Sponsor, pilots and union back adding pilots to PFD/hunting residency exemption; committee seeks fiscal and legal clarifications

Rep. Rebecca Himshoot, sponsor of the bill, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 6 that an amendment to House Bill 93 would add a new Section 5 to AS 43.23.008(a), allowing otherwise-eligible individuals to remain eligible for the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) while absent from Alaska if they are serving as pilots for an FAA‑certified air carrier. The sponsor said the change is meant to make an already-existing residency standard enforceable and that the CS includes a delayed effective date of Jan. 1, 2028.

The proposal drew support from Burke Anderson, government affairs committee chair for the Airline Pilots Association and a pilot for Alaska Airlines, who testified the nature of airline work means "our office moved" and that counting work-related travel toward the 180-day absence rule can unfairly disqualify Alaska residents who routinely fly for work. "We're just asking for equal treatment," Anderson said, arguing that federally required training and duty-station arrangements can take pilots out of state for extended periods.

Why it matters: Alaska’s resident bag limits and some license fees already differentiate residents from nonresidents; the bill seeks to align enforceability for hunting and fishing with the PFD absence standard so residents who rely on subsistence harvests can plan year-to-year. Rep. Himshoot told the committee that the delayed effective date is intended to give Alaskans time to adjust and that the bill would add what she described as an 18th allowable absence exemption to existing PFD exemptions.

Committee members pressed for several clarifications. Sen. Stevens asked why pilots should receive a six‑month accommodation and whether other airline employees (for example, flight attendants) should be included. Sen. Tobin raised wage‑equity and demographic questions and noted that the draft also extends exemption language to spouses and dependents in some subsections, which could let accompanying family members be absent up to 180 days without losing PFD eligibility.

Alpheus Bullard, legislative counsel, told the committee his statutory reading of AS 43.23.008 indicates the 180 days are counted cumulatively rather than as a single continuous block; the chair said the committee will invite the Department of Revenue to the next hearing to provide the department’s interpretation. The sponsor and testifier acknowledged that the current draft names "pilot" specifically and that expanding the language to "flight crew" would be more inclusive but also could raise identification and fiscal questions that the committee asked staff to quantify.

The committee did not vote on the underlying policy. Chair Klayman summarized three items for follow-up: (1) fiscal impacts of adding pilots (and of adding flight attendants or broader "flight crew" language), (2) the Department of Revenue’s formal interpretation of how absences are counted, and (3) legal/terminology clarification about whether the text should reference FAA air‑carrier certification rather than "United States airline." House Bill 93 was set aside for further review.

Next steps: The committee asked the bill sponsor’s office to provide fiscal analysis and technical drafting clarifications and will invite the Department of Revenue to give a day‑count interpretation at a subsequent hearing.