United Airlines is actively lobbying California lawmakers to exempt airlines from minimum break rules for employees, part of controversial law protecting workers in the Golden State, including pilots and flight attendants.
United Airlines Lobbies California Lawmakers To Exempt Flight Crews From Minimum Break Legislation
Let me sum up what has led to this point, as briefly as possible:
- Under California law, all employees must be given a 10-minute break every four hours
- Under California law, all employees must be given a 30-minute meal break every five hours
- Flight attendants from (now defunct) Virgin America sued to enforce this law…and won
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Bernstein v. Virgin America that airlines are not preempted from this legislation
- Alaska Airlines, which acquired Virgin America, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the SCOTUS declined to hear the case, leaving in place the lower court ruling
- Airlines are now warning the sky is falling if this law goes into effect
- American Airlines already announced it is closing its flight attendant base in San Francisco (SFO)
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Behind the scenes, airlines are lobbying federal lawmakers for explicit preemption legislation that would exclude airlines from these duties.
Meanwhile, flight attendant unions like the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA) have carefully walked a line that falls short of praising the new legislation but seeks to use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations with management.
Now United Airlines, which has two hubs in California, is also working with state lawmakers in an attempt to carve out an exemption.
A 14 October 2022 memo to flight attendants from John Slater, United’s Senior Vice President of Inflight Services, reviewed by Live and Let’s Fly reveals:
I wanted to share an update about a California law regulating meal and rest periods and how it impacts our team, especially flight attendants based in California.
A recent court decision involving another airline now means that a CA law requiring workers to be relieved of all duties during meal and rest breaks also applies to flight attendants based in CA.
This requirement obviously doesn’t make sense in the air where federal regulations require flight attendants to be ready at any time to handle emergencies. It’s totally incompatible with the important safety work our team performs on every flight and will almost surely cause major operational disruptions for customers as well as fewer bid options for crews.
Our flight attendants deserve breaks, which are protected by your collective bargaining agreement and – importantly – consistent with federal safety requirements.
So, we are working together with AFA to advocate to the California legislature for some common-sense solutions to address the problem.
We expect to have more information to share in the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, the AFA has told members:
Flight Attendants need to eat during the course of their work day. We are human and we have basic needs like every other worker. We also know the realities of aviation and there’s no reason we can’t come to an agreement with the airlines for a legislative technical fix that allows airlines to comply with California meal and rest rules while maintaining the operation. We are ready to resolve this, and we hope they will get serious with us about doing that now too.
There remain a number of unknowns, with substantial ramifications:
- Would such legislation only impact flights within California (no flight in California is more than five hours long…) or all flights that takeoff or land in California?
- What does a break look like? Could taking 30 minutes off from service while still being prepared to assist in the case of an emergency be practical?
- Will airlines close California flight attendant bases, thereby hurting the very people the legislation intended to help?
- What would a compromise look like and would it require approval from California?
If you wish to learn more about this issue, the AFA has posted an interesting discussion between Sara Nelson, its President, and counsel about this legislation:
This is not the first time California has been a trailblazer when it comes to progressive legislation. In 1988 California banned smoking on flights, trains and buses within California. American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, and Amtrak refused to comply, while United Airlines did. The issue was eventually settled by a nationwide ban on smoking on flights under six hours in 1990 (later expanded to all flights in 2000).
> Read More: Do Any Airlines Still Allow Onboard Smoking?
The ultimate goal for United here (and all airlines) may not be simply to moderate this California legislation but to explicitly exempt (so-called preemption) itself from complying with most state legislation regulating labor due to the interstate nature of airline travel. In that sense, there is far more at stake than simply meal breaks for California flight attendants and pilots.
CONCLUSION
United Airlines is working with California legislators to carve out an exception to its law on employee rest. At the same time, the airline industry sees this issue as an avenue via federal legislation to weaken states’ rights to legislate worker protection that include flight crews. Meanwhile, airline unions see the California law as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from management. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
image: United Airlines
Great reporting.
So who is going to fly the plane when pilots are taking their 30 min break, who is going to attend to any emergency while in flight if it’s the stewards break time just tell them to hang on I will be with you in 30 mins, passengers are going to love this leave the damn airlines along to do their jobs
Well, if the rule is interpreted in such a draconian way, airlines will be forced to staff additional pilots and flight attendants or (more likely) schedule in “breaks” between flights, lengthening aircraft turn times.
I support the California legislation that requires a 10 minute break every 4 hours. However, it should only be applied in California. So a JFK-LAX flight would have the 4 hour clock start once the plane enters California airspace near Las Vegas.
In practice, flight attendants sit around a lot. Rarely, I have seen some airlines where the flight is short and the flight attendant is racing to serve the meal. Or years ago on a Seattle-Portland flight that the flight attendants are racing to serve drinks, finishing in the nick of time.
Maybe United can schedule technical stops, like LAX-LAS-IAD to skirt the regulations. Once in the air, the captain decides “hey, we’ll skip the LAS stop” but so the California flight to the first destination is too short.
Don’t think this doesn’t happen. On transatlantic flights, the published schedule might be LHR-LAX but the actual plan to stop somewhere like Gander. Once in flight, they say “oh, we have enough fuel reserve to extend it to ORD” then later to LAX. I think there needs to be a percentage reserve but that results in a lot of extra fuel required for long flights to they break it up to smaller segments that aren’t used.
Maybe there can be an exception in an emergency situation. But stick with the CA law during normal operations.
Your statement “more than one way to skin a cat” is offensive. I do animal rescue work and see some horrific things. Find another way to say this. Perhaps something as simple as “there are other options”.
Fair enough.
Is there really more than one way to skin a cat, though?
Really? snowflake.
So slang phrases are the new oppressors?
Um, OK…..
Get over it. The world cannot bend to every perceived offense.
I’m offended at your offense taken to such an offensive slang saying.
Closing a base doesn’t make logical sense because if this issue comes up in one state what is to stop from starting up in other state? California is not a foreign country lol
Simple, it’s plain and simple you guys. United is going to have to schedule more crew members on CA long /medium haul flights. Plain and simple, an they are WILLING to do that in exchange for other Federal Favors, plain and simple. Period, full stop.
Hey United, just put more crew on planes.
There, FIFY.
Better solution: federal legislation that puts more crew on planes.
My consulting bill is in the mail…..
United should just pull out of California. Airlines are routinely unprofitable. Losing California for an airline with the large footprint whether it’s JetBlue, United, or American makes no difference to the bottom line. They might even boost earnings by cutting out California. From a business perspective, airlines don’t need California.
Are you dense? If they were wanting to pull out of California why would they be adding new routes? Close your mouth and stfu thank you
Do you have a processing disorder? Just because airlines do something does not mean it makes financial sense. All I said is United should pull out of California and probably would increase earnings by doing so. The regulatory environment is not suitable to a profitable operation in California. Airline management doesn’t understand economics which is why most of the big ones are operating close to bankruptcy all the time.
Everything Democrats do makes our lives harder and more expensive. Nowhere is this more clear than California, where one-party rule has tarnished the once golden state into a filthy, degrading, crime-infested third-world nation led by corrupt tyrants who thrive behind their guarded, gated communities on the backs of the middle class.
Adding more crew to flights will give California the highest airfares in the nation, pricing millions out of air transport, just as Democrat-passed laws have given California the highest fuel costs in the nation, the highest food costs in the nation, the highest energy costs in the nation, the highest crime in the nation, the worst poverty in the nation, the worst homeless problem in the nation, and among the worst schools in the nation.
If the airlines can’t negotiate some kind of reasonable exception, they will simply close the California bases and eliminate more jobs. That seems to be the objective in Sacramento and with the way things are going, they just may do that anyway.
I’m sure Las Vegas and Reno would welcome these employees…
I hope CA tells the airlines tough the rules are the rules. CA being tough is how change gets done throughout the country.
EXCEPT that during a reportable emergency situation inflight, then everyone works. Similar to how off duty senior flight crew get woken up for any tense all hands on deck emergencies.
Airlines language is laughable arguing totally incompatible with “important safety work” and will “almost” surely cause major operational disruptions”.
AA closing crew base in CA is a bluff and will be incredibly short sided when other states will “almost surely” follow suit with CA rules. Look at auto emission standards etc led by CA.
Of course you do Mark. It’s not your job that’s at stake.
Such a typical Democrat…
Magnifico,
That’s quite the little political rant! I’m pretty sure you’re probably good with your UNION contract, your UNION benefits, and your CAL Disability Program. Those pesky Democrats, eh, NOT allowing companies to treat workers like slaves…MOST OF WHOM ARE NOT PROTECTED BY A UNION CONTRACT!
Sorry WB, despite the ALL CAPS, your impotent yelping is unimpressive. California was once the nation’s envy. Democrats have turned it into a crime-ridden laughing stock that hundreds of thousands leave each year.
Looks like some FAs will be next…
“EXCEPT that during a reportable emergency situation inflight, then everyone works. Similar to how off duty senior flight crew get woken up for any tense all hands on deck emergencies.”
Unfortunately, this caveat in incompatible with the California law. For example, it’s been established that paramedics can’t be considered to be on break if they’re required to be available to respond to an emergency call that might come through. This would be no different that requiring crew members to be available to respond to an inflight emergency.
But too bad, right? Be tough, California… The rules are the rules! Even if they have no sense.
I can’t see how flight attendants can even “get away” and take a proper break in such a small space as an airplane cabin unless you have rest quarters on the plane. I compare myself to a flight attendant and as a California Nurse working in a busy hospital, I RARELY take a proper break. Of course, Union Rules are strong in California and say that I need to take a proper break or claim for a ‘missed break’ and get paid for that.
Of course, if you charged a MISSED BREAK on your time card, how would that look to management? You might even GET FIRED if you do it too many times.
Then there is the other side, the dark side, where a non-union carrier increases workload to the point of not being able to have a break or a break that is 45 min. on an international flight. Service is constantly being added for that specific purpose.
Which carrier?