JamesNoBrakes

You can strike just fine, it's just that no one is convinced that the good of the many outweigh the needs of the one, to quote a pointy-eared fellow. Think back to the industrial revolution and when labor unions first started to form. People faced dire consequences much worse than just going to jail and having their wrists slapped, but at the time it was worth it to put it all on the line for future generations. They knew that their actions wouldn't give them glorious riches, just like MLK knew he wouldn't see civil rights turn around in a year and benefit him in his lifetime, but people made sacrifices so that their future generations could have a better life.

If you want to have your cake and eat it too, well, then things get more complicated, as you are well aware...

OnCenterline

ALPA has at times actually defended the RLA (during the recession most recently). This is a great example of a love/hate relationship, because the RLA can be both a blessing and a curse.

A better solution would be to devise specific legal language that forces each side to negotiate a) quickly and b) in good faith because of a c) consequence that would be extremely painful to both.

We have two problems as pilots when it comes to striking:

1. We are not a sympathetic group in the eyes of the public. We make too much money and have too much time off. It doesn't matter how you as an individual feel about these things. What matters is the appearance of a person making good money while getting 10-15 days off every month. Nobody that hasn't done this can understand the issues or complexities of our work rules, so they focus on what they see: pilots get paid well, and get a lot of time off.

2. We are easily replaced. The pilot shortage notwithstanding, we are tradesmen, and we can either be replaced directly with unemployed pilots or pilots looking for a quick move in career progression, or the assets can be transferred to another carrier, whose pilots (and other employee groups) will reap the benefits. Thanks to the seniority system, if your carrier wobbles, you can't jump ship without starting over, so strikes--if they occur--are bound to be fairly short these days, because they are so expensive (for both sides). A long strike would lead to a liquidation, and you would wind up 'replacing yourself' at another airline.

The RLA stinks, but it could be changed with language that forces a faster resolution. I'm not saying it would be easy to get that, but it would be far easier than a repeal of the RLA.

tomgoodman

I fear that once the RLA is "in play" for Congressional tinkering, we might see another attempt to add some anti-labor provision like baseball-style arbitration. The "faster resolution" might come at our expense.

FirstClass

Because alpa cares about alpa. If there's no RLA, then there's no need for alpa. It's like the relationship with democrats and poor people, they gotta keep you down so you keep voting for them.

Sounds

Lmao that was great. Although I trust ALPA more than I trust mainstream politics. (Isn't that a backhanded compliment haha)

2old2fly

There are a lot of management types and politicians that think the RLA gives away way too much and would love to see it changed. Be careful what you wish for.

dupe

This. Be careful of the "help" you get from Congress. The nation is not in a place right now to support a) Union-backed legislation and b) the risk of delays to the air transport sector.

Money and brainpower are best spent in the negotiating room.

fadec

History lesson: ALPA fought to be included under the RLA and got their wish in 1936.

"Air Transport Labor Relations" by Robert Kaps. Page 28. https://books.google.com/books?id=EY2WGe62KGYC&lpg=PA136&ots=mRPvpKiWdZ&pg= PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

sulkair

Source: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n2/v68n2p41.html

The Future Funding Outlook
According to RRB reports to Congress, the financial outlook for RRB remains stable for the next 25 years. However, the decline in railroad employment is a potential concern. The number of individuals in RRB-covered employment fell from 640,000 in 1970 to 236,000 in 2007, a shift that presents a sizable demographic obstacle for a pay-as-you-go system. The current beneficiary-to-worker ratio for those covered under the Railroad Retirement Act is about 2.4 to 1. However, between 2000 and 2007, railroad employment has held fairly constant in the low- to mid-two hundred thousands (RRB 2008c).
Current projections make it reasonable to expect that RRB will remain solvent, at least in the near term. Nevertheless, RRB notes "[u]nder the current financing structure, actual levels of railroad employment and investment returns over the coming years will largely determine whether corrective action is necessary" (RRB 2008c).

Conclusion
Because of their often parallel development, the Railroad Retirement program and Social Security share a number of programmatic similarities, the most substantive of which is the coordination of RRB's Tier I benefits with Social Security benefits. At the same time, the two programs possess some noteworthy differences in terms of both benefit structure and funding. For example, RRB provides a unique Tier II benefit designed to replicate a private pension, and the agency has introduced innovative features to increase program income, such as investing a portion of its funds in equities.
As a result of the coordination between the two programs, the future of Social Security has a direct impact on RRB, and any alterations to Social Security tax rates or benefit levels will have an effect on annuitants receiving funds through RRB. Understanding the historical experience of RRB, its policy features, and its financial relationship with Social Security can help guide policymakers seeking to ensure long-term solvency for both systems.

AvExpress

ALPA is a lame duck. From the individuals companies that make it up to the very organization itself. And that's based on the pilot group itself