California flight attendants and their unions are blasting a new Federal Aviation Administration proposal they call “plainly unlawful” that would strip crews of state-mandated meal breaks.
The FAA wants to exempt pilots and flight attendants from California’s meal-break laws, claiming federal airline regulations override state requirements, according to a report last week. The move could eliminate a key protection for California-based crews, who are generally entitled to an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break when working more than five hours.
Three major flight attendant unions fired back in an open letter, challenging the agency’s authority to declare state laws invalid. “As for the FAA’s attempt to preempt a whole category of state law by simply declaring it so, such an action is plainly unlawful,” the unions wrote. “Courts, not agencies, determine when federal preemption applies.”
The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, Association of Professional Flight Attendants and International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers represent crews at Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, United Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines. The unions warned the FAA’s approach would create instability rather than clarity. “By sowing a false sense of certainty that courts will not honor, the FAA will unleash chaos and uncertainty,” they continued.
The agency’s proposed rule would block state meal break requirements for aircrews but would not establish any federal replacement guaranteeing flight attendants time to eat during long shifts. The FAA maintains its existing fatigue management rules are sufficient protection.
The unions sharply rejected the agency’s implied safety concerns about scheduled breaks interfering with emergency response. “The suggestion that a flight attendant would not respond to an unruly or violent passenger or an on-board fire because of a scheduled rest break is completely unsupported by facts in the rulemaking record,” they wrote. They noted the FAA had identified no cases where a state-mandated break caused a crew member to mishandle an emergency.
The dispute over California’s meal breaks has already generated years of costly litigation for airlines. Alaska Airlines previously lost multiple cases over whether its California-based crews were entitled to the breaks, and the carrier attempted to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear its appeal.
The FAA argues that the patchwork of state requirements can significantly affect airline prices, routes and services, putting those laws in conflict with the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. The unions, however, accused the agency of prioritizing airline liability relief over worker welfare. “Its attention appears to be more focused on relieving the airlines of liability than working with stakeholders on the very real problem of flight attendants’ working conditions and how those conditions may impact the safety of the flying public,” they wrote.
California’s meal break rules have already proven influential in labor negotiations. The Association of Flight Attendants previously used the state law to secure meal break protections in its collective bargaining agreement before later supporting a carve-out from California’s requirements for aircrews.
The proposed rule comes as flight attendants continue pressing for improved working conditions across the industry, with meal breaks representing one of the most concrete protections for crews on lengthy shifts.