Originally Posted by
ATCsaidDoWhat
Satchip, your question frame the issue perfectly. ALPA's legal determination is that there is no such thing as "struck property" from this point. If you as a passenger have flown Airline X between two cities for years and Airline X goes on strike; if you choose now to go to Airline Y to fly, can the pilots of Airline X call the pilots of Airline Y scabs? Can Airline Y refuse the new passenger?
No, they can't they can't refuse the flying. Same with cargo. A cargo customer has the right to move their business anytime they want to any carrier. What can be done with cargo, as we saw with Atlas and recently at Amerijet, crews can scrutinize each cargo airbill and refuse to carry cargo that was consigned to the striking carrier and on their aircraft.
What CAN'T be done is for Airline Y to come onto X'x property and use any of their equipment, gates or otherwise. Just like if a cargo carrier showed up on another carriers ramp and carried their branded cargo.
Hope that helps.
Ok, that makes more sense. I understand that latter part. As for increasing capacity in order to satisfy and increase in demand due to a strike, would that not give the strikers more leverage? IE if AT sees it is losing market share due to the strike to a competitor, would that not in effect give the company more of an incentive to settle? After all the purpose of a strike is to hurt the bottom line to convince management the worth of labor.
Isn't this what happened to UPS during their strike? FedEx increased their market share at the expense of UPS because of the strike. More boxes flowed to purple from brown. That loss caused UPS to settle faster than they would have otherwise, or is that an oversimplification?