Common Sense: California’s New Flight Attendant Rest Break Law

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a logical bill into law, which will minimize the impact of a recent controversial court ruling, with one major exception. Before we look at the new law, let’s take a look at why this was even necessary.

California’s tricky crew rest dispute

I’ve written in the past about California’s complicated crew rest dispute. In 2016, California-based Virgin America flight attendants sued the airline, arguing that California’s employment laws were being broken. Specifically, this revolved around the requirement that workers in California be free from all job duties for 10 minutes every four hours, and get a 30 minute meal break once every five hours.

The question came down to whether these laws should apply to California-based flight attendants. Airlines argued that rules around crew rest are set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while flight attendants argued that they should be treated no differently than any other California-based employees.

In 2021, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of airline employees. While airlines tried to fight this ruling in court, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.

While this of course sounded like a big win for flight attendants, the practical implications were a different story. Airlines generally staff flights with the minimum number of required flight attendants, so requiring crew rest breaks where employees are 100% off duty would mean that airlines would have to increase staffing levels.

The airline industry argued that these changes would have cost airlines $3.5-8.5 billion per year if implemented, and would have led to an increase in airfare. Truth be told, the practical implications would have probably been quite simple — many airlines would have simply closed their California flight attendant bases, as that’s the only way to avoid having to deal with this.

Fortunately there’s now a mostly positive update…

This lawsuit dates back to 2016, and involves Virgin America

California passes law to address crew rest ruling

As noted by @xJonNYC, in a bipartisan effort, California Senate Bill 41 has just been signed into law, and it should prevent airlines from closing crew bases in California.

Specifically, this law states that meal and rest period requirements do not apply to flight attendants if they’re covered by a collective bargaining agreement under the Railway Labor Act, and if there’s a provision addressing rest breaks. Furthermore, new legal action over meal or rest breaks is prohibited.

In other words, unionized airlines only have to provide meal and rest breaks for flight attendants in line with what their collective bargaining agreements say. This means that it will be business as usual for most airlines.

It’s nice to see California politicians working together to come up with a common sense solution. Of course this also means that the legal action over the past seven years regarding this has accomplished almost nothing.

Here’s what California Senator David Cortese, who wrote the bill, had to say about this:

“SB 41 shows that business groups can come together with organized labor to solve thorny problems resulting in keeping good-paying jobs here in California that might otherwise leave the state. This negotiation resolves conflicts and provides flight attendants with a benefit that makes them whole and keeps airline workers and passengers safe. I applaud the commercial airlines, cabin crew labor representatives, and my colleagues for promoting compromise for the benefit of commercial aviation, its flight attendants, and the flying public.”

While this bill is no doubt a positive, that seems like a lot of puffery for a law that essentially maintains the status quo.

This is very bad news for Delta

I missed this at first, but it won’t be business as usual for every airline with this bill. This explicitly only covers airlines with collective bargaining agreements — in other words, airlines with unionized flight attendants. Keep in mind that Delta is the one major US airline without a flight attendant union, so it seems like Delta wouldn’t be covered by this.

This raises an interesting point. Is this California pushing a pro-union agenda? After all, there have been campaigns for years to get Delta flight attendants to unionize, but they haven’t been successful. Could this be what pushes Delta flight attendants over the edge, as the only logical solution?

In fairness to the government of California, I don’t think the policy of only covering airlines with collective bargaining agreements is totally unreasonable, at least in the spirit of trying to comply with the court decision. Airlines with unionized flight attendants negotiate every aspect of their contract, while Delta flight attendants simply get what management offers them, and they can unionize if they’re not happy. Is that the same thing? I don’t know…

This new bill might have major implications for Delta

Bottom line

A law has been passed in California that minimizes the impact of a recent court ruling regarding flight attendant rest breaks. That court case ruled that California-based flight attendants were entitled to the same rest breaks as all other employees based in the state.

While I can in theory appreciate the idea behind this, the practical implications would have been that many California crew bases would have been closed. To prevent this from happening, a new California law states that airlines don’t have to comply with these laws as long as they have a collective bargaining agreement that addresses rules around rest breaks. That’s great news for most airlines, but it spells trouble for Delta.

What do you make of this new California law?

Conversations (50)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Eresa Tdi Guest

SkyWest Airlines (largest most lucrative regional in the world and larger than most US mainline airline companies) also does not have a union. Together with Delta, they’re the only two who don’t. SkyWest has California flight attendant bases in Los Angeles, San Diego, Palm Springs, Fresno and San Francisco. What does this mean for them?

0
‼ 0
JGil Guest

The bill said CA BASED FA NOT GLY THRU

0
‼ 0
Brian Gasser Guest

Does the CA state law only apply to FAs while operating within the boundary of CA airspace? If a CA based flight attendant is on an LAX-JFK flight, do the rules change when the flight is over each states? This is why the FAA should be responsible for setting the rules of the system.

2
‼ 0
Dave Guest

Delta is welcome to develop a non-Californian crew base if it doesn’t want to comply with California laws. But of course that might mean getting rid of or limiting the number of lucrative flights based out of the state with the nation’s largest GDP. If Delta wants to remain non-union l, it needs to shift its crew bases to right-to-states.

0
‼ 0
N1120A Guest

The law isn't actually new - it is a clarification of existing law. Historically, most wage and hour laws in California are superseded by the provisions of a CBA and meal and rest breaks are not and exception. This is really just to placate the union carriers, who were getting antsy over the Virgin America ruling, despite the issue for Virgin America being that they were non union.

1
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published