Statement of
Captain J. Randolph Babbitt, President
Air Line Pilots AssociationBefore the
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of RepresentativesSeptember 9, 1997
Good afternoon. I am Randy Babbitt, President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). I am also Vice President of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and have served as a member of the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry. With me today is Russell Bailey from ALPA's Legal Department.
ALPA represents over 47,000 pilots at 35 U.S. and 10 Canadian carriers, many of which are engaged in flight operations outside their home country. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to present ALPA's views on H.R. 991. This bill would confirm that the Railway Labor Act applies to air carriers and their flight deck crews while they are engaged in international operations. We believe the measure is a timely effort to dispel any confusion about the application of the Act and collective bargaining agreements reached under the Act to the international operations of U.S. airlines.
In 1936 Congress amended the RLA to cover:
. . . every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and every carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government, and every air pilot . . . who performs any work as an employee . . . of such carrier or carriers . . . .
In light of the actual route structure and operation of U.S. airlines in 1936, it is plain the Amendment evinces the clearly expressed intention of Congress to extend coverage of the RLA to pilots of U.S. air carriers who are domiciled overseas if they are engaged in foreign commerce.
When the Amendment was passed, two of the largest and most prominent U.S. airlines, Pan American and Panagra, flew nothing but international routes, a fact undoubtedly known to Congress as those two carriers held many of the first international air mail contracts awarded by the U.S. Postal Service. These airlines also had pilots at foreign domiciles, and ALPA, a principal proponent of the Amendment, whose membership included pilots from Pan American and Panagra, advised Congress that p ilots engaged in service in foreign countries were among the airline employees ALPA sought to protect.
In these circumstances, if Congress had not intended to include U.S. pilots flying between foreign points or based at foreign domiciles under the RLA, it would have expressly excluded them from coverage. But there is not the slightest evidence of such an intent to exclude such pilots in either the text of the Amendment or its legislative history. Rather, Congress covered "every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and every carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government, and every air pilot . . . who performs any work as an employee of such air carrier or carriers . . . ."
"Interstate and foreign air commerce" was a phrase defined in the Air Commerce Act that was in effect in 1936 as, in pertinent part, "air commerce between any state . . . and any place outside thereof . . . ." "Air commerce," in turn, was defined as "transportation in whole or part by aircraft of persons or property for hire, navigation of aircraft from one place to another for operation in the conduct of a business." In other words, what mattered to Congress was not where a pilot was domiciled or performed his work but what his work was. If a pilot was engaged in foreign commerce or carrying U.S. mail for the U.S. Government aboard a U.S. air carrier, then the pilot was covered by the RLA.
That the industry understood the 1936 Amendment to cover all pilots of U.S. air carriers is evidenced by the behavior of U.S. carriers at the bargaining table in the years following the Amendment. Shortly after the Amendment, Pan Am and Panagra -- which as I earlier mentioned flew only international routes at the time and had pilots domiciled in foreign countries -- recognized ALPA as the duly authorized bargaining representative of their pilots. Until they ceased operations (Panagra in 1966 and Pa n American in 1991), these two carriers bargained with, and concluded multiple agreements with, ALPA over the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of their pilots. Throughout those bargaining relationships the two carriers maintained numerous foreign domiciles.
Similarly, ALPA has bargained on behalf of Braniff pilots domiciled in Lima, Capitol pilots domiciled in Frankfurt, NWA pilots domiciled in Tokyo, Vietnam and Greece, TWA pilots domiciled in Cairo and a number of locations in continental-Europe, and United pilots domiciled in London and Hong Kong. Indeed, to ALPA's knowledge, for nearly 60 years no U.S. air carrier contested the applicability of the RLA to its pilots based on where they were domiciled.
This historic practice, and understanding of the Act only makes sense. A crew of United Airlines pilots, for example, might fly an international trip that originates and terminates in Honolulu with stops in Tokyo, Shanghai and Beijing. They are, of course, flying over U.S. routes on a U.S.-registered aircraft. The application of one set of labor laws to this flight operation promotes stable labor relations and the continued growth of U.S. airlines.
As the United States seeks to maintain a competitive edge in the expanding global economy, U.S. airlines may be increasingly called upon to serve the nation's needs by carrying passengers and cargo outside the country. With improved technology and diminished regulatory barriers, U.S. carriers will be able to integrate a larger number of international segments into their U.S.-anchored global networks. We do not believe there is a rational basis to exclude, nor do we believe that Congress ever intend ed to exclude, portions of a U.S. carrier's integrated route system from the coverage of the Railway Labor Act.
A handful of court cases, however, have held that the Railway Labor Act does not cover flying by U.S. air carriers between two foreign points. ALPA believes that the decisions in these cases were based on a fundamental misreading of the 1936 Amendment and, although none of them have addressed pilots specifically, that they have created needless doubt about the scope of the RLA. Furthermore, these court cases threaten to undermine the key policies of the Act.
First, the Act expresses a strong preference that classes of employees such as pilots be represented on a systemwide basis. In other words, when the pilots of an airline select a representative for collective bargaining purposes, that representative represents all the pilots of the airline. The court cases at issue run contrary to this principle. H.R. 991 would preserve the Act's preference for systemwide collective bargaining agreements.
Second, these court cases also undermine the central purpose of the Railway Labor Act -- to prevent the interruption of vital transportation services by requiring airlines and their employees to negotiate labor agreements through collective bargaining and to resolve disputes over labor contracts through binding labor arbitration. Without clarification from Congress, these cases call into question both whether pilots employed by U.S. carriers are governed by the Act's restrictions on strikes and othe r forms of labor unrest while they are engaged in international operations, and whether the flight deck crew of U.S. airlines can enforce collective bargaining agreements governing international operations of U.S. air carriers as they have for years.
H.R. 991 eliminates the confusion created by these cases by confirming that the Railway Labor Act covers flight deck crews employed by U.S. airlines who happen to be based overseas while engaged in flying outside U.S. airspace. The proposed amendment has been narrowly drawn to accomplish this purpose.
First, the proposed amendment only applies to U.S. air carriers, a term defined in the U.S. transportation laws. Thus, it does not apply to flight crews of foreign carriers or to employees of any other form of carrier under the RLA.
Second, the proposed amendment applies only to flight deck crew employees who are engaged in the actual operation and service aboard the aircraft as they cross international boundaries in global operations. The amendment leaves untouched the labor relations arrangements applicable to foreign nationals employed by U.S. air carriers to provide ground service and related services at foreign airports. Such ground service employees are frequently represented by unions in their home countries under the l aws of those countries.
Third, the proposed amendment does not affect the ability of U.S. airlines and their flight deck crews to adopt special provisions governing international operations or foreign-based flight deck crew members through collective bargaining under the Act. For example, several U.S. airlines have reached collectively-bargained agreements that apply different work rules to pilots working out of foreign bases. The proposed amendment is designed to preserve and strengthen the ability of U.S. airlines to ad opt such solutions through collective bargaining.
Fourth, the proposed amendment does not interfere with the rights of foreign states. The United States has a substantial interest in the uniform application of its labor laws to the highly mobile flight operations of its own air carriers which are flying over U.S. routes using U.S.-registered aircraft subject to regulation by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. Foreign states, by contrast, have little, if any, interest in application of their labor relations laws to such U.S. air carrier flig ht crews. Indeed, foreign airlines apply their own labor laws to their flight deck crews. A Lufthansa pilot, for example, continues to be governed by the working conditions established under German labor law when his airline flies passengers or cargo to a United States city or from a U.S. city to a third country.
Finally, the proposed amendment tracks the long-standing application of U.S. labor laws to crew members on U.S. maritime vessels. In that arena, the U.S. has declined to assert jurisdiction over labor relations on foreign flag vessels even when they are operating in U.S. waters. On the other hand, the U.S. has asserted, with court approval, jurisdiction over labor matters on U.S. flag vessels when those vessels are operating, or even based, in foreign waters. In short, in international aviation as well as in the maritime realm the United States has an interest in ensuring and should ensure, that U.S. citizens working aboard U.S. flag carriers have the benefits of U.S. labor laws.
That concludes my oral presentation. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, and we would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.