METO Guido

"the panel held that it was physically possible to comply with federal regulations prohibiting a duty period of longer than fourteen hours and California’s statutes requiring ten-minute rest breaks and thirty-minute meal periods at specific intervals. The panel held further that Virgin’s obstacle preemption argument mischaracterized the relevant federal regulation and improperly dismissed the possibility of increasing flight attendant staffing on longer flights. Contrary to Virgin’s characterization, the relevant regulations defined safety duties for a minimum number of flight attendants. The panel agreed with the district court, which held that airlines could comply with both the Federal Aviation Administration safety rules and California’s meal and rest break requirements by staffing longer flights with additional flight attendants in order to allow for duty-free breaks. Finally, the meal and rest break requirements were not preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act."

I think Virgin's argument has merit. FARs with respect to rest requirements for required crewmembers, including other relevant aspects of aviation safety during periods of elapsed block time, as assigned, preempts CA's code. This is a real concern for many operators. What's to prevent other states from imposing any number of added codicils for protection of flight and cabin crew…rights? How do you develop manuals referenced to code when no one knows which regulatory source takes precedence? If you want to revise legalities for the operation of domestic airliners, got to be done through the Fed.