Quote:
If you’re referring to actions that are far more egregious than not wearing a hat, then I might agree with you to an extent. However, ALPA has an extensive set of resources that we’ve all paid into. They have a duty of fair representation to each individual pilot.Originally Posted by FangsF15
So yes, I have a big issue with pilots in a "Union of One" costing the rest of the pilot group. While ALPA has a duty to mount at least a tacit defense in representing its members, that duty is not inviolate or absolute,IMO. There is a line. IOW, you have a right to representation - you do NOT have a right to go off on your own, and make your own set of rules. At some point, we have to police ourselves, and not automatically go all-in on behalf of the worst offenders.
ALPA also has an obligation to fight disproportionate discipline for any offense. While I don’t condone what the 747 pilots did, the case could easily be made that the company’s move to go straight to termination was disproportionate. Letting termination stand for failure to report to a single reserve assignment would have been bad precedent for the entire pilot group, however egregious the 747 pilots’ circumstances may have been.
I would support an ALPA defense for a pilot terminated for not wearing a hat for the same reason. It’s a moot point, as no pilot will be fired for not wearing a hat. Continued insubordination may be a different matter, but that’s a very long HR road for the company to go down over something this trivial. They simply won’t be able to if large numbers of pilots remain hatless.