Employment relationships in the aviation industry constitute a unique legal phenomenon because they exist at the intersection of two regulatory regimes with distinct objectives: labor law, which is grounded in the principles of worker protection and social justice, and aviation law, which focuses on technical standards and public safety. The tension between these two legal regimes has generated considerable legal debate, particularly regarding the validity of applying Fixed-Term Employment Agreements (Perjanjian Kerja Waktu Tertentu/PKWT) to pilots, who functionally occupy a central role in sustaining airline operations. This study aims to delineate the regulatory boundaries between general and special legal frameworks, assess the legal validity of the current employment agreement scheme, and formulate a harmonious and legally certain regulatory framework. Employing normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the study examines legal norms through the perspectives of the theory of legal certainty and the theory of legal protection. The findings demonstrate that the nature of a pilot's work—being a core, continuous, and indefinite activity—objectively satisfies the legal requirements for an Indefinite-Term Employment Agreement (Perjanjian Kerja Waktu Tidak Tertentu/PKWTT) under Article 59 of Law No. 13 of 2003, as amended by Law No. 6 of 2023. Accordingly, the application of PKWT arrangements or bonded-service schemes disguised as service contracts constitutes a legal deviation, resulting, by operation of law, in the conversion of the employment relationship into permanent employment status. Aviation law does not possess the authority to override labor law with respect to employment status; rather, it serves only to complement the technical aspects of work performance. This study concludes that restructuring pilots' employment relationships under the PKWTT framework is both a legal necessity and a prerequisite for ensuring aviation safety. It further recommends regulatory harmonization to eliminate ambiguities in the interpretation and application of the relevant legal norms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saragih et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: