A federal proposal that could eliminate meal breaks for pilots and flight attendants is facing opposition from major airline unions.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a nationwide rule that would prevent state and local governments from setting meal and rest-break requirements for flight crew members. Instead, the FAA would establish federal aviation rules governing those breaks.
Existing Meal Breaks
Under California law, employees are entitled to a 30-minute meal break when working more than five hours, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Employees must be relieved of all duties during that period for it to qualify as a meal break.
The FAA argues that state laws interfere with airline operations and conflict with the safety responsibilities of flight attendants. According to the agency, flight attendants are responsible for handling emergencies during the flight. This includes fires and medical incidents, as well as dealing with unruly passengers. Given these responsibilities, having flight attendants completely off duty is viewed as a safety risk.
Under its proposed rule, the FAA would override state meal-break requirements for aircrews. However, the proposal would not establish a federal requirement guaranteeing flight attendants time to eat during their shifts. The FAA further argues that existing fatigue-management rules are sufficient.
Unions Fight Back
Three of the largest flight attendant unions have voiced concerns about the proposed rule. The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers represent employees at major carriers, including American Airlines, United Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and Alaska Airlines.
The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA) argued that the proposal would remove state protections without providing a federal guarantee for meal and rest breaks.
According to the unions, flight attendants already work for hours without opportunities to eat, drink, or use the restroom.
“While we understand compliance with state laws is not without its challenges, we are far more concerned about the safety impacts of flight attendants working under onerous working conditions,” the unions wrote in a statement.
In addition, the union called the proposed protections “extremely vague.” The unions wrote, “The proposed rule does little to ensure protections for flight attendants without specific contractual protections.”
Disputes over meal breaks are not new. Alaska Airlines has lost several cases over whether its California-based crews were entitled to meal breaks. The dispute even reached the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the airline’s appeal.
