Following the decision from the United States Supreme Court not to hear Alaska Airlines’ appeal to a ruling handed down in Bernstein v. Virgin America in which the airline must abide by the State’s labor laws and afford flight attendants designated rest and meal breaks, Alaska held two question and answer sessions that were broadcast live to crews.
These are the most interesting takeaways from the PM session that was broadcast on July 7, 2022 at 4pm PST.
Alaska Airlines confirms that they only emailed original “legacy” Alaska Airlines flight attendants information related to the case following the Supreme Courts’ decision, and left out all of the original Virgin America flight attendants. Leadership described this situation as “creating confusion,” and was also happy to announce that “going forward” they’ll now “be able” to email everyone at once, and “that’s good news.”
Listen to that statement:
Alaska says they have not spoken to other airlines about how they plan to comply with the law. Alaska says they’re “proud” to be ahead of this ruling having put in weeks, if not months, of “scenario planning” although they haven’t landed on a plan to enact yet.
Alaska says they cannot “negotiate their way out of this” situation, and must comply with the law. They urged numerous times, employees to speak to their lawmakers about creating laws or exemptions that would “limit the company’s liability” and would lessen “the impact to our business” and their jobs.
In a discussion about the various scenarios created in the event the ruling didn’t go in the company’s favor, it was said that the simple solution, and one recommended by the court, of adding an additional flight attendant to trips would actually be the “most expensive scenario” over base closures. The Leadership panel explained that adding an additional flight attendant would cost extra in salary, require the airline to remove a seat from inventory which would be expensive to do as they’re a “low-cost carrier,” and the additional flight attendant doesn’t satisfy all aspects of the rest and meal breaks law as the move doesn’t allow crews to leave the airplane (or premise) to take their break.
A few questions posed to the panel referenced the numerous times they explained that the company had been “planning” for every possible outcome, but yet there hasn’t been a decision made on how the company plans to comply with the law. Alaska Airlines’ SVP and General Counsel said this was “out of respect” for their employees and again, explained, “we’ve been preparing across the company and I think you all are taking issue with the fact that we haven’t announced within hours of the supreme court decision what we’re doing.” “It was out of respect for you, a desire to be deliberate, a desire not to rush.”
Listen to that statement:
The airline does not believe the California law applies to pilots.. yet. They said “this case was about flight attendants,” and that’s the only interpretation they’re walking away with for now. It was explained that there are other lawsuits pending, with pilots involved, that could change that way of thinking in the future.
Alaska said they are concerned about similar lawsuits in Washington and Oregon State, although current laws wouldn’t result in this outcome. However, again, they expressed their concern over the laws changing and urged employees to contact their lawmakers to ensure laws like those in California don’t get passed.
When asked whether or not this whole situation could have been avoided by simply settling with the Virgin America flight attendants, Counsel for Alaska Airlines Kyle Levine took a long pause and a deep sigh and replied: “Maybe.” “We have to risk calculuses and remember what I said was at stake: The rules under which our national airlines work.” “We decided [this case] this one was worth fighting. We didn’t want State rules that impact your flexibility, we didn’t want State rules that drive base closures, but these national rules are more important enough to fight for.. I’m sorry it was a roundabout answer.. but, maybe.”
Listen to that statement:
