American Airlines Faces Backlash Over FAA Approval to Reduce Crew on Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners, New Update is Here

Published on July 31, 2025

By: Tuhin Sarkar

American Airlines has faced criticism from flight attendants after receiving FAA approval to reduce its crew on Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners. This decision, impacting major hubs like Dallas/Fort Worth, has sparked concerns about safety standards. The change from eight to seven flight attendants raises alarms about the ability to manage emergency evacuations. The Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) argues that this compromises passenger safety and could delay evacuations in case of an emergency. This article explores the implications of the reduced crew, the opposition, and the global perspective on crew staffing.

FAA Approval and American Airlines’ New Crew Configuration

In late June 2025, the FAA approved American Airlines’ request to reduce the minimum required cabin crew on its Boeing 787-9 from eight to seven flight attendants. This approval, which applies to the aircraft’s operations out of major hubs like Dallas/Fort Worth, is a significant change in staffing procedures. The Boeing 787-9, which has eight emergency exits, will now have one exit left unattended by crew during an emergency. American Airlines has emphasized that this decision provides operational flexibility, allowing the airline to manage crew shortages and last-minute sick calls without facing delays or cancellations.

Flight Attendant Concerns Over Safety Standards

The APFA has expressed strong opposition to this change, warning that it could compromise safety, especially during an emergency evacuation. Traditionally, U.S. airlines have followed the standard of having one flight attendant per emergency exit. This safety measure, established decades ago, is designed to ensure that every door is attended by a trained crew member, enabling swift evacuations within the required 90 seconds. The APFA’s primary concern is that reducing the crew to seven flight attendants means that a single crew member may be responsible for two exits, especially in the rear of the aircraft. This could create delays in evacuation, particularly if the flight attendant becomes injured or incapacitated during an emergency.

Potential Risks During an Emergency Evacuation

The APFA outlines several key risks associated with the reduced crew configuration. One significant concern is that an incapacitated flight attendant could leave two exits unattended, especially at the rear of the aircraft. This could severely hinder evacuation efforts in an emergency. Additionally, crowding or obstructions in the cabin might delay access to both exits. The tight quarters of the Economy section, where most passengers are seated, further complicate the situation. The union argues that having only one flight attendant manage two exits is a dangerous scenario, especially in the event of a serious security threat or fire.

Comparisons with Other Airlines and Global Practices

American Airlines is not alone in seeking lower crew staffing levels. United Airlines operates its 787 fleet, including the larger 787-10, with a minimum of seven crew members, while Delta Air Lines has approval to fly its Airbus A330 with as few as six crew members. These precedents influenced the FAA’s decision to approve American Airlines’ configuration. However, this practice has raised concerns, especially in light of recent incidents involving emergency evacuations. Globally, different regulatory bodies have varying crew-to-passenger ratios. In Europe, for example, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) may allow a Boeing 787 to fly with just six cabin crew members, depending on the specific configuration of the aircraft.

The Impact of the Pandemic on Crew Staffing Levels

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered air travel dynamics, leading many airlines to temporarily reduce crew staffing levels due to lower passenger demand. With reduced load factors, airlines like American Airlines took advantage of this period to push for more flexible crew requirements. However, as service levels return to normal, the APFA argues that safety standards should not be compromised. The APFA believes that maintaining a high standard of safety, especially in emergency situations, should remain a priority, regardless of the operational changes that airlines are making in response to staffing and economic pressures.

The Long History of Door Staffing Standards

Since the 1970s, U.S. airlines have followed the standard of staffing widebody aircraft with one flight attendant per emergency exit. This staffing model has been designed to ensure that crew members are positioned to manage evacuations swiftly and efficiently. With American Airlines’ new reduced crew configuration, the industry’s long-standing staffing standards are now being challenged. The APFA maintains that while airlines aim to optimize their operations and manage costs, passenger safety cannot be sacrificed. The union argues that safety standards should be updated to reflect current realities but should still prioritize crew coverage at emergency exits.

Global Perspectives on Airline Staffing and Safety Standards

Internationally, airlines operate with varying crew staffing ratios, influenced by local regulations and operational needs. The European Union allows certain aircraft, including the Boeing 787, to be staffed with fewer crew members based on specific configurations. While these regulations may be seen as more flexible, many global carriers still adhere to higher staffing standards to ensure safety. In some cases, airlines have even removed seats from aircraft to reduce the number of required crew members, a practice not commonly seen in the U.S. This highlights the ongoing debate between regulatory flexibility and maintaining high safety standards across the airline industry.

FAA’s Role in Ensuring Passenger Safety

The FAA plays a key role in regulating safety standards for airlines in the United States, including crew staffing requirements. While the FAA has approved American Airlines’ request to reduce crew on the 787-9, the agency is also responsible for investigating incidents related to crew staffing and emergency evacuations. The APFA has urged FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford to reconsider the decision, emphasizing the risks posed to passengers and crew. As part of its oversight responsibilities, the FAA will likely review the long-term impact of this decision, especially in light of the union’s concerns and feedback from other aviation safety experts.

Operational Flexibility vs. Safety Concerns

American Airlines’ decision to reduce the minimum required crew on its Boeing 787-9 fleet gives the airline more flexibility, particularly in managing operational challenges such as last-minute crew changes. However, this operational flexibility must be balanced with safety concerns. The APFA’s stance highlights a key issue in the airline industry: how to ensure cost efficiency without compromising the safety of passengers and crew. As airlines continue to navigate staffing shortages and economic pressures, finding a balance between these factors will be critical.

Conclusion: The Future of Airline Staffing and Safety Standards

As American Airlines and other airlines continue to reduce crew staffing on widebody aircraft, the industry faces important questions about safety standards and operational efficiency. While airlines like American, United, and Delta argue that reduced staffing offers greater flexibility, the APFA and other safety advocates emphasize that safety cannot be compromised. The decision by the FAA to approve American Airlines’ reduced crew configuration has sparked a broader conversation about how the airline industry balances safety and efficiency. As the situation develops, it will be essential for regulators, airlines, and unions to work together to ensure that the safety of passengers and crew remains the top priority.