Originally Posted by
Oldfreightdawg
Kellner said he prefer new government rules that would remove some of those cost constraints, allowing airlines to make money, employees to earn decent pay and passengers to feel they’re getting a good deal.
Among the biggest rule changes would be revamping the Railway Labor Act, which has governed labor agreements since the dawn of passenger air travel.
He begins the article talking about deregulation, then shifts to the RLA, which has nothing to do with deregulation.
For airlines, it means lengthy contract talks, which often wind up in mediation that leaves both sides unhappy. “The problem is the structure of the RLA creates a very cumbersome process,” Kellner said. “It hasn’t worked well since deregulation. It creates a tremendous amount of angst on both sides.”
I've always considered the RLA to be advantageous to management, not labor. When management starts talking about supporting something I consider to be to our advantage, I get very nervous. What's the end game?
Over the years, airlines have tried to revamp labor agreements with disastrous results —strikes, bitter negotiations, acrimonious relations
between unions and management.
Unlike the auto industry, pro sports, or any other industry not covered by the RLA?
If the current state of the industry doesn’t benefit workers, it also doesn’t benefit investors. Continental’s market share, for example, has fallen to about $1.1 billion from $3.8 billion in 2006, and the airline lost $585 million last year.
Continental's market capitalization has fallen, not it's market share. In general a very shallow and sloppily written article on what is potentially a very important subject to labor, shareholders, and consumers. There is no follow up on what modifications to the RLA Kellner believes are necessary, or how they'll help stabilize the industry.