The military affairs group doesn't really have any teeth. It's a toothless dog that can only bark.

Maybe you should grow up. You don't understand what it is. It's a committee. It advises the MEC and is a sounding board to ALPA members who are in the reserves/guard.

Has the "committee" ever filed an individual and/or a group grievance on our members behalf? Sure, I've seen some positive results on some no-brainer issues worked out at lower levels, but the committee isn't designed, nor empowered to drive results arising from contract language interpretation/implementation as it compares to federal law.

The reason there are law suits by our ALPA members is because our internal mechanisms and contract enforcement aren't sufficient. It's a very simple observation. Why else would military people be suing?

It's why we have a former Chairman of the military affairs committee suing in Federal Court.

To be effective, our military affairs committee should be chaired by an Attorney who is empowered to litigate on our members behalf when a serious dispute arises. On the flip side, the members have more protections available to them under USSERA. Likely a grievance would not be heard anyway. A grievance board would be gun-shy to hear the case because they may lack the standing needed to act as a competent legal authority to rule on Federal law.

A simple grievance about a crew meal or a fight about scope language is great for the system board of adjustment. Not really the proper venue for a Title 10 or Title 32 violation of US Code. So, this is likely why the suits have to be filed. Heck, ALPA may even be advising the plaintiffs to sue due to their limited resources and/or ability to seek remediation.