Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
ObadiahPlainman wrote:Sara Nelson just can't help herself from being the star of the show in every single matter, can she?
USAirALB wrote:ObadiahPlainman wrote:Sara Nelson just can't help herself from being the star of the show in every single matter, can she?
I think she has a corporate PR background (before becoming a UA FA) so her media statements aren't necessarily surprising. That said, it is blatantly obvious that Sara Nelson is doing what is best for her (in terms of future political ambitions) rather than what is best for UA FAs, especially the most junior ones.
I am not a FA and looking at everything from the outside, but I am dying to know when Sara actually last worked a flight and talked to the junior FAs (rather than the senior folks who are making more working the better schedules) about what matters to them.
ObadiahPlainman wrote:I think as a regulatory issue, given that air crews cross multiple time zones, work in multiple states and countries even in a single day, that this authority rightly belongs with the FAA and not individual states.
ObadiahPlainman wrote:Sara Nelson just can't help herself from being the star of the show in every single matter, can she?
I think as a regulatory issue, given that air crews cross multiple time zones, work in multiple states and countries even in a single day, that this authority rightly belongs with the FAA and not individual states.
ObadiahPlainman wrote:Sara Nelson just can't help herself from being the star of the show in every single matter, can she?
I think as a regulatory issue, given that air crews cross multiple time zones, work in multiple states and countries even in a single day, that this authority rightly belongs with the FAA and not individual states.
Italianflyer wrote:Oh California...you're such a constant source of joy & amusement.
There's no way this would make it to SCOTUS...heck this wouldn't make it to the Federal appeals court. Duty regs are set by the FAA. Period. Now ground service personnel may be impacted by state laws...but if it flies, it's Fed. End of story.
FlyingElvii wrote:Frankly, I see this as legal…
It applies to California-BASED flight crews, which means the place of employment is in California. That makes them subject to California employment rules, good or bad….
Out-of-Base rules vary greatly by carrier and contract, but could California extend this to them as well??
zeke wrote:Italianflyer wrote:Oh California...you're such a constant source of joy & amusement.
There's no way this would make it to SCOTUS...heck this wouldn't make it to the Federal appeals court. Duty regs are set by the FAA. Period. Now ground service personnel may be impacted by state laws...but if it flies, it's Fed. End of story.
I don’t see an issue with States making laws which are more restrictive than the agreement under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), going the other way around I could see it being an issue.
There is already a precedent for this, California has state laws for Train workers for maximum hours and rest breaks.
AirKevin wrote:But trains can easily pull into a station for a crew change, and I assume commuter trains aren't continuously running routes that are long enough to where this could be an issue. A plane can't just pull over at the nearest cloud for crew break. What do you do for a flight going from SFO to Hawaii or the east coast where the flight times are greater than four hours. Also, what happens if a delay in flight causes the flight to go past the four or five hour mark.
zeke wrote:AirKevin wrote:But trains can easily pull into a station for a crew change, and I assume commuter trains aren't continuously running routes that are long enough to where this could be an issue. A plane can't just pull over at the nearest cloud for crew break. What do you do for a flight going from SFO to Hawaii or the east coast where the flight times are greater than four hours. Also, what happens if a delay in flight causes the flight to go past the four or five hour mark.
Sorry I don’t understand your point. There is no reason why flight attendants could not be granted a 10 minute break or a 1/2 hour meal break on a SFO - Hawaii flight.
AirKevin wrote:Who's responsible for the passengers if the flight attendants all go on break. Or are they just going to suspend service for 10-30 minutes.
zeke wrote:AirKevin wrote:But trains can easily pull into a station for a crew change, and I assume commuter trains aren't continuously running routes that are long enough to where this could be an issue. A plane can't just pull over at the nearest cloud for crew break. What do you do for a flight going from SFO to Hawaii or the east coast where the flight times are greater than four hours. Also, what happens if a delay in flight causes the flight to go past the four or five hour mark.
Sorry I don’t understand your point. There is no reason why flight attendants could not be granted a 10 minute break or a 1/2 hour meal break on a SFO - Hawaii flight.
32andBelow wrote:zeke wrote:AirKevin wrote:But trains can easily pull into a station for a crew change, and I assume commuter trains aren't continuously running routes that are long enough to where this could be an issue. A plane can't just pull over at the nearest cloud for crew break. What do you do for a flight going from SFO to Hawaii or the east coast where the flight times are greater than four hours. Also, what happens if a delay in flight causes the flight to go past the four or five hour mark.
Sorry I don’t understand your point. There is no reason why flight attendants could not be granted a 10 minute break or a 1/2 hour meal break on a SFO - Hawaii flight.
The pilots. There aren’t reliefs pilots on 5-6 hour flights
32andBelow wrote:The pilots. There aren’t reliefs pilots on 5-6 hour flights
AirKevin wrote:Exactly. Secondary question. Suppose a flight is scheduled for 3 hours 45 minutes, but an in-flight delay for some reason suddenly puts them at 4 hours 15 minutes of flight time. Would the flight attendants and the pilots still need to take a 10-minute break at that point. Or if a flight is scheduled for 4 hours 45 minutes, but an in-flight delay puts them at 5 hours 15 minutes. Do they hold in the air for longer whilst the crew takes their 30-minute meal break. Additionally, where would the meal come from since I don't know how many flights are fully catered with full blown meals on flights of that length.
zeke wrote:32andBelow wrote:The pilots. There aren’t reliefs pilots on 5-6 hour flights
No reason there could not be one.
zeke wrote:AirKevin wrote:Exactly. Secondary question. Suppose a flight is scheduled for 3 hours 45 minutes, but an in-flight delay for some reason suddenly puts them at 4 hours 15 minutes of flight time. Would the flight attendants and the pilots still need to take a 10-minute break at that point. Or if a flight is scheduled for 4 hours 45 minutes, but an in-flight delay puts them at 5 hours 15 minutes. Do they hold in the air for longer whilst the crew takes their 30-minute meal break. Additionally, where would the meal come from since I don't know how many flights are fully catered with full blown meals on flights of that length.
I see no reason the break could not happen after they get to the gate.
AirKevin wrote:I'm guessing cost and finding available pilots. If they're already struggling now to get pilots for their flights under their current flight schedules, adding relief pilots to flights that short would make that even worse since they aren't going to magically obtain extra pilots out of thin air.
AirKevin wrote:Article seems to indicate that this must take place after 4 hours and 5 hours respectively, so in this particular instance, the flight times would blow past that. I don't see anything in the article that suggests that they would be allowed to go over that time.
zeke wrote:My understanding 3:30 – 6 hrs earns one 10 minute break, 6:01 – 10 hrs 2 x 10 minute breaks. It is not difficult on a 4 hr flight to rotate flight attendants through a 10 minute break. As for meal breaks. if you have worked 0 – 5 hrs, no meal break, 5:01 – 10 hrs, one meal break. So if you flew 5:15, the company would have to pay you for the extra 30 minute meal beak you have after getting to the gate.
zeke wrote:AirKevin wrote:But trains can easily pull into a station for a crew change, and I assume commuter trains aren't continuously running routes that are long enough to where this could be an issue. A plane can't just pull over at the nearest cloud for crew break. What do you do for a flight going from SFO to Hawaii or the east coast where the flight times are greater than four hours. Also, what happens if a delay in flight causes the flight to go past the four or five hour mark.
Sorry I don’t understand your point. There is no reason why flight attendants could not be granted a 10 minute break or a 1/2 hour meal break on a SFO - Hawaii flight.
zeke wrote:...Crew already have breaks in flights.
CMA727 wrote:ObadiahPlainman wrote:Sara Nelson just can't help herself from being the star of the show in every single matter, can she?
I think as a regulatory issue, given that air crews cross multiple time zones, work in multiple states and countries even in a single day, that this authority rightly belongs with the FAA and not individual states.
I concurr, authority belongs to national/federal aviation agencies.
Italianflyer wrote:Oh California...you're such a constant source of joy & amusement.
There's no way this would make it to SCOTUS...heck this wouldn't make it to the Federal appeals court. Duty regs are set by the FAA. Period. Now ground service personnel may be impacted by state laws...but if it flies, it's Fed. End of story.
GlobalMoose wrote:Not a constitutional lawyer (or even a lawyer for that matter), however, doesn't the commerce clause in the Constitution grant the Federal Government jurisdiction over interstate commerce?
Would this fall into one of those caveats? Granted, if the airlines are operating flights only within California (SFO-LAX, for example), maybe then California's work/rest regulations would be enforceable.
zeke wrote:AirKevin wrote:I'm guessing cost and finding available pilots. If they're already struggling now to get pilots for their flights under their current flight schedules, adding relief pilots to flights that short would make that even worse since they aren't going to magically obtain extra pilots out of thin air.
There is no shortage of pilots or flight attendants. Costs should be covered by the tickets sold.
DLPMMM wrote:Simple answer:
Eliminate CA crew bases. Airlines can buy hotels in major CA RON airports and just rotate in cabin crews from outside states and overnight them in CA.
Give the CA cabin crews the option to transfer to non CA crew bases.
UPlog wrote:While adopting the rules might be disruptive to airlines to start, I don't see why airline employees should not be afforded the California labor protections.
As has been stated by others, other interstate transportation forms such as trucking and railroads are already subject to California regulations.
California is such a large and critical market (5th largest globally is it was a nation on its own), the industry will figure out how to deal with it, and likely as with other things that orginate in California could be adopted nationwide as the baseline for simplicity sake.
zeke wrote:AirKevin wrote:I'm guessing cost and finding available pilots. If they're already struggling now to get pilots for their flights under their current flight schedules, adding relief pilots to flights that short would make that even worse since they aren't going to magically obtain extra pilots out of thin air.
There is no shortage of pilots or flight attendants. Costs should be covered by the tickets sold.
flight152 wrote:You would be very wrong about a shortage of pilots. (At least in the US)
zeke wrote:flight152 wrote:You would be very wrong about a shortage of pilots. (At least in the US)
There is no shortage, the was a halt on hiring during covid, a pilot entering a company takes time to get them online. There is a delay between hiring a pilot and getting them online.
This rule will only apply to pilots employed in CA.
zeke wrote:flight152 wrote:You would be very wrong about a shortage of pilots. (At least in the US)
There is no shortage, the was a halt on hiring during covid, a pilot entering a company takes time to get them online. There is a delay between hiring a pilot and getting them online.
This rule will only apply to pilots employed in CA.
flight152 wrote:Oh. So the attempted cut of EAS by Skywest due to lack of pilots, and the cut of regional hours due to lack of pilots isn’t a lack of pilots at all. You obviously know better.
N1120A wrote:DLPMMM wrote:Simple answer:
Eliminate CA crew bases. Airlines can buy hotels in major CA RON airports and just rotate in cabin crews from outside states and overnight them in CA.
Give the CA cabin crews the option to transfer to non CA crew bases.
That's not how it would work. The Labor Code extends to anyone who does work in California, whether or not they live here. If their flight touches the state, the Labor Code and thus the Wage Orders would apply. Bernstein discusses this. This is a much bigger issue than meets the eye.
Of course, a CBA can preempt certain aspects of the Labor Code - including meal and rest breaks. This would primarily affect Delta and JetBlue (at least for some time prior to their union contract being ratified last year). Are any pilots in the US non union?
DLPMMM wrote:N1120A wrote:DLPMMM wrote:Simple answer:
Eliminate CA crew bases. Airlines can buy hotels in major CA RON airports and just rotate in cabin crews from outside states and overnight them in CA.
Give the CA cabin crews the option to transfer to non CA crew bases.
That's not how it would work. The Labor Code extends to anyone who does work in California, whether or not they live here. If their flight touches the state, the Labor Code and thus the Wage Orders would apply. Bernstein discusses this. This is a much bigger issue than meets the eye.
Of course, a CBA can preempt certain aspects of the Labor Code - including meal and rest breaks. This would primarily affect Delta and JetBlue (at least for some time prior to their union contract being ratified last year). Are any pilots in the US non union?
And the current CBA’s allow for the removal of crew bases as needed.
Cali laws do not supersede federal laws and CBA agreements, so airlines would be within their rights to delete non productive crew bases. Just because it touches CA, does not immediately mean there is
some sort of jurisdiction why CA wil have a say so.
Italianflyer wrote:Oh California...you're such a constant source of joy & amusement.
There's no way this would make it to SCOTUS...heck this wouldn't make it to the Federal appeals court. Duty regs are set by the FAA. Period. Now ground service personnel may be impacted by state laws...but if it flies, it's Fed. End of story.
N1120A wrote:The States can make laws that are more restrictive than federal law, but not less so. The minimum wage in California is at least twice, and in some cases 7 times more than federal law. Any work that involves the working in the State of California is subject to the laws of the State of California, unless otherwise in conflict - such as with the Motor Carrier Act. Neither the MCA, which only covers overtime, nor the FAAA preempt California meal and rest break laws, which applies to all work performed within the State of California - regardless of where the employee lives.
Cubsrule wrote:N1120A wrote:The States can make laws that are more restrictive than federal law, but not less so. The minimum wage in California is at least twice, and in some cases 7 times more than federal law. Any work that involves the working in the State of California is subject to the laws of the State of California, unless otherwise in conflict - such as with the Motor Carrier Act. Neither the MCA, which only covers overtime, nor the FAAA preempt California meal and rest break laws, which applies to all work performed within the State of California - regardless of where the employee lives.
All right, stupid question time: why is work performed onboard a flight SFO-OGG "work performed within the State of California?" That seems like an odd definition of "within."
N1120A wrote:Cubsrule wrote:N1120A wrote:The States can make laws that are more restrictive than federal law, but not less so. The minimum wage in California is at least twice, and in some cases 7 times more than federal law. Any work that involves the working in the State of California is subject to the laws of the State of California, unless otherwise in conflict - such as with the Motor Carrier Act. Neither the MCA, which only covers overtime, nor the FAAA preempt California meal and rest break laws, which applies to all work performed within the State of California - regardless of where the employee lives.
All right, stupid question time: why is work performed onboard a flight SFO-OGG "work performed within the State of California?" That seems like an odd definition of "within."
SFO-OGG is an easy one. As the flight originated in California, the work took place there and the law applies. The real question would be on multi segment trips that involve the state. This wouldn't be different from truck drivers, who are exempt from overtime under the MCA, but not exempt from breaks.
WkndWanderer wrote:Italianflyer wrote:Oh California...you're such a constant source of joy & amusement.
There's no way this would make it to SCOTUS...heck this wouldn't make it to the Federal appeals court. Duty regs are set by the FAA. Period. Now ground service personnel may be impacted by state laws...but if it flies, it's Fed. End of story.
It already has been to federal appeals court and Alaska as successor to Virgin America lost. It’s pending petition before SCOTUS.
The argument that it impacts routes and fares and consequently violates the Airline Deregulation Act is the strongest in my opinion and has at least had some success once in court for Delta regarding a RI law.
N1120A wrote:Cubsrule wrote:N1120A wrote:The States can make laws that are more restrictive than federal law, but not less so. The minimum wage in California is at least twice, and in some cases 7 times more than federal law. Any work that involves the working in the State of California is subject to the laws of the State of California, unless otherwise in conflict - such as with the Motor Carrier Act. Neither the MCA, which only covers overtime, nor the FAAA preempt California meal and rest break laws, which applies to all work performed within the State of California - regardless of where the employee lives.
All right, stupid question time: why is work performed onboard a flight SFO-OGG "work performed within the State of California?" That seems like an odd definition of "within."
SFO-OGG is an easy one. As the flight originated in California, the work took place there and the law applies. The real question would be on multi segment trips that involve the state. This wouldn't be different from truck drivers, who are exempt from overtime under the MCA, but not exempt from breaks.
32andBelow wrote:N1120A wrote:Cubsrule wrote:
All right, stupid question time: why is work performed onboard a flight SFO-OGG "work performed within the State of California?" That seems like an odd definition of "within."
SFO-OGG is an easy one. As the flight originated in California, the work took place there and the law applies. The real question would be on multi segment trips that involve the state. This wouldn't be different from truck drivers, who are exempt from overtime under the MCA, but not exempt from breaks.
I still don’t understand how pilots could even comply besides making a 3rd pilot sit in first class and do nothing for most of the flight. And wouldn’t the 3rd pilot have to be a captain to sit in the left seat?
Cubsrule wrote:N1120A wrote:Cubsrule wrote:
All right, stupid question time: why is work performed onboard a flight SFO-OGG "work performed within the State of California?" That seems like an odd definition of "within."
SFO-OGG is an easy one. As the flight originated in California, the work took place there and the law applies. The real question would be on multi segment trips that involve the state. This wouldn't be different from truck drivers, who are exempt from overtime under the MCA, but not exempt from breaks.
It seems like you’re moving the goalposts. Is it “within California” or “took place there?”
zeke wrote:flight152 wrote:You would be very wrong about a shortage of pilots. (At least in the US)
There is no shortage, the was a halt on hiring during covid, a pilot entering a company takes time to get them online. There is a delay between hiring a pilot and getting them online.
This rule will only apply to pilots employed in CA.