While it certainly is easier to strike under the NLRA, I would strongly disagree that it is more labor friendly overall than the RLA.

The sole reason why airlines continue to be unionized while all other previously unionized industries have had their union membership crater in the last 60 year is the difference between the RLA and NLRA. When a property tries to unionize under the NLRA they do it on a location by location basis. Reference the handful of Starbucks or Walmarts that have attempted to or successfully unionized recently. All the company would have to do in order to shut that union down is open a new location across the street.

When a group under the RLA unionizes, they do it on a craft and class basis (e.g. airline pilots, train engineers, signalmen, etc.). If a company with a represented group were to open a new location that location would automatically be represented by the existing union.

If we were under the NLRA, delta could open the long awaited MCO or BOS base and then hire new pilots under whatever working conditions they wanted. And alpa couldn’t do a thing about it. This is exactly how union membership has been destroyed in all other industries. Shut down the plant because it’s too expensive and move to a location with cheaper labor, and hopefully “right to work” laws so that any future attempts to organize will be futile.

Theres plenty not to like about the RLA, but we owe all of our current success to the fact that it has covered our bargaining.