...
Originally Posted by
paladin
JP, we may be in agreement that unions have a necessary function in society; however I think our strategy on the methods they should use to represent their membership would differ. You state that ALPA is doing exactly what they need to be doing and go on to state they need to more aggressive. I am curious as to what end and what path your advocacy for a more aggressive stance by ALPA would take? That same question goes to anyone who may still be reading this thread and is of like mind with JP concerning ALPA’s negotiating strategy. It seems to me they are doing the only thing possible given the state of the airline industry. Each MEC/LEC is negotiating the best deal possible in context with the economic well being of each individual company.
You're right, you caught me contradicting myself.
I do believe ALPA should be more aggressive in that they tend to go after the legacy carriers, and give less attention to the regional industry, even though it is the modern battleground between unions and management. The legacy carriers are mostly in bankruptcy, and the concessionary bargaining there has been unavoidable. The regionals are fighting the modern equivalents of Frank Lorenzo and Carl Ichann in Orenstein and Atkins.
The "race to the bottom" in the regional industry is being caused by artificial "cost boxes" and greed. At ASA, we're being asked to take concesions while our parent company (Skywest) reports record profits. We've been in negotiations for 4 years. Mesa is constantly being told to be cheap and get the growth. ALPA is nowhere to be found.
I believe ALPA should devote more resources and attention to fighting management in this sector of the industry, one where second year copilots with families are still below the poverty level, senior captains make 70K a year, and the work rules remind one of a sweatshop with 14+ hour duty days.