What If the Airline Blames Federal Preemption?

When a family brings an aviation injury or wrongful-death claim, the airline may argue federal preemption—that federal law displaces state-law claims. Two doctrines show up most: (1) FAA safety preemption and (2) the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preemption of state laws “related to prices, routes, or services.” Here’s what those mean in practice—and why most safety-based negligence and wrongful-death claims still proceed.

FAA safety preemption (field/conflict): what it really does

Federal law gives the FAA broad authority over aviation safety and the use of U.S. airspace. Courts read this to mean federal standards of care govern aircraft operation and maintenance. In cases like Abdullah v. American Airlines, the Third Circuit held the FAA framework supplies the uniform safety standard, while state tort remedies (damages) remain available. You prove negligence by showing violations of federal rules, manuals, or procedures—rather than inventing a separate state safety code.

Important: FAA preemption of the standard does not erase the claim. It channels it. Other circuits, including the Third Circuit in Sikkelee, have rejected broad “field preemption” for aircraft products and apply conflict preemption instead—state claims survive unless they clash with an FAA approval the manufacturer could not have changed.

ADA preemption (prices, routes, services): where it applies—and where it doesn’t

The ADA says States can’t enforce laws “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” The Supreme Court used this to block state consumer-protection attacks on fare ads in Morales, and to bar statutory consumer-fraud claims about a frequent-flier program in Wolens—though Wolens allowed ordinary breach-of-contract suits based on the airline’s own promises.

For injury cases, ADA preemption typically doesn’t apply because negligence/wrongful-death claims aren’t trying to regulate “prices, routes, or services.” They seek compensation for unsafe conduct—which is governed by federal safety rules, not by the ADA’s marketplace-freedom policy. The ADA’s text (49 U.S.C. § 41713) targets economic regulation, not tort claims grounded in safety.

What this means for Kentucky families

• Your claim can proceed when framed through federal safety standards (e.g., Part 121 operations/maintenance, manuals, training) with Kentucky tort remedies. FAA preemption guides what standard we use; it doesn’t delete the lawsuit.

• ADA defenses usually fail in safety cases. They matter in disputes about pricing, routes, and services (like loyalty programs or ticket terms), not in proving a ramp collision, maintenance failure, or operational negligence.

• Products cases (e.g., a component design) often survive under Sikkelee unless the airline/manufacturer shows a direct conflict with the FAA’s approval that could not lawfully be changed.

How we frame and prove the case

1. Anchor to federal standards: We use FAA rules, carrier manuals, ops specs, and industry guidance as the standard of care.

2. Build the factual record: ATC audio/radar, ramp CCTV, telematics, training/maintenance logs—then align those facts to the federal standard.

3. Neutralize ADA arguments: We show the claim isn’t about “services” or pricing; it’s about safety and compliance with federal rules.

Quick FAQ

Does “federal preemption” wipe out wrongful-death claims?

No. You generally still sue—proving violations of federal safety standards and using state tort remedies for damages.

—

When does the ADA actually block a claim?

When a state law targets an airline’s prices, routes, or services (e.g., advertising rules or loyalty-program terms), as in Morales and parts of Wolens. That’s different from safety-based negligence claims. Legal Information Institute+1

References & Further Reading

• 49 U.S.C. § 41713 (ADA preemption of prices, routes, services) (text & CRS overview). Legal Information Institute

• Morales v. TWA, 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (state consumer-protection enforcement preempted). Legal Information Institute

• American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (consumer-fraud claims preempted; contract claims allowed). Legal Information Institute

• Abdullah v. American Airlines, 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999) (FAA supplies uniform safety standard; state remedies remain). Justia Law

• Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive, 907 F.3d 701 (3d Cir. 2018) (no broad field preemption for products; apply conflict preemption). Justia Law

• 49 U.S.C. § 40103 (FAA control of navigable airspace and safety policy). Justia Law

If the airline or a vendor raises preemption, the response is to reframe—not retreat: prove the case through federal safety rules and keep Kentucky’s remedies on the table.