Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
Which really makes no sense. If ALPA is supported by dues revenue, why does having a lot of underpaid labor on their roles (who's representation they're subsidizing) make any sense?
You completely misread my original quote. My point was that under ALPA the regionals have no chance to combine their labor, because ALPA carriers negotiate separately. Now, why does this make sense to ALPA? Because the higher wages of mainline, which are subsidized by lower regional wages, pay a higher amount of dues. So it doesn't actually harm their bottom line. If the regional wages rivaled mainline's, airlines would have to either raise prices or reduce service. Or (more likely) bring more flying back in house, which I think most of us agree would be a good thing.
Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
If you really want to understand that, you need to correctly answer three questions:
1. Under the RLA, who actually owns a given company's flying?
2. How many customers does a mainline carrier have?
3. How many customers does a regional carrier have?
What does the size of the company have to do with it? Why does it matter who owns the routes? Why should ALPA care about these things? They should be more concerned with equally representing the people that pay them dues.
Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
Um,
Not same equipment.
(like it or not) not same seniority list.
We probably agree about the "joke" part, but supporting one's position with emotion, mixing metaphors, a lack of knowledge as to why we are where we are, and your dope internet keyboard warrior skillz doesn't actually solve anything.
Wrong. That's why I mentioned the actual pay rates that mainline lists for their CRJs versus a regional. I have explained every one of my positions calmly and clearly, so I don't think the keyboard warrior comment is appropriate. Trying to discredit me is not going to make your argument make any more sense.