Some of you need to stop repeating Teamsters talking points and start grounding your arguments in what the Railway Labor Act actually says and how it has been applied, including at Allegiant.

The Allegiant pilot retention bonus interim agreement is a side letter to the collective bargaining agreement. It is not a standalone deal. Under long standing RLA precedent, side letters and interim agreements are part of the CBA and are protected by the same status quo requirements.

A change in representation does not void a CBA and it does not terminate side letters. Agreements attach to the craft or class, not to the union administering them. When representation changes, what changes is who enforces the agreement, not whether the agreement survives.

If the Teamsters’ argument were true, our contract should have disappeared the moment we moved from Local 1224 to Local 2118. It did not. Pay, work rules, and side letters all remained in place because the law required it. The same is true here. Claims that pilots would lose the retention bonus or other negotiated benefits simply for changing representatives are legally false and designed to intimidate.

What is not theoretical is IBT’s continued failure. We held an election, yet Greg Unterseher still refuses to release control. The trusteeship remains imposed. Pilots are denied the leaders they voted for. There is no democratic accountability and no meaningful progress to show for years under IBT control.

At the same time, we are heading into a merger while being represented by the same Teamsters leadership that failed Atlas pilots during their merger. That is not a coincidence and it is not a risk we can afford to ignore. This is exactly when strong, experienced, pilot run representation matters most.

ALPA offers what IBT has not delivered: democratic governance, airline specific expertise, merger experience that actually protects pilots, and the institutional strength to enforce agreements and win improvements. Staying with IBT means accepting more delay, more excuses, and more control by people we did not choose. Moving to ALPA is how we protect our contract, enforce our side letters, and position ourselves to come out of a merger stronger instead of divided.

This is about facts, law, and outcomes. On all three, ALPA is the clear choice.

I hope the pilots that ran the ALPA drive haven’t given up, we’re going to need them now more than ever.

-cHeERs

I know different attorneys in the field were inquired about this and the response wasn’t a clear cut n dry answer because that MOU is different than a CBA. The consensus was you would most likely get paid but if it goes to court that could take years. I don’t work there anymore but hope the best for you all.

More like 25% + 100% creates a majority.

I don’t wear an ALPA lanyard or participate in union matters. But I’m glad for those who do. Supportive and proud of our representation. Our differences are rather petty. Perhaps our unity can be a positive in the months and years ahead.

Hope your group can push through a good TA and collect those deserved RBs in the near future. Then the JCBA is something we’ll collectively knock out of the park together. The leverage is there.

Amazon leadership does not like union/mgmt angst within their ACMIs and will apply their own pressure. You’ll be surprised at the amount of control they have. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

The problem here is that this keeps getting framed as “I asked a lawyer and they said we’re doomed,” when in reality that is not how RLA issues get analyzed. The Railway Labor Act is a highly specialized area of law. Most attorneys, even very good ones, do not deal with it unless they work specifically in airline or railroad labor relations.

The retention bonus interim agreement is a side letter to an existing CBA. Under longstanding RLA practice, side letters and MOUs are treated as part of the agreement and are subject to the same status quo protections. A change in representation does not void the CBA and does not selectively eliminate portions of it. The agreement attaches to the craft or class, not to the union administering it. That is why our contract remained intact when representation previously changed from Local 1224 to Local 2118.

So when someone says “a lawyer told me this could take years in court,” that usually reflects a misunderstanding of how these disputes are actually handled. RLA status quo obligations exist specifically to prevent uncertainty and disruption during representation changes. The carrier does not simply get to stop honoring negotiated agreements because pilots exercise their legal right to change representation.

This isn’t about personalities or internet arguments. It’s about understanding the law that governs our profession. If you want an accurate answer, it needs to come from people who actually work in RLA and airline labor, not general practice attorneys guessing at a specialized statute between their work on DUI’s and Divorces.

The facts here are straightforward, and fear based speculation does not change them, despite Teamsters and MG’s (the CA not founder) best efforts.

The issue with that is even if you’re correct most pilots there understand the risk based on previous events. It wouldn’t be a surprise if it wasn’t paid just to hit the new local that just lost their bankroll of 10 million with big litigation expenses, all while taking advantage of time value of money on a quarter billion.

What previous events have taken place which set the precedent of non-payment of something such as a retention bonus?

I'm probably preaching to the choir here. But the work rules that ALPA has negotiated are SO important. It sounds like the bonus is not in jeopardy, but even it were, here's some food for thought.

Bottom third captain (line-holders) at SY can make 500k in a year (credit + 401k DC). Today, there was a trip in open time worth more than $30,000 for a 12+ year captain. One six-day trip.

Not trying to stir the pot, but I think there's a good argument that even with or without the RT, ALPA is the way to go.

No the bonus must happen. If you are okay with us losing that money at the sake of staying ALPA (I am pro ALPA myself) that’s pretty messed up. At this point I wouldn’t even talk about us losing it. It’s quite divisive. That’s great that a captain can make 30k on a 6 day with your work rules. Let’s push for that and more.
But the bonus must be paid. I think it’s over $200,000,000 at this point.

I agree, the bonus must be paid. The JCBA will be the opportunity to take the best of both contracts. In order to do that, we need pilot unity. Leaving these issues unresolved would not be a good starting point.

Additionally, I really don't see why we can't achieve both outcomes, it's way too soon to accept the frame that this is an either-or question.

There are some pilots in the system that apparently are already saying they plan to vote no, as a strategy to get more from the company. Some plan to vote no "on principle"; this is nuts.
When this E-board is able to lock down a TA, and soon, it will be imperative that people not think that we will have time to drag on negotiations more to get a little extra here or a little extra there. One way to put this retention bonus in jeopardy is by playing games, getting iced out by the NMB, and now having to wait for JCBA. Like you said, JCBA will be the opportunity to capitalize on the best of both contracts. It's astonishing that some people really think rejection/just saying NO, is some form of strategy.