ALPA Again Proves that Small Jet Restrictions Used as Mainline Bargaining Capital
In its March 31st code-a-phone message to the US Airways pilots, ALPA stated that management had failed to offer sufficient “returns” in exchange for the union’s permission to operate more small jets. The message followed a recent MEC resolution that referenced a list of ALPA's bargaining demands linked to small jet “relief.”
ALPA's public statements and resolutions affirm the RJDC's long held position that small jet restrictions have little to do with “job security.” As we have pointed out many times, ALPA's mainline interests merely use small jet restrictions as bargaining capital.
Unfortunately, the practice runs afoul of its duties to thousands of its members who depend upon the small jet for their livelihoods. By making the fulfillment of its obligations to its “regional” members contingent upon appeasement of mainline pilot groups, ALPA continues to perpetuate an inherent conflict of interest and a breach of its duties.
Furthermore, as illustrated by the proposed LOA 91, ALPA's talk of “brand scope” is just that -- talk. Once again, ALPA has permitted, supported, and funded efforts to unilaterally impose a vast new array of egregious terms and restrictions upon the union’s own members. As the RJDC has said many times, ALPA's real scope policies can be found at the mainline bargaining table.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/small_jet_bargaining.pdf http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/loa91.pdf
In its March 31st code-a-phone message to the US Airways pilots, ALPA stated that management had failed to offer sufficient “returns” in exchange for the union’s permission to operate more small jets. The message followed a recent MEC resolution that referenced a list of ALPA's bargaining demands linked to small jet “relief.”
ALPA's public statements and resolutions affirm the RJDC's long held position that small jet restrictions have little to do with “job security.” As we have pointed out many times, ALPA's mainline interests merely use small jet restrictions as bargaining capital.
Unfortunately, the practice runs afoul of its duties to thousands of its members who depend upon the small jet for their livelihoods. By making the fulfillment of its obligations to its “regional” members contingent upon appeasement of mainline pilot groups, ALPA continues to perpetuate an inherent conflict of interest and a breach of its duties.
Furthermore, as illustrated by the proposed LOA 91, ALPA's talk of “brand scope” is just that -- talk. Once again, ALPA has permitted, supported, and funded efforts to unilaterally impose a vast new array of egregious terms and restrictions upon the union’s own members. As the RJDC has said many times, ALPA's real scope policies can be found at the mainline bargaining table.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/small_jet_bargaining.pdf http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/loa91.pdf
