what new laws are you talking about?

not saying CA isn’t expensive, but what has changed since LAX opened? And what if they moved the LAX base to SAN?

 

what are the new California laws?

 

CA is more expensive for SWA. It doesn't mean they won't do it. Every major airline has a base there. When the math works, it works. Behind closed doors, SWA is worried about AUS. SWA has major market share by quite a bit. SWA has 42% market share vs Delta's 15% and AAL 17%. Delta has made it known they want a bigger piece of it. It will go long way to the city of AUS if SWA firmly plants roots by opening a base. Especially as plans are finalized to build the new the B terminal. Delta has the ability to expand to places outside the range of the 737 in AUS. That's definitely top of mind in the GO. I'm not saying thats the new base but it's definitely in the conversation.

 

it may be a dumb question but why does making it a base matter as far as number of flights or market share?
can't they just flow more planes through AUS?

 

What I wonder—does opening a domicile change anything in legal agreements/benefits with the airport? I was thinking about the legal trouble in SAT. If they open a base do they get any real estate preference (ie gates etc)? That place has a lot of expansion potential and Delta has been rumored to want a base there as well…

 

According to SWAPA and network planning, AUS has more RON's then SAN, MCI, STL, TPA, SJC and SMF. Any of those can be bases tomorrow. Although RON's are the main driver, their's more to it. Network planning(commercial side of the business) has a hand in this. Remember, proper RON's help drive better pairings, more specifically APL. SWAPA has already stated they wanted another base for a while. APL gets trashed when things are not balanced. Pilot's want variety in trip construction. Especially two day pairings. It's hard to adjust it when these airplanes overnight in the out stations as a percentage. DPOS builds the pairing's and one of the main drivers is cost. Your right, flights and market share aren't everything but when you put all three together you can make a case for it. All those other stations have the same ingredient's for a base. RON's, market share and flights. We'll see.

 

Some deal about mandatory rest/meal breaks. I remember airlines throwing a fit about being too expensive to operate bases but this has a carve out for airline flight crews protected under RLA CBA’s. Ops agents, rampers, etc wouldn’t qualify but they’re already based there and complying with the law (probably).

No secret that CA taxes are higher than other states. No idea if that makes it harder or not to have a base. Bases are slightly bigger than stations and have a brick and mortar lounge but other than that I don’t know that costs are that much more. SAN would be popular and allow folks displaced east to get back west. Not sure MCI or AUS would get LAX/OAK/LAS/DEN guys all back.

https://www.californiaworkplacelawbl...-requirements/

 

also isn't there a maternity law if youre based in CA that FAs use to their advantage. I remember the company saying that costs them a good amount as well
I guess I shouldn't say FAs but more so women working for SW. I would have included men in that, but i feel we are past men having babies now.

 

Yeah. Like a glorified STD plan for maternity leave, etc.

 

I’m pretty sure man or woman you pay into CASDI for paid parental leave (8 weeks). That’s nothing new.