I'd go more into depth on this, and I have in the past, but the RLA is not slanted against labor as many or most pilots seem to believe.
The reason why the RLA appears to be tilted against labor, IMO, is that the RLA favors the more educated and the more committed party in a dispute. That party is almost never labor, at least in the context of airline pilot labor union disputes under the RLA.
For example, it's held as truth by the majority of pilots I've interacted with that "the President will just shut us down (permanently being the insinuation)," despite the fact that the text of the RLA for nearly 100 years as well as a
DOJ legal opinion written at the request of the first President Bush more than 30 years ago have unequivocally refuted that myth.
Another example, why do airline pilot labor unions almost universally (Delta is a notable exception) hesitate to file for mediation when filing for mediation starts the "mediation clock" and "time in mediation" is one of the key metrics considered by the NMB and the courts in determining if a dispute is ready to be released? APA never even filed for mediation this cycle. Neither has UA.
Why do airline pilots believe the mediator is telling us the truth during mediation when a mediator's job is to get a deal, any deal, done as quickly as possible and when it's no secret that mediators are empowered to lie, cheat, or steal in their pursuit of clearing out their docket?
Successful mediators often liberally use blarney (hoomalimali in Hawaiian) as one of their mediation tools. The Chairman's statement may well have been a ploy. By inquiring as to the true meaning of such a statement we could well undermine its entire purpose by forcing the Board to admit it was a tactic to spur negotiations. (930 F.2d 45 (1991))
An NMB member may legitimately indicate an unwillingness to move a dispute out of mediation in order to pressure the parties to settle. The Board may let a case sit as a mediation tactic, and it may tell parties that it will let a case sit. Congress chose this necessarily protracted means for resolving railroad labor disputes. That one side feels disadvantaged by maintenance of the status quo is absolutely irrelevant under the law. It is the nature of disputes in mediation for one party to feel squeezed. (888 F.2d 1428 (1989))
I could go on but the lack of education among airline pilots surrounding one of the key determinants in our career earnings, benefits, retirement, and work rules is staggering. Referencing the second quote above, which side do you think a mediator is typically more easily going to be able to squeeze in a dispute: the airline pilot side with our massive lack of understanding of the RLA or the management side with their legions of labor relations specialists and airline industry labor attorneys (like FordHarrison)?
We typically do more damage to ourselves in the RLA process than does management or the NMB.