UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00315-O

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 9–10), filed April 20, 2022; 

Plaintiff’s Response (ECF Nos. 16–17), filed April 25; Defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 25), filed 

May 6; Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 14, 16–17), filed April 25; 

Defendant’s Response (ECF Nos. 27–28), filed May 6; and Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 29), filed 

May 13. Having considered the motions, briefing, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the 

motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

The Allied Pilots Association is the exclusive Union representing pilots employed by 

American Airlines, Inc.1 For the past several decades, the Union and American have executed 

collective bargaining agreements that govern the pilots’ employment terms.

2 The parties signed 

the current agreement at issue in this case in 2015.3 American employs various types of pilots with 

differing responsibilities and qualifications. The Union challenges the extent to which American 

can unilaterally change certain pilot assignments.

1 Pl.’s App. 6, ECF No. 17.

2

Id.

3

Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00315-O Document 31 Filed 05/20/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1186
2

American employs “check pilots” and “line pilots.” Check pilots are specially trained to 

evaluate and certify the knowledge and skills of line pilots.

4 Check pilots are Union members who 

also help monitor American’s compliance with the collective bargaining agreement.5 Section 1.C.2 

of the agreement sets the scope of the terms, providing that “[a]ll flight training of Company pilots 

in Company aircraft shall be performed by Company pilots.”

6 Noticeably absent is any mention of 

check pilots or simulator training. 

American implements a three-phase pilot training program. The first phase is mostly 

classroom instruction.7 The second phase is flight training, which consists of ten days in a flight 

simulator. The first nine days are primarily instructive, taught by a mixture of simulator pilot 

instructors and check pilots.8 The tenth day is a “line operational evaluation” designed to assess 

the pilot’s performance in line operations—that is, day-to-day passenger flights.9 A check pilot 

who is specifically designated by the FAA to approve pilots for type ratings evaluates the student 

during day ten.10 The third phase is “operating experience,” which takes place in a passenger 

airplane rather than a simulator.11

Throughout all phases of the training program, American attempts to schedule all pilot 

training with “crew pairings.”12 Ideally, each student Captain will be paired with a student First 

Officer, and the two students will be accompanied by an instructor.

13 The goal is to simulate a 

4

Id. at 105.

5

Id. at 104.

6

Id. at 23.

7 Def.’s App. 10–12, ECF No. 10.

8

Id. at 12–16.

9

Id. at 16–17.

10 Id. at 16.

11 Id. at 20.

12 Id. at 13.

13 Def.’s App. 13, ECF No. 10.

Case 4:22-cv-00315-O Document 31 Filed 05/20/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 1187
3

complete crew “occupying their normal duty positions.”14 When a pilot pair is unavailable or a 

student has been scheduled without a second pilot, American uses “seat-fillers” to preserve the 

simulation’s realism.15 During the first seven days of phase two, American does not require a seatfiller. That is, if American is unable to find a student pilot, simulator pilot instructor, or check pilot 

to fill the second seat, the solo student pilot may still complete the training accompanied only by 

the instructor.16 Days eight, nine, and ten are different. During days eight and nine, if an 

appropriate student pilot is unavailable, American will assign a simulator pilot instructor to serve 

as a seat-filler.17 If no simulator pilot instructor is available, American will assign a check pilot to 

serve as the seat-filler.18 The seat-filler requirements for day ten, the evaluation day, are in dispute.

For over twenty years, American has used only check pilots as seat-fillers for day ten.19 Although 

the parties agree that this has been the historic practice, they disagree about whether American’s 

documents mandate that only check pilots may serve as day-ten seat-fillers.

20

American has detailed its seat-filling practices in the Instructor/Evaluator Administrative 

Guide. The guide contains a table listing seat-filler qualifications and priority.21 The top-priority 

seat-fillers include “pilots who are either line qualified, or, if in training . . . are task familiar with 

the position in which they are substituting and line familiar.”

22 The bottom-priority seat-fillers

include instructors.23 According to the Vice President of Flight Operations Training for American, 

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id. at 14–15.

17 Id. at 15–16.

18 Id.

19 Pl.’s App. 126–28, ECF No. 17.

20 See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 13–14, ECF No. 9; Pl.’s Resp. 10, ECF No. 16.

21 Pl.’s App. 114, ECF No. 17.

22 Id.

23 Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00315-O Document 31 Filed 05/20/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 1188
4

the table shows that seat-fillers for day ten need not be check pilots, and in fact “the use of a Check 

Pilot as the seat-filler is the least preferred approach.”24

The next page of the guide contains more tables detailing approved seat-filler pairings for 

various training events. One table permits check pilots to serve as seat-fillers throughout phase 

two, including day ten.

25 The table permits simulator pilot instructors to serve as seat-fillers for 

every day except day ten. A check pilot for American submitted a declaration saying that this table 

shows that only check pilots may serve as seat fillers for day ten.

26 The overlap among linequalified pilots, instructors, check pilots, and simulator pilot instructors is not entirely clear, but 

the tables seem to permit at least some non–check pilots to serve as seat-fillers. 

In April 2022, American began allowing “fleet training pilots” to serve as seat-fillers.27

The fleet training pilots are recent hires who are not check pilots and not members of the Union.28

The Union objected, and American discontinued the practice.29 A few days later, American 

announced that, beginning in May 2022, it would start permitting line-qualified First Officers and 

Captains to seat-fill on day ten.30 Being a seat-filler is voluntary, but pilots may earn additional 

income on days off by volunteering to seat-fill.

31 Of the pilots who volunteer, American 

unilaterally selects seat-fillers without consultation with the Union and without regard to 

seniority.32 The Union objected again, and filed this lawsuit.

24 Def.’s App. 17, ECF No. 10.

25 Pl.’s App. 115, ECF No. 17.

26 Id. at 109.

27 Id. at 8.

28 Id.

29 Def.’s App. 22, ECF No. 10.

30 Id.

31 Id. at 22–23.

32 Id. at 4–5.

Case 4:22-cv-00315-O Document 31 Filed 05/20/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 1189
5

The Union argues that American has breached the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) by 

unilaterally changing employees’ agreed-upon working conditions.33 The Union moved for 

injunctive relief requiring American to reinstate its exclusive reliance on check pilots as seat-fillers

for day ten of phase-two training.

34 American moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the dispute 

is subject to binding arbitration and thus the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case.35 The Union 

then moved for a preliminary injunction.36

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may challenge subject matter jurisdiction by filing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. If the 

court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(3). A court may find subject matter jurisdiction is lacking from “(1) the complaint alone; 

(2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint 

supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.” Ramming v. United 

States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). “In considering a challenge to subject 

matter jurisdiction, the district court is ‘free to weigh the evidence and resolve factual disputes in 

order to satisfy itself that it has the power to hear the case.’” Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 402 F.3d 

489, 494 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent jurisdiction conferred by 

statute, lack the power to adjudicate claims.” Stockman v. FEC, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998). 

“The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the plaintiff constantly bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist.”

Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161 (citation omitted).

33 Compl. 7–8, ECF No. 1. 

34 Id. at 9.

35 See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 9. 

36 See Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 14. 

Case 4:22-cv-00315-O Document 31 Filed 05/20/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 1190
6

III. ANALYSIS

Congress passed the RLA nearly a century ago to encourage peaceful resolution of labor 

disputes affecting interstate commerce. “To effectuate peaceful dispute resolution, the RLA sets 

out a mandatory and ‘virtually endless’ process of ‘negotiation, mediation, voluntary arbitration, 

and conciliation.’” BNSF Ry. v. Int’l Ass’n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers, 973 F.3d 

326, 334 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Burlington N. R.R. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps., 481 U.S. 

429, 444 (1987)). “Specifically, the RLA delineates two tracks of resolution, depending upon 

whether the dispute is ‘major’ or ‘minor.’” Id.

A major dispute is one in which a party seeks new terms “affecting rates of pay, rules, or 

working conditions.” 45 U.S.C. § 152 Seventh; see also id. § 156. “Therefore, in a major dispute 

the ‘issue is not whether an existing agreement controls the controversy’ or an ‘assertion of rights 

claimed to have vested in the past.’” BNSF, 973 F.3d at 334 (quoting Elgin, J. & E. Ry. v. Burley, 

325 U.S. 711, 723 (1945)). Rather, major disputes “look to the acquisition of rights for the future.”

Elgin, 325 U.S. at 723. Resolution of major disputes requires a protracted scheme of conferences, 

negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. BNSF, 973 F.3d at 334. “Until they have exhausted those 

procedures, the parties are obligated to maintain the status quo, and the employer may not 

implement the contested change in rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” Consol. Rail Corp. 

v. Ry. Lab. Executives’ Ass’n (Conrail), 491 U.S. 299, 302–03 (1989). Courts may “enjoin a 

violation of the status quo pending completion of the required procedures, without the customary 

showing of irreparable injury.” Id. at 303.

“Minor disputes, on the other hand, contemplate the existence of a collective agreement 

already concluded and relate either to the meaning or proper application of a particular provision.”

BNSF, 973 F.3d at 335 (cleaned up). “In other words, ‘the claim is to rights accrued, not merely to 

have new ones created for the future.’” Wright v. Union Pac. R.R., 990 F.3d 428, 435 (5th Cir. 

Case 4:22-cv-00315-O Document 31 Filed 05/20/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID 1191
7

2021) (quoting Elgin, 325 U.S. at 723). The process for resolving minor disputes is “more 

streamlined” than the process for resolving major disputes. Id. The parties must first “confer” over 

the minor dispute. 45 U.S.C. § 152 Sixth; see also id. § 153 First. If conference negotiations fail, 

the parties must submit the dispute to binding arbitration before an adjustment board. BNSF, 973 

F.3d at 335. The board “has exclusive jurisdiction over minor disputes,” and “[j]udicial review of 

the arbitral decision is limited.” Conrail, 491 U.S. at 304. Courts thus generally lack authority to 

enjoin parties over minor disputes. Cf. id. at 337.

The role of the Court turns on whether American’s actions create a major or minor dispute. 

“[A] proposed action creates a minor dispute ‘if the action is arguably justified by the terms of the 

parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Where, in contrast, the employer’s claims are frivolous 

or obviously insubstantial, the dispute is major.’” BNSF, 973 F.3d at 335 (quoting Conrail, 491 

U.S. at 307). “A party faces a ‘relatively light burden’ to show that a dispute is minor.” Id. (quoting 

Conrail, 491 U.S. at 307). “[I]f there is any doubt as to whether a dispute is major or minor a court 

will construe the dispute to be minor.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Accordingly, the proper inquiry is not who is right or wrong on the merits of the contract 

interpretation question,” but, rather, whether American’s asserted contractual position is arguably 

justified. BNSF Ry. v. Int’l Ass’n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers, No. 4:22-cv-0052, 

2022 WL 522551, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2022). “And if the dispute is capable of resolution by 

reference to the express or implied terms of the Parties’ collective bargaining agreement (i.e., 

arguably justified), the actual resolution of the dispute is for the arbitrator—not this Court.” Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

American’s actions create a minor dispute under the RLA. The plain language of the 

collective bargaining agreement supports American’s position. The agreement details what type 

Case 4:22-cv-00315-O Document 31 Filed 05/20/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 1192
8

of work may be performed by only Union-represented pilots: (1) all “flying performed by or on 

behalf of the Company or an Affiliate,” and (2) all “flight training of Company pilots in Company 

aircraft.”37 The agreement does not discuss seat-filling or other simulator training, nor does it 

discuss check pilots. The agreement’s plain language thus “does not explicitly preclude” non–

check pilots from serving as seat-fillers, “providing—at a minimum—a non-fictitious argument”

that non–check pilots may seat-fill. BNSF, 973 F.3d at 335–36. The Union does not dispute that 

the agreement’s plain language is silent on the issue. Rather, the Union argues that “[t]he parties’ 

longstanding and undisputed past practice of relying” on check pilots as day-ten seat-fillers “is so 

deeply entrenched that it has become an implied term in the parties’ CBA.”

38

The parties’ past practice, however, also supports American’s position. The Union 

acknowledges that “[h]istorically, a wide range of pilots have served as seat fillers for flight 

simulator training sessions.”39 The Union distinguishes training sessions from evaluation sessions, 

arguing that during day ten, the evaluation session, American has relied only on check pilots to 

seat-fill.40 American responds that the Union improperly analyzes the practice “on a granular dayby-day level.”41 The proper level of analysis, according to American, is to look at the types of 

pilots American has permitted to seat-fill during the full ten days of phase two. “The type of past 

practice relied on need not be identical to the challenged practice to satisfy the carriers’ burden of 

showing arguable contractual justification.” Bhd. Ry. Carmen of U.S. & Canada v. Mo. Pac. R., 

944 F.2d 1422, 1429 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Conrail, 491 U.S. at 311–19). The collective 

bargaining agreement does not discuss each individual day of phase two, lending support to 

37 Pl.’s App. 23, ECF No. 17.

38 Pl.’s Resp. 17, ECF No. 16.

39 Compl. 5, ECF No. 1.

40 Pl.’s Resp. 19–21, ECF No. 16.

41 Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 27–28, ECF No. 9. 

Case 4:22-cv-00315-O Document 31 Filed 05/20/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 1193
9

American’s position that day-to-day comparisons are too granular. One could also reasonably 

argue that seat-filler responsibilities are similar enough among all ten days, so separating out day 

ten is an arbitrary distinction. The proper question would be, “Who has American allowed to serve 

as seat-fillers?” Not, “Who has American allowed to serve as seat-fillers on day-ten?” Again, 

American’s position is at least arguably justified. See BNSF, 973 F.3d at 335. 

The Union derives its day-to-day analysis from the Instructor/Evaluator Administrative 

Guide. But the guide also arguably supports American’s position. The parties offer competing 

interpretations of the guide, both supported by declarations.42 The administrative guide appears to 

favor American’s interpretation, but both parties’ interpretations are plausible.

43 At this stage, the 

Court need not determine “who is right or wrong on the merits of the contract interpretation 

question.” BNSF, 2022 WL 522551, at *3. American’s interpretation of the administrative guide 

is at least arguably justified. See BNSF, 973 F.3d at 33. 

American has born its “relatively light burden” to show that its position is justified by the 

collective bargaining agreement. Conrail, 491 U.S. at 307. American raises several other 

arguments bolstering its position, but the Court need not address them. American has adequately 

shown that this case concerns a minor dispute under the RLA. The Union must seek relief in the 

RLA’s negotiation procedures, not the courts.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS American’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9), DISMISSES the 

Union’s preliminary-injunction motion (ECF No. 14) as moot, and DISMISSES the case for lack 

of jurisdiction. 

SO ORDERED on this 20th day of May, 2022.

42 See Def.’s App. 17, ECF No. 10; Pl.’s App. 109, ECF No. 17.

43 See supra Part I. 

Case 4:22-cv-00315-O Document 31 Filed 05/20/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 1194