WHAT alpa back stabbed another pilot group to profit alpa national, say that aint so.

So we have the RLA written in 1926, amended to apply to the Airlines in 1936. We have ALPA which began in 1939. We have a strike that occurred in 1960, and we have deregulation which happened in 1978. Now will the history scholar in the room tell me what any of this has to do with why an airline pilot does not get paid for his experience when we move to another company?

My next question is why do we only get paid when the main cabin door closes and the brake is released?

skypilot35,

You need to read Flying the Line, then come back with questions. RLA basically rules out cross-company or national unions covering several companies. The RLA was written to prevent strikes or lock-outs crippling transportation., not to give either the company or union that much power.

As to transferring jobs, if you can't have trans-company unions, explain how to get to national seniority? Before that, explain how to operate a large number of interchangeable members of a craft except thru seniority?

As to pay, google Decision 83 of the National Labor Board


GF

The link people are making is that because of the Railway Labor Act, it's extremely difficult for us to strike. We can't just threaten that like a lot of industries can. As a result, management gets away with a ton of stuff and with contracts more to their benefit than ours. Resultantly, we only get paid when the door closes and parking brake releases.

There has been plenty of airline strikes over the years, you guys are making it sound like they can never happen. They do happen. Sometimes a Republican president is in office at the time of the strike and he ends it same day ordering them back to the table for a new round. But ultimately all the tricks run out and an airline can be on strike.

Eastern Airlines strike - Bush didn't order them back
American Airlines strike - Clinton orders them back
Comair strike - Bush didn't order them back

So, who is more labor friendly? Be careful what you wish for. I've flown with ex-Eastern pilots who vote Democratic because they are "labor friendly" and were very bitter that Bush let them strike.

With the size and concentration of the mainlines, a strike at the big four (UA, AA, DL, SW) would likely be short, perhaps a PEB ordered with a return to work order. A regional, a strike would be pretty silly. How much real bargaining power does a strike add when replacements wouldn't be hard to find, the planes shuffled over to any contractor, service curtailed or eliminated. How many profitable RJ routes could be flown by a mainline plane with less frequency? How many just dropped? Any RJ strike would hasten the shrinkage of the business.

GF

If a strike by a regional airline would be "no big deal"...why hasn't one gotten released by the NMB into self-help in the last decade or so?

If you were given the choice to strike tomorrow in the current regional climate, would you? What do you think the realistic result would be?

Bill Swelbar is making last decade's argument.

ALPA's President is correct. The math is very simple. Take the number of (pilots flying 50 seat jets + expat pilots + the handful coming from the military) - the number of pilots getting hired at the majors = surplus. How many very qualified candidates are still waiting on calls from Delta, United, American, Southwest, etc ... . ?

The shortage is at airlines which do not pay competitive wages. They need to get in the game and pay, or fold up their chairs and go home.

What Bill Swelbar misses (and he calls himself a consultant :rolleyes: ) is unit cost analysis. As the costs of providing air travel have increased (gate leases, fuel, capital expenses to buy airplanes, management salaries) it makes more economic sense to spread those costs over the greatest number of seats. Dividing those costs among more paying passengers results in lower unit costs.

Fifteen years ago the pendulum had swung towards "trip costs" and yes, it costs less to launch a 50 seater than a 737. The World has now changed and Swelbar missed it. Airline network managers have discovered capacity discipline. Part of this trend is mergers have resulted in larger networks which can drive larger passenger loads by consolidating service. Today passengers chase available seats instead of airlines chasing marginal passengers with empty airplanes.

If an airline can fill a 737 with passengers which used to fly on 4 or 5, 50 seat RJ, flights - then that is what is happening. It had nothing to do with ALPA bargaining. The trend towards fewer larger flights is resulting in a surplus of pilots.

I believe the surplus will be absorbed. There will be jobs for those who want them (absent a real Ebola problem, ISIS, or some other threat).

But, we have a pay shortage, not a pilot shortage.