A federal proposal that could change meal and rest-break rules for flight attendants is drawing opposition from major airline unions even as aviation experts applaud the plan.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a nationwide rule that would prevent state and local governments from setting their own meal and rest-break requirements for flight attendants and pilots.
Instead, federal aviation rules would apply — according to the agency’s proposed rule document.
HIGHER FARES COULD SLAM FLIGHT PASSENGERS TO POPULAR REGION AS AIRLINES SHIFT COSTS: ‘NOT A FAN’
The proposal would affect existing state protections, including meal and rest requirements that have applied to some California-based flight attendants, the document states.
Under California law, employees generally must receive a 30-minute meal break when working more than five hours, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Employees generally must be relieved of all duties during that period for it to qualify as an off-duty meal break.
In its proposal, the FAA argues that different state requirements could interfere with airline operations and conflict with the safety responsibilities of flight attendants.
Flight attendants are responsible for handling emergency situations, including fires, medical incidents, evacuations and unruly passengers, according to the FAA document. Requiring a flight attendant to be completely off duty during a break could create a safety risk.
The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA), however, opposes the proposal — arguing that it could remove state protections without establishing a federal guarantee for meal and rest breaks.
The union said some flight attendants already work for hours without adequate opportunities to eat, drink, use the restroom or take care of other basic needs.
“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 their joint comments to the FAA.
The unions also argued that the proposed protections are “extremely vague” and do not provide enough assurance that airline policies will address both safety and flight attendants’ needs.
“The proposed rule does little to ensure protections for flight attendants without specific contractual protections,” the unions wrote.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER
The FAA’s proposal does not prevent flight attendants from eating, drinking or using the restroom.
Instead, airlines would have to allow them to meet those needs while ensuring they remain available for safety responsibilities, according to the document.
Michael J. Boyd, president of aviation consulting firm Boyd Group International based in Colorado, told Fox News Digital that, in his opinion, the FAA’s approach makes sense given the safety role of flight attendants.
Boyd is not connected to the rule developments and expressed his opinion based on his experience in the aviation industry.
“They’re on duty,” Boyd said. “You can’t break like that in the middle of the sky.”
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
“They have to be on duty because they’re a safety function, just like pilots are, just like firefighters are,” he added.
Boyd said he does not believe flight attendants would see major changes to their day-to-day work if the proposal is finalized.
“Nothing will change,” he said. “All they’re saying is that state rules do not supersede FAA rules.”
Boyd also expressed concern that state break requirements could require airlines to add more flight attendants to provide coverage, raising costs.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE LIFESTYLE STORIES
Under the current federal system, meal and break arrangements can be addressed through airline policies and collective bargaining agreements, according to the FAA document.
Federal rules also require flight attendants to receive 10 consecutive hours of rest between duty periods, the agency noted.
The proposed rule has not been approved or taken effect.
Fox News Digital reached out to the FAA and AFA for comment.
