Metchalus wrote:

Which means that airlines have a shortage of pilots.

It may be a shortage of their own making but it's a shortage none the less.

I still disagree, a shortage to me means they tried to recruit these pilots 12-18 months ago and were unable to fill vacancies. In reality these airlines made business decisions not to recruit and train during covid, the pilot numbers they have today are in line with what they recruited and trained 6-12 months ago.

I am not aware of any of the majors unable to fill vacancies, they are not able to ramp up as fast as travel is returning because of their own business decisions, not because they are unable to fill vacancies.

zeke wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

Which means that airlines have a shortage of pilots.

It may be a shortage of their own making but it's a shortage none the less.

I still disagree, a shortage to me means they tried to recruit these pilots 12-18 months ago and were unable to fill vacancies. In reality these airlines made business decisions not to recruit and train during covid, the pilot numbers they have today are in line with what they recruited and trained 6-12 months ago.

I am not aware of any of the majors unable to fill vacancies, they are not able to ramp up as fast as travel is returning because of their own business decisions, not because they are unable to fill vacancies.

Correct, recruiting cycles for specialized labor are not short enough to account for current labor market conditions - they reflect planning already done (or poorly executed) in the last year, and sometimes longer.

The article never mentions meal waivers. When I was in the SFO ramp towers, we got paid for a full 10 hours out of our 10 hour day because we signed a waiver which, in turn, allowed us to work 4 10-hour weekly shifts (on the clock the whole time with meals on duty) rather than 5 days per week and not getting paid for 30-60 mins or whatever of our day. In a smaller ramp tower (RIP Shadow Tower), we worked alone the entire shift so we got paid for 10 hours and worked 9 as we didn't get ANY breaks ever and were always up there. Why would the airlines not just do the same?

MIflyer12 wrote:

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.

The Airline Deregulation Act clause pre-empting state regulation was alluded to by Moderator janders but I'll cite the sub-clause:

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/41713

...related to a price, route, or service is the key. Defenders of the California law can argue that labor is an input, not an output of price, route or service. States and city can tax aviation fuel. Av fuel is an input.

But I'm not a lawyer, so hey.

https://www.littler.com/publication-pre ... y-law-held

A4A and the airlines could try to claim there is a split between what the 9th Circuit has ruled in this case and the 1st Circuit test that was cited in the Brown vs. Delta case preempting the RI state Sunday overtime law. Alaska has tried a RLA preemption argument before without success. There was a pending A4A case about state sick leave laws in the 4th Circuit also that may have used a Deregulation Act argument as well but I'm not sure of what its status is.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... y%20Br.pdf

zeke wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

Which means that airlines have a shortage of pilots.

It may be a shortage of their own making but it's a shortage none the less.

I still disagree, a shortage to me means they tried to recruit these pilots 12-18 months ago and were unable to fill vacancies. In reality these airlines made business decisions not to recruit and train during covid, the pilot numbers they have today are in line with what they recruited and trained 6-12 months ago.

I am not aware of any of the majors unable to fill vacancies, they are not able to ramp up as fast as travel is returning because of their own business decisions, not because they are unable to fill vacancies.

Okay, but that's not even the point. Regardless of how they ended up in that predicament, the point is, if they can't staff the current flight schedules now, how would they do it under the new regulations if put in place. Cancel more flights? It's not like they can snap their fingers and suddenly have more crew available. They can only train crews so fast.

N1120A wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

N1120A wrote:

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?

They wouldn't have to be a captain, just PIC qualified. Most US airline pilots are type rated as PIC, not just SIC, so it wouldn't be an issue. It is sort of like where an FO moves to the left seat on a long haul flight. But yes, they'd be required to be in place to allow a break as required by law.

However, this would all be moot, because no airline pilot in the US that I know of is not subject to a CBA.

Why would the union agree with 737 pilots sitting in the left seat without captain pay.

If this is about non union who is non union? Alaska is union…I thought they were the ones sued

I would expect "Federal Preemption" to prevail here. Do a search for "FAA Federal Preemption" - the case law is significant, in my opinion.

AirKevin 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.

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.

I imagine that all the F/A's will not go on break at the same time.

AirKevin wrote:

Okay, but that's not even the point. Regardless of how they ended up in that predicament, the point is, if they can't staff the current flight schedules now, how would they do it under the new regulations if put in place. Cancel more flights? It's not like they can snap their fingers and suddenly have more crew available. They can only train crews so fast.

Management created this issue, they can fix it. They have destroyed the engagement with crew the world over, it is the bed they made. They were informed many times over what would happen, schedules should reflect the resources available.

32andBelow wrote:

N1120A wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

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?

They wouldn't have to be a captain, just PIC qualified. Most US airline pilots are type rated as PIC, not just SIC, so it wouldn't be an issue. It is sort of like where an FO moves to the left seat on a long haul flight. But yes, they'd be required to be in place to allow a break as required by law.

However, this would all be moot, because no airline pilot in the US that I know of is not subject to a CBA.

Why would the union agree with 737 pilots sitting in the left seat without captain pay.

If this is about non union who is non union? Alaska is union…I thought they were the ones sued

It was the Virgin America Flight Attendants who sued

WayexTDI 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.

Given that foreign aircraft are considered foreign soils, how can CA have jurisdiction on the work rules?

Foreign aircraft are not considered "foreign soils". Don't know where this myth originated. When an airline receives authority to operate to another country, they have to abide by certain regulations and procedures set forth by the destination country as well. From a law enforcement perspective, when the aircraft is on the ground in another country, the aircraft and its occupants are fully subject to the laws of that country, unlike, for example, the grounds of an Embassy or Consulate. A person cannot claim sanctuary on a foreign registered aircraft as they could inside an Embassy or Consulate (e.g. Julian Assange claiming sanctuary inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London).

I have flown internationally as a captain for a few different airlines in my career, in the United States, China, and in Europe. Not once have I ever seen anything in any manual, ops specs, or regulation that states my aircraft is considered "foreign soil". In fact just the opposite, it states that I am required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the country in which I operate. The FAA also makes it clear in 91.703 that U.S. registered aircraft "When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;". Typically, as in I have never seen an exemption to this, duty, flight time limitations, and rest requirements, are always left to the determination of the regulations of the State of Operator. However it is totally within reason that if a country were to decide that such regulations were inadequate, they could require additional crew in order for authorization to conduct regular operations to that country.

As a side note, another common false myth is that when you go through U.S. pre-clearance passport control in a foreign country, that you are then considered to be on U.S. soil. This is not true either. You are still fully on the soil of the departing country, and fully subject to their jurisdiction and laws. You are just in a secure area reserved for people who have received pre-departure clearance to enter the United States.

There's a really easy way to solve this. Stop fighting unionization.

32andBelow wrote:

N1120A wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

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?

They wouldn't have to be a captain, just PIC qualified. Most US airline pilots are type rated as PIC, not just SIC, so it wouldn't be an issue. It is sort of like where an FO moves to the left seat on a long haul flight. But yes, they'd be required to be in place to allow a break as required by law.

However, this would all be moot, because no airline pilot in the US that I know of is not subject to a CBA.

Why would the union agree with 737 pilots sitting in the left seat without captain pay.

If this is about non union who is non union? Alaska is union…I thought they were the ones sued

These are Virgin America flight attendants. Alaska is the successor in interest.

Velocirapture wrote:

I would expect "Federal Preemption" to prevail here. Do a search for "FAA Federal Preemption" - the case law is significant, in my opinion.

Unfortunately for you, your opinion is not correct.

For the sake of clarity; are US airlines not regulated federally by the FAA? I thought they were. In Canada Canadian Airlines fall under Federal Labour laws. ie. not required to follow provincial labour laws.

ramprat320 wrote:

For the sake of clarity; are US airlines not regulated federally by the FAA? I thought they were. In Canada Canadian Airlines fall under Federal Labour laws. ie. not required to follow provincial labour laws.

Airlines are generally required to follow state employment laws for employees that are employed in any particular state…ie their home base and possibly their home address’ domicile.

Just because a flight touches any particular state does not make all employees in that flight subject to such a state regulation.

ramprat320 wrote:

For the sake of clarity; are US airlines not regulated federally by the FAA? I thought they were. In Canada Canadian Airlines fall under Federal Labour laws. ie. not required to follow provincial labour laws.

Airline operations are regulated by the FAA. Employment practices are regulated by a hodgepodge of federal and state regulations. In most cases, state regulations are more situation specific.

Velocirapture wrote:

I would expect "Federal Preemption" to prevail here. Do a search for "FAA Federal Preemption" - the case law is significant, in my opinion.

I think the 9th circuit has a little more expertise.

I wonder why Alaska hasn’t argued that this is a moot issue, since the FAs are now all union represented.

Or is this more about damages pre-merger?

USAirKid wrote:

I wonder why Alaska hasn’t argued that this is a moot issue, since the FAs are now all union represented.

Or is this more about damages pre-merger?

I don't think this is a moot issue, if you look at the rail industry which is also regulated under the Federal Railway Labor Act like aircraft crew, the provisions in CA also apply to those unionized crew. Kentucky also has similar provision for the 10 minute break however their laws exclude employees under the Federal Railway Labor Act.

I suspect that airline crew employers in CA will be eligible to facilitate "on duty" meal breaks due to the nature of the role, not like the crew can step outside to get a sandwich. This would mean that extra crew would not be required, however it may result in some additional pay.

Reading the article, it clearly states that these regulations would only cover crews BASED in California.

Reducing or elimination California crew bases would be an option for airlines, but have some logistical pitfalls.

Governments make all sorts of regulations with unintended consequences.

USAirKid wrote:

I wonder why Alaska hasn’t argued that this is a moot issue, since the FAs are now all union represented.

Or is this more about damages pre-merger?

Pre merger. There are no claims after the Virgin FAs unionized.

The U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief with the Supreme Court today that states federal airline regulations do not preempt California labor laws and urged the court to deny Virgin America/Alaska's petition.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-05-25/

LAXintl wrote:

The U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief with the Supreme Court today that states federal airline regulations do not preempt California labor laws and urged the court to deny Virgin America/Alaska's petition.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-05-25/

I wonder if we see bases in California downsized after this.

Jshank83 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

The U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief with the Supreme Court today that states federal airline regulations do not preempt California labor laws and urged the court to deny Virgin America/Alaska's petition.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-05-25/

I wonder if we see bases in California downsized after this.

This doesn't make much sense to me. The only outcome here is a loss in jobs. That's not good for anyone.

On the other hand, airlines will still be fighting tooth and nail for markets such as LAX, so maybe the impact will be mitigated to an extent. No doubt, this will affect some carriers and some airports a lot differently than it will affect others...

As someone proudly based in CA but not blind to the mass exodus to other states and the highly enticing financial reasons behind it, this could be disastrous. Lunch breaks? Really? Talk about an asinine reason to give the company cause to downsize your own base.

LAXintl wrote:

The U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief with the Supreme Court today that states federal airline regulations do not preempt California labor laws and urged the court to deny Virgin America/Alaska's petition.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-05-25/

This should be fun to watch given that the Solicitor General is appointed by the President, and the Supreme Court is leaning red.

sadde wrote:

As someone proudly based in CA but not blind to the mass exodus to other states and the highly enticing financial reasons behind it, this could be disastrous. Lunch breaks? Really? Talk about an asinine reason to give the company cause to downsize your own base.

What mass exodus? California's population grew 6% in 2020 census.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/20 ... 112412002/

California is the nations most populous state, the largest air travel market in the U.S, home to the busiest O&D airport, nations busiest port complex, a state with the biggest manufacturing sector, etc

Even with oodles of wasted spending, they achieved a $97.5bil budget surplus last month, larger than the budgets of 34 other states.

So regardless if companies move out, others look to expand, and at the end of the day California remains a massive economy and market on global proportions (5th largest) that airlines will fight hard to serve and ultimately comply with whatever required labor laws.

And as has been mentioned prior, with CA being such large place its often a trendsetter for the nation, so its policies are often adopted across state lines by companies.

UPlog wrote:

So regardless, its a massive economy and market on global proportions (5th largest) that airlines will fight hard to serve and ultimately comply with whatever required labor laws.

And as has been mentioned prior, with CA being such large place its often a trendsetter for the nation, so its policies are often adopted across state lines by companies.

But a lot of routes California crews work on could easily be worked on from crews in different states. I don't see them pulling out of bases but could an airline move 25% (or whatever percent we want to use) of their crew to SLC/PHX/DEN/other and have California crews work on shorter hop flights that stay closer to home? Or will it keep an airline from opening a new base in California? I don't think that idea is far fetched. An airline can easily serve the population of California with less crew based in California.

A reason airlines have crew bases is to save on things like hotels.

I cant even imagine the number of hotel rooms at LAX for instance that airlines would require if they utilize all out-of-state crews. Even at cheap $100/night, airlines like AS, AA, DL, UA, WN would combined have thousand crew each and every day. Multiply that for airports across the state and it becomes a massive and costly number.

Though, it would be one heck of a boon for the hotel, restaurant and shuttle bus industries!

And, no I don't believe the sky is falling mantra about California. Yes it is expensive, regulations can be a challenge, and politics may not be to everyone's liking, but it's a market virtually no one can ignore.

With thousands of extra hotel nights, those hotel rates will certainly rise also

The doom and gloom by Airlines for America is comical. California is not some 3rd world pariah nation where you avoid having employees based.

zeke wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

The pilots. There aren’t reliefs pilots on 5-6 hour flights

No reason there could not be one.

Sure just raise prices to cover an extra pilot. The most expensive crew members. Oh yeah and there is already a pilot shortage!

LAXintl wrote:

The U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief with the Supreme Court today that states federal airline regulations do not preempt California labor laws and urged the court to deny Virgin America/Alaska's petition.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-05-25/

The best line in the article (dated 5/25/22):

Virgin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

They may be waiting awhile.
-R

rbavfan wrote:

Sure just raise prices to cover an extra pilot. The most expensive crew members. Oh yeah and there is already a pilot shortage!

If you have a problem with the law, address the issue with the lawmakers. I am sick and tired of crew being expected to fund passengers flights.

zeke wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

Which means that airlines have a shortage of pilots.

It may be a shortage of their own making but it's a shortage none the less.

I still disagree, a shortage to me means they tried to recruit these pilots 12-18 months ago and were unable to fill vacancies. In reality these airlines made business decisions not to recruit and train during covid, the pilot numbers they have today are in line with what they recruited and trained 6-12 months ago.

I am not aware of any of the majors unable to fill vacancies, they are not able to ramp up as fast as travel is returning because of their own business decisions, not because they are unable to fill vacancies.

They were already having a know shortage of pilots before covid. This is due to retirements expected to increase & the 1500h rule. This Future pilot shortage issue was being talked about on here well before Covid layoffs/retirements. Not as many people able to afford those 1500 hours, before they would be qualified for even RJ operations. The last point is covered by pilots leaving regionals for mainline carriers. Thus still a pilot shortage!

zeke wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Sure just raise prices to cover an extra pilot. The most expensive crew members. Oh yeah and there is already a pilot shortage!

If you have a problem with the law, address the issue with the lawmakers. I am sick and tired of crew being expected to fund passengers flights.

How does raise the prices to cover an extra pilot amount to "crew being expected to fund passenger flights", Passengers would be making up the cost of the flight, not the crew.

LAXintl wrote:

A reason airlines have crew bases is to save on things like hotels.

I cant even imagine the number of hotel rooms at LAX for instance that airlines would require if they utilize all out-of-state crews. Even at cheap $100/night, airlines like AS, AA, DL, UA, WN would combined have thousand crew each and every day. Multiply that for airports across the state and it becomes a massive and costly number.

Though, it would be one heck of a boon for the hotel, restaurant and shuttle bus industries!

And, no I don't believe the sky is falling mantra about California. Yes it is expensive, regulations can be a challenge, and politics may not be to everyone's liking, but it's a market virtually no one can ignore.

Exactly! Clearly the ones mentioning airlines closing CA bases have no concept of how the industry works and how much an airline saves by having crew bases in CA.

rbavfan wrote:

How does raise the prices to cover an extra pilot amount to "crew being expected to fund passenger flights", Passengers would be making up the cost of the flight, not the crew.

Crew don’t care, as long as they get the meal and rest entitlement as any other employees is all that matters .

UPlog wrote:

sadde wrote:

As someone proudly based in CA but not blind to the mass exodus to other states and the highly enticing financial reasons behind it, this could be disastrous. Lunch breaks? Really? Talk about an asinine reason to give the company cause to downsize your own base.

What mass exodus? California's population grew 6% in 2020 census.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/20 ... 112412002/

California is the nations most populous state, the largest air travel market in the U.S, home to the busiest O&D airport, nations busiest port complex, a state with the biggest manufacturing sector, etc

Even with oodles of wasted spending, they achieved a $97.5bil budget surplus last month, larger than the budgets of 34 other states.

So regardless if companies move out, others look to expand, and at the end of the day California remains a massive economy and market on global proportions (5th largest) that airlines will fight hard to serve and ultimately comply with whatever required labor laws.

And as has been mentioned prior, with CA being such large place its often a trendsetter for the nation, so its policies are often adopted across state lines by companies.

Re the exodus: see below. The rates are what’s worrying, not the nominal numbers. Over time this will affect the revenue side of the budget surplus, especially when laws like this will incentivize airlines to reduce jobs based within the state.
https://www.capolicylab.org/pandemic-pa ... 22-update/

Sure the airlines will comply, but they will undoubtedly reduce base sizes or push crew growth to bases out of state. Not sure why anyone thinks the CA market will get ignored…that wasn’t my original point. For management it’s about minimizing labor costs, which a profit minded (every) airline has a shareholder mandate to do.

On the margin these types of policies have enormous effects. Airlines account for every unproductive minute crew and aircraft spend, this won’t get ignored or implemented nationwide at the drop of California’s hat.

To get back on topic, this is probably only being pushed for by the most senior FAs. If I was a junior FA or pilot wishing to be based in CA the prospect of this law is ominous at best and infuriating at worst. Lunch breaks? Really? It takes 30 minutes of planning before starting a trip to figure out a meal strategy.

I can see regionals and ULCC's closing their CA crew bases. The majors will probably reduce narrow body bases, maybe just have some reserve staffing. International crew bases like LAX 787 probably aren't affected since the flights are long enough to offer plenty of time for breaks.

Sean-SAN- wrote:

I can see regionals and ULCC's closing their CA crew bases. The majors will probably reduce narrow body bases, maybe just have some reserve staffing. International crew bases like LAX 787 probably aren't affected since the flights are long enough to offer plenty of time for breaks.

Not going to happen. The last thing a tight-fisted regional wants to pay for are several hundred hotel rooms every night. As for ULCCs, the only bases that I know of that exist are Avelo at BUR and G4 at LAX, and it's unlikely either of those will be cut. NK, F9, SY, and MX don't have California bases.

panam330 wrote:

Sean-SAN- wrote:

I can see regionals and ULCC's closing their CA crew bases. The majors will probably reduce narrow body bases, maybe just have some reserve staffing. International crew bases like LAX 787 probably aren't affected since the flights are long enough to offer plenty of time for breaks.

Not going to happen. The last thing a tight-fisted regional wants to pay for are several hundred hotel rooms every night. As for ULCCs, the only bases that I know of that exist are Avelo at BUR and G4 at LAX, and it's unlikely either of those will be cut. NK, F9, SY, and MX don't have California bases.

I don't think anyone thinks the majors are going to close bases. Most have only talked about downsizing them. You could do that without adding many hotel rooms. Especially, if you are an airline like WN that zig zags all over anyway. Instead of running Cali crew on routes that are for example LAX-ATL-BWI-LAS-LAX you are keeping them on LAX-OAK-SAN-SMF-LAX. Let crews from other cities run the longer routes that end up with minimal stays at Cali hotels and have the Cali based people run all those routes so they are home just as often. It wouldn't be that hard to rework your crew schedule to move some out of Cali, put non Cali people on longer flights, without many more overnights in expensive Cali cities. The percentage you leave in Cali are just running shorter hop routes out west and might also keep them home more at night. There are plenty of those flights in the schedule to keep people busy and keep the flight times under the rule for breaks.

Can't have a major hub in a location unless you have people locally based there to staff it. It's not just about flying people in from out of state as many have mentioned, its also about ensuring coverage for flights. I'm typing this from my house (in California), while I sit on reserve (waiting for a possible call to go fly a flight). Airlines HAVE to have locals like me "on call" to rush to the airport at the last minute. Not possible if no one is based here.

zschocheimages wrote:

Can't have a major hub in a location unless you have people locally based there to staff it. It's not just about flying people in from out of state as many have mentioned, its also about ensuring coverage for flights. I'm typing this from my house (in California), while I sit on reserve (waiting for a possible call to go fly a flight). Airlines HAVE to have locals like me "on call" to rush to the airport at the last minute. Not possible if no one is based here.

I don’t think anyone is saying that CA crewing will be eliminated….only that it will be reduced by some degree commensurate with the effect any labor regulations and marginal taxation rates impinge on the corporate profitability of basing crews there.

Let's take a look at the root of where this lawsuit came from. VX (and B6, SY, AS & few others) were the first to build parings to maximize 'productivity' of front/back crews. Trips that were legal by a matter of minutes....like SFO-JFK-SFO-SAN with > 50 min ground time en route to stay 'legal'. Legacy airlines quickly followed suit by building pairings that push the envelope of duty limits. Even under a CBA The rule is that if you are "legal to start youre legal to finish".
Using the hypothetical rotation from above let's say you're in SFO waiting to finish the day in SAN and there's a bag match problem, weather delay, exterior mx, whatever.... the door is closed so the crew is obliged to finish the mission (unless rolling into maximum duty time limitations which gives the Company a couple hours buffer). Because of the quick turns on the ground and the lack of crew meals there was little to no opportunity to grab food unless you packed a suitcase full of ramen.
Now... today.... The duty days are still pushing it but there are things like crew meals provided on carriers to choose to build trips like this. Even the bean counters admit that the cost of accommodating 185 pax because of scheduling issues costs a lot more than laying over six crew members for $700. I personally think this is an overreaction to address a problem that existed years ago.