Airline Pilots May Be Next in the Corporate War on Unions

As a former CFO of two Part 121 national airlines, one unionized and one not, I may have a different perspective than some contributors to this article.
First, there is no question in my mind that a unionized airline is safer. A mechanic should be able to refuse a sign off on equipment without fear of reprisal as should a pilot when refusing to fly what he or she perceives is an unsafe situation. I think the track record of our legacy airlines in the U.S. attests to this statement.
Secondly, a union makes for a single negotiation covering hundreds or thousands of employees doing identical work. In other words, it is an efficient management tool if all parties are reasonable. I had many negotiations with ALPA in my career and I found their people to be educated, pragmatic and reasonable.
We all know there are major cultural differences between carriers when it comes to management. Not all carriers need a union but most do and the truly amazing safety record in this country says that we are doing something right.

The argument that the writer makes is that somehow airline pilots, we're talking about FAR PART 121 scheduled air carrier pilots, are going to ditch their union because some FAR PART 135 guys can't make up their mind? Sorry but just not so. Airline pilots have fairly stressful careers and you don't need to be involved in an incident/accident to feel it every time you go to work. The compensation takes that into consideration. De-certify? Nope. Won't happen.

As a union member--ALPA--I had a love/hate attitude. Contract negotiations were painful. But looking back, I can say that the union was necessary and ultimately beneficial. We had many committees that worked long hours without pay in order to get the company to listen and negotiate. We also negotiated better hotels, block or better for pay with line guarantee even if the flight cancelled, improved health insurance, just to name a few. Like Bruce Hall said, it gave the company a single partner across the table in negotiations where all the pilots did the exact same job and were paid the exact same wage based on rank and seniority.

Safety comes first and the union backed the pilots in every case. I know from experience. I was the ALPA Air Safety Chair at my company. The union did a great job in protecting the pilots from action by the company.

Stop and think about this-----using ALPA as the example, a pilot's union has one of the highest paid professional unions in the labor force. Most pilots have a 4 year degree and logged thousands of hours just to get into the right seat at a major. A Captain at a major makes a good 6 figures. Many regional Captains also make 6 figure income. There's no way the unions will be discarded.

In my MBA Labor Law course some years back, our prof (a well-experienced arbitrator) said "Unions never show up unless they're necessary." Later, I saw it first hand here in SC, a right to work/employment at will state. A truck manufacturer set up a plant here to avoid the UAW. Because of management policies and practices, 2 years later the plant voted to unionize with the UAW.

Either way, I think one problem is that if you want a professional flying job, most likely the company you are interested in has a pilot pool represented by some sort of union. I have no real statistics to say that that is either good or bad. I think it depends on the company-union relationship. But, if you are against that sort of organization and representation morally, you just have to swallow your pride, suck it up and accept that fact. It is just the reality of the industry. Like I said, I have no statistics that tell me whether a company fares better with or without representation. It is interesting, however, that this industry is really one of the only remaining hold-outs that has wide-spread union representation.

One downside to unions particularly in the airline industry is that it locks people into jobs via the all important seniority number. If a pilot with 30 years experience wants to leave airline A for airline B, the union requires them to start at the bottom of the payscale again with all the "privileges" of having a low seniority number. A 747 captain at airline A cannot laterally move to 747 captain at airline B (in the US) because he finds that the working conditions at airline B are better.

It should be the Pilots choice. Not Government mandated. If the majority want it fine. If not that is fine too. If everything is completely organized no one would ever get a job unless they play union politics. If everything is completely company, you would still have sweatshops. A lot of the time big union and big company sit in the same pew together. What we have now is a good balance.

If the pilots do not like the wages with out the unions, simply to not take the job. There, solved.

There is a fine line here.
Generally unions are in disfavor. Unpopular. That is a view held not only by business, but by the general public as well.
Now, commercial pilots are under the stresses of tight time schedules. Maintenance crews as well.
In my world the PIC should have absolute authority over their Craft. Such is not the case. Carriers often interfere with the authority the PIC should have. Carriers are in the business of turning a profit for the investors. Passenger comfort and customer service are secondary.
That's where representation by a labor collective can be useful.
The problem with unions is there is no balance. No balance between the interests of the business and the employees. And left out, is the consumer.
Unions would be looked at in a brighter light if union management would stop the "us vs them" mentality

Hopefully, NO unions very soon!