Senators Push to Expand Federal Loans for Student Pilots

(AK, WI) A bipartisan push by U.S. Senators Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is pressing the U.S. Department of Education to open up larger federal student loan amounts to thousands of would-be pilots, arguing that aviation training programs should qualify for the higher borrowing limits given to professional degrees. In a letter signed by 31 senators and sent on October 28, 2025, the group urged the department to swiftly clarify and expand eligibility for students enrolled in accredited aviation degree programs and FAA Part 141 flight training so they can access the higher caps already available to other professional and graduate students.

The effort, coming as airlines and airports grapple with a pilot shortage, seeks to settle what the s Senators call a costly gap in federal policy. Although the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed in July 2025, raised lifetime borrowing limits for professional and graduate students, the law’s wording has left aviation students stuck under lower undergraduate loan caps. That distinction matters: flight training typically costs about $80,000 on top of tuition for a four-year degree, and the combined price tag can reach $200,000 or more, according to industry groups backing the push.

Baldwin framed the campaign as both a workforce and fairness issue.

“I am proud to work on this legislation with my Republican colleague to remove barriers for future aviators to obtain their commercial pilots license, strengthen the pipeline of talent to a family-supporting career in aviation, and meet the critical demand for pilots,” she said in a statement supporting the drive to expand federal education loan options.
Her office and Sullivan’s are also promoting a companion bill, the Flight Education Access Act, to align loan caps for pilot students with limits available to other professional degrees and to expand access to scholarships and loans for commercial pilot training.

Sullivan pointed to the strain on the air travel system and local communities.

“Our country is rapidly encountering a dire shortage of pilots that threatens our economic security and the well-being of our citizens. The cost of training is a significant barrier for many prospective pilots, and this is a barrier that Senator Baldwin and I are working to address with the Flight Education Access Act,” he said.
The Alaska Republican has argued that expanding federal loan eligibility is one of the fastest ways to widen the talent pipeline, especially for students who cannot cover out-of-pocket costs or secure private financing.

The letter asks the Department of Education to clarify, through regulation or guidance, that students in accredited aviation degree programs and FAA Part 141 training are eligible for the higher federal loan limits under OBBBA. It also presses for prompt action so current and incoming students can plan financing for the next academic terms. As of late October, the department had not issued the requested clarification. For students and schools tracking the issue, an overview of current federal borrowing rules is posted at the Federal Student Aid loan limits page maintained by the Department of Education.

Behind the appeal is a growing gap between what flight education costs and what the federal government allows students to borrow. The Regional Airline Association (RAA) and other industry groups say loan ceilings for undergraduates fall short by an average of $80,000 compared to actual costs for commercial pilot training. That shortfall, they say, shuts out many otherwise qualified candidates who do not have access to private loans or family resources. The RAA has documented how training costs, commonly reported at about $80,000 for flight hours alone, climb sharply when combined with a bachelor’s degree, often pushing total expenses toward $200,000.

Industry organizations have lined up in support of the senators’ push, including the Regional Airline Association, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), and Airlines for America (A4A), along with several major airlines and universities with flight programs. They argue that expanding access to federal education loan aid is essential to avert deeper service cuts as a wave of pilot retirements accelerates over the next decade. Many carriers have already pulled down regional schedules in smaller markets where staffing is tightest, and the RAA says the trend is most visible at local airports far from large hubs.

Faye Malarkey Black, president and CEO of the RAA, said the policy fix is simple and overdue.

“This small but powerful change would unlock additional federal resources for students, grow our pilot workforce, and support the economic health of smaller communities and our nation,” she said.
The association has highlighted the broader effects of the pilot shortage: hundreds of regional jets have been parked for lack of crew; three-quarters of U.S. airports have lost, on average, one in four flights; 37 smaller airports lost half their flights; and 12 airports lost commercial air service altogether.

Leaders in the regional sector say the shortage is not only about pay or hiring pipelines, but about the financial barrier at the very start of a pilot’s career.

“By creating a financial pathway for everyone, this legislation will not only create more pilots, but it will also make the career more accessible for people from all backgrounds, especially those who are not currently well-represented on the flight deck, such as people of color and women,” said Robert Binns, president and CEO at Air Wisconsin.
Supporters see expanded federal loan access as a way to open aviation training to students who lack family wealth or credit histories strong enough to secure private loans.

The legislative track includes more than the Senate’s Flight Education Access Act. In the House, Representatives Colin Allred of Texas’s 32nd District, Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon’s 5th District, and Steve Cohen of Tennessee’s 9th District are leading the companion effort. A separate provision in the College Cost Reduction Act (H.R. 6951) would also raise federal loan limits for accredited flight education and training programs, addressing the divide between current ceilings and the typical cost of earning commercial credentials alongside a degree. Together, the Senate and House measures are designed to ensure that students pursuing a professional pilot’s license are treated like peers in medicine, law, or other fields that already qualify for higher federal loan caps.

For aviation schools, the ambiguity in OBBBA’s language has prompted a wave of requests for guidance. Administrators running accredited programs say they have accepted that pilot training is a professional path with safety-critical standards, but they cannot advise students to expect higher federal lending without a clear ruling from the Department of Education. The senators’ letter aims to bridge that uncertainty so schools can align financial aid packages with loan caps that match actual program costs and so students are not forced to pause or drop out midway through required flight hours.

The timing adds pressure. Flight schools and universities report steady demand from students aiming for airline cockpit jobs, but many hit a wall when federal loan limits max out long before they complete multi-engine, instrument, and time-building requirements. For students who cannot find a co-signer for a private education loan or who encounter high interest rates, the gap can end their plans. Supporters of the senators’ initiative say a clearer path to federal financing would allow more students to move through training without multi-year delays, while keeping standards intact under FAA Part 141 oversight.

Sullivan and Baldwin’s coalition spans both parties and regions, a reflection of how the pilot shortage has cut across the map. Alaska relies on air service to connect remote communities, and Wisconsin’s regional airports link towns to larger economic centers. Their offices say the goal is narrowly focused: get the Department of Education to interpret OBBBA so aviation and flight training are recognized as professional degrees and, in parallel, pass the Flight Education Access Act to codify that approach. Neither step would lower training standards, and both would leave safety regulations under the FAA in place, backers say.

While the Department of Education weighs the senators’ request, advocacy groups are keeping attention on the numbers. The RAA’s figures show how the scarcity of pilots has reshaped the airline route map, with smaller communities bearing the brunt. Hundreds of regional jets have been idled for months, and airports that once had multiple daily departures now face thin schedules or no service at all. For business owners and families, the impact is concrete: longer drives to bigger airports, fewer options to reach medical care or job interviews, and higher fares where flights remain.

For students, the choices are equally stark. An aspiring pilot at a university program can finish general education requirements and core aviation classes, but without financing for the required flight hours—often the most expensive part—progress stops. Even as airlines advertise hiring programs and tuition assistance, those benefits typically kick in after training milestones are met. By aligning federal loan caps with actual aviation training costs, lawmakers argue, students could bridge that gap and graduate ready to build hours as instructor pilots and move into regional airline roles.

Backers also stress equity. Groups representing pilots and regional carriers argue that today’s financing model filters out capable candidates who do not have family support, savings, or prime credit. In their view, treating aviation training as a professional degree for loan purposes would broaden the talent pool at a time when nearly half of current commercial pilots are expected to retire within the next 10 to 15 years. They say the move is not a subsidy for airlines, but a way to ensure that students from all backgrounds can reach the starting line of a career with strong wages and clear advancement.

Opposition has been muted in the early debate, with most of the friction focused on how the Department of Education interprets OBBBA’s language and how quickly it can issue guidance without a full rulemaking process. Schools are watching closely because each semester that passes under lower loan caps forces them to stitch together scholarships, private loans, and payment plans for students trying to keep pace with flight-hour requirements. If the department affirms higher loan eligibility for aviation students, institutions say they can package aid earlier and reduce attrition.

The House and Senate measures will continue to move on separate tracks, but the immediate test is at the agency level. If the Department of Education adopts the interpretation sought by the 31 senators, students entering programs this winter could see a clearer path to financing the most expensive phases of training. If the department holds off, the coalition is likely to intensify the legislative push so that aviation training is explicitly labeled a professional degree under federal law, erasing the ambiguity that has left students exposed to lower borrowing limits.

For now, students, schools, and airlines are navigating a holding pattern. Advocates of the change say the fix does not require new federal spending so much as it aligns loan caps with the real cost of a safety-critical professional path. Their argument is that loan policy should reflect labor-market needs—especially when the absence of pilots has already grounded aircraft and dimmed connectivity for smaller cities and towns. With the next set of graduation and hiring cycles approaching, the senators’ request puts the decision squarely with the Department of Education, and the clock is already ticking.