Unfortunately, most pilots vote republican, during the 80's the MEC Chair was held by republicans. 75% of the APA political dues went to bush. So you can't fault the democrats for not supporting pilots.

So, is the Obama Administration (democrat) going to support pilots by rejecting the so-called open skies, or is he just another republican (pretend democrat) pretending to be on the side of labor?

Clinton's NAFTA turned out to be a BUST for labor both in the USA and Canada. Clinton must have forgotten his "labor roots" or just went rogue.

Pilots are only a small part of the labor picture. Boeing unions have a very different outlook on ME3 carriers who buy lots of planes. The UAE is also an enormous ally of the US in the Middle East. You should see some of our air bases there. Things are not as simple as we pilots sometimes like to imagine.

What is pretty simple is that one party hates unions.

As you point out, the economic interest of airline pilots is only one factor the administration must consider. Despite the historic ties between organized labor and the Democratic Party, they may be unable to support us due to foreign policy and other issues. Of course, these "other considerations" may prevent airline pilots from supporting the Democratic Party. It works both ways.

Could you please give us all the 'other considerations' for airline pilots to support Republicans?

When it comes to lack of support for airline pilots, the position is rather non-partisan imo. Neither party supports the best interest of your income leverage. Even the traditional Democratic assumption of labor support is disingenuous when they are the pushers of the middle class killing via NAFTA/CAFTA and TPP. The Republican position is and has been outwardly corporatist from the get-go, so nothing new to report there.

This job will eventually be another casualty of globalization. Me, I tend to write-in my votes on a piecemeal basis. The only thing I can affect is how I position myself financially when the end comes to this job (cabotage, technology obsolescence). Diversifying household income is one way I'm trying to afford life (sending the wife to nursing school), also living below my income, which I recognize it's not palatable to many fraus out there. With the RLA and the public's entitlement to the idea of air transport as a public commodity, airline unions are not real unions anyways. I'm not advocating their dissolution, I think it beats the alternative; I'm merely pointing out their leverage in today's labor environment is weak at best.

I also agree with the other poster regarding retirement. As nice as having a pension is, there's no way I take an IOU from a private employer, ever. B-funds are the only thing I'd take for deferred compensation. Government pensions OTOH are a lot more palatable to me only because stiffing me out of those creates havoc for the entire street, which insulates me. When I'm the only one in the street suffering, as was the case with the airline pension wipes, I can't successfully socialize my loss into political action. I'm a populist that way. Why wouldn't I be? Airline pilot is not a unique skillset the way some on here try to think it is. I'm no trained surgeon, I'm not a price setter. Strength in numbers then.

Your right, pilots as a whole have no representation. The repubs look at us as labor and the democrats know that 75% of pilots vote republican. Their not going to support a so called white collar association.

FWIW:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/pre...line-industry/

It's not a case of NAI affecting labor. ALPA is not labor and NAI will bring jobs.

ALPA is part of the AFL-CIO and is most definitely labor just not a large dependable voting block. We do however have a very effective and lately bipartisan (pilot-partisan) PAC.

If you don't think NAI is a labor issue google foreign flagging in the merchant marine.

NAI jobs? That's hilarious. Hope you are being compensated for carrying that heavy NAI water.