Originally Posted by sky jet

Your statement is true. The sad part is that airlines should have never been part of the act. If you had a business in 1925 that was on the Norfolk Southern rail line, using it as your primary shipping method, and the Norfolk Southern employees went on strike shutting down that line your business was also basically shut down. Trains run on tracks owned by the company and no other company can run trains on those rails. If the struck company decides to let another company run trains on their lines during a strike the striking employees can easily disrupt that rail line and stop the struck work from going.


Airlines are totally different. They don't own the sky. If Delta goes on strike tomorrow Atlanta doesn't lose all air service. Will Atlanta or the nations commerce be negatively impacted? Certainly. But if the strike goes on long enough other airlines will add service and in the long term there will be no change in the economy. Why should airline employees be treated any differently than say truckers. I would submit that a nationwide trucker strike would be more damaging to the national economy than an airline strike. How about health care. Many local hospitals are now owned by Nationwide companies like Humana or Adventist. Why don't they have a similar act?

The RLA is essentially indentured servitude for airline employees. (especially pilots, mechanics and flight attendants) Because of our seniority system it is virtually impossible for senior employees to consider changing employers. We are approaching the 100th anniversary of this law. It's time for it to go.