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.



I'm an INDUSTRY sympathizer, and *sometimes* OUR interests align with the INDUSTRY. It's not always as simple as "Management Man Bad".



*that is stupid and bad for business

Highly regulated by the fed, not the People's Democracy of California. In all fairness, the fed has done a good job. We have the best safety record in the world, the largest airline industry in the world, and the best pilot compensation. Seems they've found the right balance.

I'm automatically against individual states meddling with interstate commerce... I thought that crap was settled a couple centuries ago???

Yes they would lose a great many pilots, who cannot be replaced in this climate. I think they'd only go there if they decided to retreat back to SEA, and get back to their roots as a 1,000 pilot operation. I'm not really worried about that.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

A 5th FA on a handful of select flights. Don't you read the news? Alaska can afford it. Just take it out of the next stock repurchase.

The IWC rules are flexible and amendable. This is potentially an easy fix. Thanks for following along.

 

Meal break is coded as 20.00 on those flights that apply. Rest period is coded as 50.00 on those flights that apply. No requirement to bid flights that apply….Reserves cannot be compelled to accept pay in lieu of or for reserves extra day off after X number of flights…..Problem solved…..I will write it up- You submit it …Done

 

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.