A must-pass funding package to avoid a January 30 government shutdown is carrying quiet airline policy moves that will matter far more than the headlines about FAA dollars.
The major pilot union is celebrating “two fully rested pilots at all times,” but the language is really a spending restriction that prevents the FAA from studying new technologies that might improve safety, and separate language orders the Department of Transportation to revisit decades-old international aviation policy that has worked to open market access and foster competition.
The current three-bill appropriations package moving through Congress covers Defense, Labor–HHS–Education, and Transportation–HUD. It’s one of the endgame measures meant to fund those departments through Sept. 30, 2026 and avert a January 30, 2026 government shutdown deadline. The House passed bills on Thursday.
The Air Line Pilots Association sent out a press release excited about some of the provisions in the bill, and I hadn’t looked closely enough at these.
- Directing the FAA to ensure a minimum of two qualified, fully rested pilots on commercial airline flight decks at all times.
- Including additional resources to improve the FAA’s aeromedical process, reduce the backlog of pilot and controller medical certificates, and provide new flexibility to hire and retain skilled medical professionals.
- Providing critical funding for the National Mediation Board, which promotes collective bargaining in the airline and rail industries.
- Urging the Department of Transportation to review its outdated Statement of International Air Transportation Policy, internal guidance that in the past has been used to justify detrimental labor policy for international aviation, including air service agreements, joint ventures, and licensing cases.
ALPA is certainly excited for “a minimum of two qualified, fully rested pilots on commercial airline flight decks at all times.” But that’s not really what the bill does, and it wouldn’t be good if it did.
There is a committee report (explanatory statement), not a statutory rider in the bill text. It’s an instruction that,
Funding made available in this act shall not support reductions in flight deck crew in commercial operations as provided under 14 CFR Part 121.
What it means:
- Funding for FY2026 cannot be used to enable reduced-crew part 121 operations. Contra ALPA’s statement it does not do anything at all on pilot rest.
- If there are future safety-enhancing ways to restructure cockpit roles, the FAA can’t study it. They’re pushing “two pilots forever” rather than “follow the data on safety.” And that means we limit ourselves to current safety best-practices, banning improvement.
- Fortunately that’s only for current-year funding, but it makes it easier to default to this in future years, too, precluding research on better automation or better alerting. But it protects pilot jobs.
Addressing medical backlog is probably on net a good thing. The bill funds the Office of Aerospace Medicine at $100 million ($3 million above request) to increase staffing and modernize its information management system to reduce processing time. It directs additional staffing (psychiatrists, legal instrument examiners, program analysts) to expedite and reduce backlogs for pilot and controller medical certification.
What it means:
- Pilots hate unpredictable medical timelines. The union also wants mental health pathways that don’t punish help-seeking.
- That said, backlog reduction can turn into pressure on “days to decision” rather than “correct decision.” You don’t want throughput targets to turn into rubber stamping.
More funding for the National Mediation Board is $15.1 million to carry out the Railway Labor Act. That’s $800,000 more than requested. ALPA is presumably hoping this means faster case handling, fewer administrative bottlenecks, and therefore more leverage in collective bargaining (get to a credible strike threat faster).
Possible the biggest risk area for the future is the requirement Department of Transportation review of its “Statement of International Air Transportation Policy.” This is a 30-year old document. The House language requests a briefing within 180 days, the Senate within 120 days.
It’s long-standing policy of the U.S. government to foster open markets in aviation, replacing restrictive bilateral agreements between nations with Open Skies agreements, increasing consumer options for better service and lower costs. The policy has aimed to make U.S. carriers key players in the global marketplace, prioritizing competition over protectionism, and facilitating U.S. carrier growth.
ALPA focuses on foreign carriers accessing U.S. markets, competing with their pilot members for jobs, and also allowing U.S. airlines to partner with other airlines rather than expanding themselves and adding their own pilot jobs. So they want more protectionism from a shift in overall policy stance. And that aligns with the current administration overall.
Even a review can chill investment in partnerships, alliances, and joint ventures, and a more restrictive U.S. posture can invitate retaliation and limits on U.S. airline access to foreign markets.
Also in this legislation, related to aviation, there’s:
- $13.7 billion funding for FAA (backed by the Airport & Airway Trust Fund), with designated break-out amounts for safety, air traffic control, commercial space, NextGen improvements, etc. down to the level of a $1 million flight attendant drug and alcohol program contract: ≥ $1M and $3 million veterans’ pilot training program.
- A ban on using Airport Improvement Program grants for terminal baggage changes to install bulk explosive detection systems, while moving $15 million to the Small Community Air Service Development Program.
- A ban on new FAA aviation user fees by regulation unless expressly authorized in legislation.
- Contract weather observers program protected (can’t be eliminated).
- Flight-tracking privacy: funds can’t be used to limit private-aircraft owner ability to block identifying data from real-time public tracking (effectively, this protects blocking).
- A ban on planning, designing, or implementing privatization of air traffi control, and also on building any new air traffic control academy except the existing Mike Monroney academy.
- Up to $3.5 million reimbursement for general aviation tenants harmed by presidential airspace restrictions.
Ultimately, the must-pass shutdown bill doesn’t just fund aviation, it quietly attempts to lock in today’s cockpit rules and invites a more protectionist DOT posture that could reshape competition and partnerships long after this fiscal year ends.
Thanks for the focus on this, some very interesting stuff in here.
An industry trade crop with a lobbying arm is acting in its own self-interest? Sounds about right.
Whether or not one is in favour one-pilot operations (with backup pilots/captains etc.), and I am not, other than cargo-only initially, the research is imperative! This is analogous to people who want NO research into climate/climate history let alone climate change, or, on the other side, people who oppose cloud-brightening-research because “it may imperil the move to green fuels”! SMH
The biggest improvement we can make in aviation safety is removing pilots, they have been the number 1 cause of fatal accidents in the US in the last 20 years and continue to prove time and time again they can’t be trusted to do their job. I’m not saying the technology is good enough now (it is not) but we should be investing heavily in research to remove all pilots from cockpits.
FSD was a pipe dream a decade ago and now I can get into a Waymo and I’m safer than if I was driving the car myself. For an industry that is so pro-safety it is funny to watch it fight itself to keep using a clearly less safe solution (pilots).
I suppose if some leaders, including Supreme Court justices can not define a man and a woman, then requiring two fully rested pilots could potentially include pilots named Alexa and Siri?
You’re so right David P. That clearly is the next logical step. /s
Did I just read that one of the provisions was to prohibit airport improvement funds from going toward funding baggage explosion detection devices? I can’t think of a better way to spend these funds than that. I sure hope money to fund newer technology baggage explosion detective devices is already covered in some other funding. If not, we might want to rethink that one.
@Jason — If I understand correctly (not an expert on this topic by any means, just interested), that is indeed the case. I don’t think this is new, rather a continuation of the banning of FAA funds for that purpose. The purported reasoning behind it is to ensure the funding for this kind of stuff comes from Homeland Security/TSA (specifically the TSA Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP)), not the FAA. So basically trying to draw a line in the sand of who is responsible for paying what. But yes — let’s hope whoever is paying is investing the proper amount of money and time into all that!
For all you armchair pilots, don’t be idiots.
Neither Boeing nor Airbus can produce and airplane that can be flown without 2 trained aviators. In an emergency, it takes one to fly the aircraft and one to diagnose and troubleshoot the aircraft. Never mind coordinating with ATC, flight attendants, dispatch.
Even the physical space of an aircraft lends itself to requiring 2 cockpit professionals. For example, one cannot physically control a Boeing and pull circuit breakers at the same time.
Enough with the idiotic opinions.
Recent part 121 crashes can be attributed to pilot error. Landing upside down in Canada and Regan helicopter crash. Not politically correct but DEI involved.
Having a dictate where you must “train to proficiency” as certain CEO’s have mandated does not screen out weaker pilots. You can pass anyone in a simulator check by doing the same maneuvers over and over. Then they get on the line without common sense, judgement.and physical skills.
Technology has gotten to the point where a pilot is unnecessary. ALPO will fight like hell to avoid this just as they did with elimination of the third pilot.
The first step will to have one pilot who monitors but doesn’t touch anything. AI doesn’t require DEI!
Requiring two fully qualified, fully rested pilots in the cockpit at all times is simply insane. So now airlines are supposed to not only take up more first class passenger seats for pilots to rest but ensure that there’s always a third pilot on hand to step in when a pilot needs to use the facilities or stretch their legs? Sure, it’s vital to have a second person present to avoid a Germanwings, etc. situation but hopefully the presence of a FA in the cockpit would be enough to keep the remaining pilot from killing everybody on the plane.
@Andy
Calm down, ChatNPC. A Waymo can be disabled by an open door. A computer pilot can’t toggle circuit breakers during a troubleshooting checklist.
Physical barriers are a thing.
Just because you cannot research how to remove a pilot from the flight deck doesn’t mean you can’t research into safety enhancing systems and automation to help the 2 pilot crew. I know Gary Leff is obsessed with getting the FO out of the flight deck, but this take is weird.
“Manufacturers and the FAA won’t look to make flight safer if they can’t remove a pilot” is a really weird take. Airbus, Embraer, (and probably Boeing) are working on technologies that enhances the 2 pilot crew.
You can add technology and keep 2 pilots and it can enhance safety more than that technology and removing one pilot.
It’s like how engines have become reliable enough to go from 4 engines to 2 engines and then going, well they are now reliable enough to go to 1.
Working on increased engine reliability increases safety, cutting back on an engine is just to save money. What’s safer, 1 super reliable engine, or 2 super reliable engines?
I also see quite a few commenters have really gobbled up Gary Leff’s anti pilot narrative… weird, very weird indeed.