CA rest and meal break for crews

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Ninth Circuit Finds Airlines Must Comply with California’s Meal and Rest Break Requirements - Lebe Law

The Ninth Circuit has found that flight attendants based in California are entitled to meal and rest breaks required by California law, even if they work primarily out-of-state. The Court noted that there is enough time in a flight attendant’s shift for airlines to safely comply with the state’s...

lebelaw.com

California's Tricky Airline Crew Rest Dispute

Airlines will be forced to give California-based pilots and flight attendants more crew rest, and that could pose a serious challenge.

onemileatatime.com

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Alaska Airlines appeal in labor law dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday turned away Alaska Airlines Inc's challenge to being bound by the employment laws of states where their workers are based, the central issue in its legal battle with California-based flight attendants.

www.reuters.com

I don’t see how this is going to work. I can’t see airlines hiring a 3rd pilot for domestic pilots. Not sure if it’s worth adding an extra FA who rotates with other working FAs to take a break. Or do airlines take the 1 hr pay penalty for every missed break.

Or, they just go ahead and shrink (or worse, close) CA bases and just use other state based FAs.

No easy answer. But this can’t be good. It could very well end up being a case of “be careful what you wish for!”

 

[RORO]

Simple question, do you support your fellow LAX based FA's?

 

[ChasenSFO]

In the ramp tower, since some shifts meant you'd be left alone and have no one to break you for 10 hours, we got 12 annual "floating holidays" on top of our normal paid time off. Combined with 4 day work weeks to begin with, it was awesome in the world of the 2-day weekends and 2-week vacations all around us. In exchange, we had to work through lunch and only got a break if it worked out with no guarantee, but we also didn't get a lunch break deducted from our pay. I was more than OK with that. There are more ways around it than that, AS needs to be creative. Or, you know, care.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Simple question, do you support your fellow LAX based FA's?

It isn’t that simple. I believe airlines are regulated by the FAA, and as a result, the FAA rules should apply instead of the local state. Clearly, the courts don’t think so. Or rather, the Biden admin didn’t want scotus to take up this case. Who knows how they’d rule anyway, could go either way. Regardless, now the local court ruling stands (9th circuit).

I don’t see a legit work around. Looks like hiring an extra FA won’t cut it. So either hour pay penalty for every meal/rest break broken or drastically change CA-based trip pairings.

What good is this ruling if half (or more) find themselves commuting to a non-CA base?

 

[RORO]

It isn’t that simple. I believe airlines are regulated by the FAA, and as a result, the FAA rules should apply instead of the local state. Clearly, the courts don’t think so. Or rather, the Biden admin didn’t want scotus to take up this case. Who knows how they’d rule anyway, could go either way. Regardless, now the local court ruling stands (9th circuit).

I don’t see a legit work around. Looks like hiring an extra FA won’t cut it. So either hour pay penalty for every meal/rest break broken or drastically change CA-based trip pairings.

What good is this ruling if half (or more) find themselves commuting to a non-CA base?

Thats a really illustrious way to not answer the question.

Do you support them, yes or no?

They support you during normal and abnormal situations. You, as a Captain, depend on them. Explain to me like I'm 5 years old why you think someone integral to your operation shouldn't be afforded rest or meal breaks, make it make sense.

 

[alaskadrifter]

Thats a really illustrious way to not answer the question.

Do you support them, yes or no?

They support you during normal and abnormal situations. You, as a Captain, depend on them. Explain to me like I'm 5 years old why you think someone integral to your operation shouldn't be afforded rest or meal breaks, make it make sense.

IF I read it correctly (and that’s a big if), the problem is FAs are never really free from duty even when they are on a break, especially since they always have to be ready for an emergency. I could be misunderstanding, either way I’ll be watching with popcorn bowl in hand.

 

[Kingairer]

Giant CF that can’t reasonably apply to air crews. Airlines will just crew elsewhere.

 

[Kingairer]

Thats a really illustrious way to not answer the question.

Do you support them, yes or no?

They support you during normal and abnormal situations. You, as a Captain, depend on them. Explain to me like I'm 5 years old why you think someone integral to your operation shouldn't be afforded rest or meal breaks, make it make sense.

Because it’s impractical in practice. You fly across the country land, wait on a gate, and the FA is on break? So what do we do now? Lots of unknowns as to what this would really mean but laws that are meant to protect workers in an office or factory setting don’t always work in an airplane.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Thats a really illustrious way to not answer the question.

Do you support them, yes or no?

They support you during normal and abnormal situations. You, as a Captain, depend on them. Explain to me like I'm 5 years old why you think someone integral to your operation shouldn't be afforded rest or meal breaks, make it make sense.

Yes, I support my crew. But not on this ruling. Since the BIRTH of aviation the FAs have eaten their meals and taken a break in the aft galley when they sit there during flight. It’s a damn plane man. They’re always “on duty.” Just as I am. But we make it work. The current system has worked for the decades we’ve been flying jets. But that’s not what this ruling is. This ruling says to be complete free from duty, so not on an airplane. It’s clear these rules were designed with an office/building in mind. A place a worker can walk away from and re-enter. So NO, I do not support this ruling. I have a feeling this is going to backfire on the CA flight attendants SPECTACULARLY.

 

[zmiller4]

Or rather, the Biden admin didn’t want scotus to take up this case.

You think somehow *this* Supreme Court denied certiorari because Biden wanted them to?

Sigh. Let’s add to the list.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

You think somehow *this* Supreme Court denied certiorari because Biden wanted them to?

Sigh. Let’s add to the list.

“
The Supreme Court won’t hear this case
As mentioned above, airlines have been trying to escalate this case for a long time. Unfortunately there’s bad news for airlines on this front.

In a filing in late May, the Biden administration (including the US Solicitor General) stated that California’s laws are not pre-empted by the FAA’s authority to regulate airline safety. In other words, the same laws should apply to airline crews as to other workers in California.

With this, the Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court to deny the appeal of airlines, and also to deny this being sent back to a lower court for further consideration. It was argued that airlines haven’t sufficiently been able to show that this policy change would lead to an increase in airfare, and therefore impact consumers.

Yesterday the Supreme Court announced that it won’t be hearing this case, meaning that there aren’t many pathways left for airlines to protest this change. At this point it’s very likely that this becomes law.
“

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

@zmiller4

Administration opposes airlines in lawsuit over crew breaks

The Biden administration is siding against the airline industry in a case that involves whether California-based flight crews should get the rest breaks that are required under state law

abcnews.go.com

May 25

“The Biden administration has sided against the airline industry and urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to uphold a California law that would provide more rest and meal breaks than airline crews are guaranteed under federal rules.”

 

[zmiller4]

With this, the Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court to deny the appeal of airlines, and also to deny this being sent back to a lower court for further consideration.

You act like this Supreme Court gives a crap about what the Biden administration wants.

I actually agree with the airlines here—it’s going to create a massive CF. But your “blame everything on Biden” is just dumb.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

You act like this Supreme Court gives a crap about what the Biden administration wants.

I actually agree with the airlines here—it’s going to create a massive CF. But your “blame everything on Biden” is just dumb.

I quoted what you wanted. There’s a difference between hearing a case or not, versus ruling a certain way on a certain case once it’s heard.
I gave you articles that express that the Biden admin did not want the case to be heard because they side with labor.

Anyway, I don’t see a legit workaround. The Pelosi of FAs (Nelson) says they can hire one additional FA who can rotate on versus off duty, but the airline said that still won’t solve the issues (being off premise for example). Sad that even their union doesn’t have a legit answer.

 

[FlyingAccountant]

We had to deal with this in the hospitality industry where I work. It's not that big of a deal, you either give them the break or you pay a penalty equal to that worker's hourly rate payable to the worker. The airlines are only crying here because they realize more often than not, they're going to be paying the penalty.

 

[ChasenSFO]

You act like this Supreme Court gives a crap about what the Biden administration wants.

I actually agree with the airlines here—it’s going to create a massive CF. But your “blame everything on Biden” is just dumb.

I mean, it'll be a CF if they let it become one. Or, they could just simply say "OK the FAs are protected by state law so it is what it is" and find some kind of added benefit to make their mostly thankless job better. But sure. SFO (not CA as a whole) requires full free healthcare for even part time employees, yet UA and OO base crews there and have to foot that bill, as does AS. So, what's the big deal that FAs at some of your bases get either some extra money or some extra time off to make their lives a little better? Not like they're going to bleed money if they have to provide extra days off or some extra cash when FAs work hard all day with no legitimate breaks doing turn after turn when they don't even get paid for most of their work day anyway (as their wages don't do nearly as much to "even it out" as pilot wages).

For the record, I agree 100% that aviation is federally regulated so the regulations should be consistent to that and not bound by state specific laws impacting the operation and pay structures. BUT, if state law is going to prevail, you're a hater if you don't want to see people's lives improved and would rather see a big corporation like Alaska Airlines close LAX/SFO to pinch pennies since that is a huge middle finger to the cabin crew. It is odd for them to have to do this, they publicly tried to fight it, but they lost. I have no dog in this fight, but I am always on board with any opportunity to improve anyone's life in a way that isn't going to destroy a company or cause real harm. Why the hell wouldn't you be?

I've struggled in management because of my pro-employee and "buy another one you rich MF" mentality, but at least I always have people willing to vouch for me because I was nice to them and my employees always defend me. Being a hater gets you nowhere fast.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

We had to deal with this in the hospitality industry where I work. It's not that big of a deal, you either give them the break or you pay a penalty equal to that worker's hourly rate payable to the worker. The airlines are only crying here because they realize more often than not, they're going to be paying the penalty.

It's amazing how management actually has the hourly workers who will benefit from this ruling arguing with each other and predicting doom and gloom for their beloved airline. People are saying this ruling will force close all of our California bases and 'OOOHHHHH MYYYYY GOOOOODDDD THINGS WILL GET SO MUCH WORSE. MMMYYYY MOOOOONNNNNEEYYYYYY!111!!!!!!1111"

Nope Betty the A flight attendant will get 40 more dollars per day.

 

[fholbert]

If the airlines don’t want to comply with California laws they should remove California stops from their schedules. Seems simple enough to me.

I don’t think those gates will sit empty for long.

 

[Doug Masters]

It's amazing how management actually has the hourly workers who will benefit from this ruling arguing with each other and predicting doom and gloom for their beloved airline. People are saying this ruling will force close all of our California bases and 'OOOHHHHH MYYYYY GOOOOODDDD THINGS WILL GET SO MUCH WORSE. MMMYYYY MOOOOONNNNNEEYYYYYY!111!!!!!!1111"

Nope Betty the A flight attendant will get 40 more dollars per day.

 

[RORO]

Yes, I support my crew. But not on this ruling. Since the BIRTH of aviation the FAs have eaten their meals and taken a break in the aft galley when they sit there during flight. It’s a damn plane man. They’re always “on duty.” Just as I am. But we make it work. The current system has worked for the decades we’ve been flying jets. But that’s not what this ruling is. This ruling says to be complete free from duty, so not on an airplane. It’s clear these rules were designed with an office/building in mind. A place a worker can walk away from and re-enter. So NO, I do not support this ruling. I have a feeling this is going to backfire on the CA flight attendants SPECTACULARLY.

Ok so we shouldn't leave these issues to the states, we should leave them with *checks notes* Biden. Got it, thanks bro.

Also, I really don't understand how you don't see the advancement of anyone in aviation as a success of us all. Why do you get a rest break? Its a damn plane, make it work.

Do you ever even listen to the things you say?