Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Not sure how long the plaintiffs have worked there, but the rules have changed over time.
Their argument is probably something along the lines of the "contract" was "negotiated" by a "representative" group which was organized and funded by the company, and therefore may not actually have the employees best interests at heart.
You can in theory make the same argument about SAPA, but I tend to think it's probably much more valid regarding the FA group.
I know FA's have it way worse, but do you not think the above is a perfect description of SAPA? Every pay package we have it is the sell job of "this is the best we can get" and "who knows what will happen if we vote this down" There is no negotiation on our part. It is more like accepting what the company is willing to give.
The theory of not having a union is that we can work together and share in the companies success without being obligated to align with a national organization that may not have the companies best interests in mind. The reality is that the company can just make changes to our "contract" without a pilot wide vote simply by getting SAPA to buy off on it. Block vs credit, EFB changes, allowing new hires to vote ect.... It would be interesting to see what happens with this. If a judge does side with the FA's, it pretty much will blow away any company rhetoric that the pilots have a true contract.