FAA Reauthorization - RLA amendment`
06-16-2009, 07:41 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
Busboy,
Perhaps it the fact that that misery loves company.
JJ
Perhaps it the fact that that misery loves company.
JJ
06-16-2009, 10:53 PM
#52
New Hire
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: RTD
Posts: 6
Everybody knows what it means. Just not sure anybody thinks you're his "buddy". Those of us here in 98 remember the "whatever it takes" campaign waged against us, and supported by our non-pilot co-workers system wide. Not all did, but a whole lot more than I suspected would. So, my newest "buddy", please elaborate on what exactly you want? 15 guys in San Diego start/join their own union? 28 in Seattle? 19 in Miami? 46 in Chicago? Is that it? OK, I'm on board. Anything else?
You really cannot compare what a courier/driver does to a baggage handler at Delta. The closest have we have to that would be a ramp handler position. The idea that a courier/driver for FedEx Express should be considered an airline employee and covered under the RLA just because they deliver a package that traveled part of the way on a plane is false. You might as well try to tell the UPS driver that he should fall under the RLA just because some of his packages traveled the same or greater distance on a train. You can't have it both ways.
GJ.
06-17-2009, 02:58 AM
#53
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
-your buddy
06-17-2009, 05:53 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
What would I want from my fellow employees?? I just want you guys to support the legislation that would move the non-FAA certified employees out of the RLA. The big reason for me is that my FedEx pension was frozen a little of a year ago and I was forced into a "portable pension" because the traditional pension was costing the company too much money. So much for putting the People before the Profit in PSP.
You really cannot compare what a courier/driver does to a baggage handler at Delta. The closest have we have to that would be a ramp handler position. The idea that a courier/driver for FedEx Express should be considered an airline employee and covered under the RLA just because they deliver a package that traveled part of the way on a plane is false. You might as well try to tell the UPS driver that he should fall under the RLA just because some of his packages traveled the same or greater distance on a train. You can't have it both ways.
GJ.
You really cannot compare what a courier/driver does to a baggage handler at Delta. The closest have we have to that would be a ramp handler position. The idea that a courier/driver for FedEx Express should be considered an airline employee and covered under the RLA just because they deliver a package that traveled part of the way on a plane is false. You might as well try to tell the UPS driver that he should fall under the RLA just because some of his packages traveled the same or greater distance on a train. You can't have it both ways.
GJ.
The federal government's interest in the regulation of carrier labor disputes derives from its recognition that interstate commerce relies on the transportation industry and that any disruption of that industry resulting from labor unrest may have devastating effects on both the industry itself and the national economy.
I find your two assertions highlighted in red false. A teamsters strike in San Diego, Chicago, or Pittsburg could interrupt Fedex service throughout the system and have a devasting effect on the industry itself and the national economy (or at least as much if the pilots struck by themselves or delta baggage handlers walked out). And yes I would assert that UPS drivers should fall under the RLA. Good luck for them that they don't. Bad luck for you that you do.
Too bad you couldn't get a job with them. That tends to be one of the draw backs to union operations, limited opportunities for outsiders to join.
06-17-2009, 07:48 AM
#55
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
I would argue that based on the number of threads started on this subject, by UPS pilots, and from reading most of the follow-up comments made by UPS pilots, that there is more than a casual outsider interest in this legislation. I'm just curious as to what is driving that interest.
Most chose to ignore it.
06-17-2009, 07:56 AM
#56
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
Here is the purpose of the RLA:
The federal government's interest in the regulation of carrier labor disputes derives from its recognition that interstate commerce relies on the transportation industry and that any disruption of that industry resulting from labor unrest may have devastating effects on both the industry itself and the national economy.
I find your two assertions highlighted in red false. A teamsters strike in San Diego, Chicago, or Pittsburg could interrupt Fedex service throughout the system and have a devasting effect on the industry itself and the national economy (or at least as much if the pilots struck by themselves or delta baggage handlers walked out). And yes I would assert that UPS drivers should fall under the RLA. Good luck for them that they don't. Bad luck for you that you do.
Too bad you couldn't get a job with them. That tends to be one of the draw backs to union operations, limited opportunities for outsiders to join.
The federal government's interest in the regulation of carrier labor disputes derives from its recognition that interstate commerce relies on the transportation industry and that any disruption of that industry resulting from labor unrest may have devastating effects on both the industry itself and the national economy.
I find your two assertions highlighted in red false. A teamsters strike in San Diego, Chicago, or Pittsburg could interrupt Fedex service throughout the system and have a devasting effect on the industry itself and the national economy (or at least as much if the pilots struck by themselves or delta baggage handlers walked out). And yes I would assert that UPS drivers should fall under the RLA. Good luck for them that they don't. Bad luck for you that you do.
Too bad you couldn't get a job with them. That tends to be one of the draw backs to union operations, limited opportunities for outsiders to join.
Prior to 1978 when the govt allocated routes and told the airlines what an acceptable fare was, the RLA was applicable to interstate commerce. No argument there ...
But do you still believe that a box (or pax) in SAN, PIT, or ORD doesn't have another choice for transportation ?
The RLA act was to protect the consumer and commerce from an interruption of service. Even in our biz, there is an alternative. Not to mention the pax guys that undercut one another just to maintain "market share"
Rant Summary ... this RLA is another dusty outdated peice of legislation that has surpassed its useful life. I wish it were GONE for all of us ! And so should you ...
Fire Away !
06-17-2009, 08:15 AM
#57
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
????????
Prior to 1978 when the govt allocated routes and told the airlines what an acceptable fare was, the RLA was applicable to interstate commerce. No argument there ...
But do you still believe that a box (or pax) in SAN, PIT, or ORD doesn't have another choice for transportation ?
The RLA act was to protect the consumer and commerce from an interruption of service. Even in our biz, there is an alternative. Not to mention the pax guys that undercut one another just to maintain "market share"
Rant Summary ... this RLA is another dusty outdated peice of legislation that has surpassed its useful life. I wish it were GONE for all of us ! And so should you ...
Fire Away !
Prior to 1978 when the govt allocated routes and told the airlines what an acceptable fare was, the RLA was applicable to interstate commerce. No argument there ...
But do you still believe that a box (or pax) in SAN, PIT, or ORD doesn't have another choice for transportation ?
The RLA act was to protect the consumer and commerce from an interruption of service. Even in our biz, there is an alternative. Not to mention the pax guys that undercut one another just to maintain "market share"
Rant Summary ... this RLA is another dusty outdated peice of legislation that has surpassed its useful life. I wish it were GONE for all of us ! And so should you ...
Fire Away !
06-17-2009, 08:25 AM
#58
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
The RLA isn't the only reason you have a union.
But it is a rather large obstacle in the success of unions. But be an independent contractor if you like ...
I just want to negotiate contracts the expire with the true threat of a strike like the NRLA allows.
I guess you missed that ...
06-17-2009, 09:03 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
????????
Prior to 1978 when the govt allocated routes and told the airlines what an acceptable fare was, the RLA was applicable to interstate commerce. No argument there ...
But do you still believe that a box (or pax) in SAN, PIT, or ORD doesn't have another choice for transportation ?
The RLA act was to protect the consumer and commerce from an interruption of service. Even in our biz, there is an alternative. Not to mention the pax guys that undercut one another just to maintain "market share"
Rant Summary ... this RLA is another dusty outdated peice of legislation that has surpassed its useful life. I wish it were GONE for all of us ! And so should you ...
Fire Away !
Prior to 1978 when the govt allocated routes and told the airlines what an acceptable fare was, the RLA was applicable to interstate commerce. No argument there ...
But do you still believe that a box (or pax) in SAN, PIT, or ORD doesn't have another choice for transportation ?
The RLA act was to protect the consumer and commerce from an interruption of service. Even in our biz, there is an alternative. Not to mention the pax guys that undercut one another just to maintain "market share"
Rant Summary ... this RLA is another dusty outdated peice of legislation that has surpassed its useful life. I wish it were GONE for all of us ! And so should you ...
Fire Away !
06-17-2009, 09:57 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Not exactly ...
The RLA isn't the only reason you have a union.
But it is a rather large obstacle in the success of unions. But be an independent contractor if you like ...
I just want to negotiate contracts the expire with the true threat of a strike like the NRLA allows.
I guess you missed that ...
The RLA isn't the only reason you have a union.
But it is a rather large obstacle in the success of unions. But be an independent contractor if you like ...
I just want to negotiate contracts the expire with the true threat of a strike like the NRLA allows.
I guess you missed that ...
But, I'm sure you thought of that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
