Flight attendants in California are expressing strong opposition to a new proposal from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that could eliminate their state-mandated meal breaks. Unions have criticized this move as “plainly unlawful.”
The FAA’s rationale is that federal airline regulations should take precedence over California’s meal-break laws. This change could significantly impact crews in the state, who usually are entitled to a 30-minute uninterrupted meal break after working for more than five hours.
Three major flight attendant unions are taking a stand against the FAA, asserting that the agency lacks the authority to invalidate these protections without proper judicial backing.
In an open letter, the unions remarked, “The FAA’s attempt to preempt a whole category of state law by simply declaring it so is plainly unlawful.” They emphasized that it is the courts’ role to determine the applicability of federal preemption, not the agency’s.
The unions—representing flight attendants from Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, United Airlines, and Hawaiian Airlines—highlighted that the ongoing contention regarding meal breaks has already caused airlines significant legal troubles.
For instance, Alaska Airlines faced several lawsuits regarding the entitlement of its California-based crews to meal breaks, even attempting to escalate the matter to the US Supreme Court, though the Court ultimately declined to hear the case.
The FAA contends that varying state requirements can affect airline operations, including prices and service routes, which they argue conflicts with the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
The proposed regulation would effectively nullify state meal break requirements for aircrews without providing any federal framework to guarantee breaks during long shifts. The FAA insists that its existing fatigue management guidelines are sufficient.
However, the unions disagree. They warn that the FAA’s current stance could induce chaos and uncertainty by misleading the public about the protections in place.
Additionally, they refute the idea that scheduled breaks for flight attendants could endanger passengers during emergencies, noting there’s no documented case where a state-mandated break has led to mishandling an emergency situation.
The unions also accused the FAA of neglecting to consult with flight attendants regarding their working conditions before attempting to eliminate these state protections.
They stated, “It seems the FAA is more concerned with easing liability for the airlines than addressing the real issues surrounding flight attendants’ working conditions and their potential impact on passenger safety.”
California has demonstrated its influence in shaping labor agreements, with the Association of Flight Attendants having previously used state laws to secure meal break provisions in contracts, and later negotiating exceptions specifically for aircrew members.
