Can you give me some examples? The most "buddy-buddy" relationship in our industry is SWA. They've got passenger industry leading rates of pay
((They are still underpaid for what they do and for what their company makes in profits.SWA management is notorious for delicious and potent Kool-Aid)) , so it doesn't seem to hurt them. FedEx now has a pretty good relationship with their management. Their compensation is top of the heap and they're currently hiring.
Carl will point to UPS as an example of a successful adversarial relationship. They have pilots on furlough, a reported tough work environment and top tier pay.
APA is in transition from a completely adversarial "demand" relationship to a proactively engaged relationship. They've gotten more done on their contract in the last 8 months than they did in the previous 4 years.
So help me understand your point of view, please!
This isnt an ALPA or DPA discussion, its about human nature and the effects of getting thing done using a "false" sense of having a good relationship. One example of a pilot group that has allowed management to take advantage of their good will, through threats, is the Frontier Pilots. From what I have read these pilots have overwhelmingly taken concessions and freezes to appease their management (i dont think they are ALPA). In the meantime, management continues to leave the company with bonuses and false promises. My point is that management, including SWA, is using psychological tactics to gain momentum on their sides. In the past years of our history, when ALPA was being shaped, there were many cases of adversarial relationships between management and labor. There were minimal conflict of interests and the LINE was thick: thus the continual upward improvement of contracts (of course the 80's are different). Management tactics (trust me, business is one of my studies) and tools include, now, the use of warm-felt, touch-feely "words" and "actions" to "sway" a particular decision to their side.
I believe the results show engagement to be an effective strategy. There is a place for confrontation and conflict(like NWA '98, Spirit), but it is a tool, not a strategy. When used as a standalone strategy, it doesn't appear to me to be very successful.
jmo, ymmv
Maybe you are right, an adversarial relationship is a bit too much. As long as my UNION is not in bed with management, I know I am fine. BTW, I am not impressed with SWA pay or our pay. WE, as an industry, have taken it in the shorts. There will always be a Force Majeur Scenario (insert catastrophe) and it will always cost money to buy oil to run an airline (Revenue creation is not my department, its management's), I just dont see why we would ever have to give up so much for these times (good or bad) especially when management still reals in the high salary and bonuses. Again this is not a Delta or Alpa thing. Its about the TRUTH. If the TRUTH was a GUARANTEED item in discussions then a friendly and open relationship is good. However, I highly doubt there are many truths in our meetings..Its all posturing and trying to squeeze the last bit of juice from the fruit. I want Delta Air Lines to be the BEST, to be the MOST PROFITABLE and to BE THE MOST DESIRED AIRLINE, I also want acknowledgement from the rapid transient managers that Delta Air Lines is the front line employees (the heart and soul of the company--We are at the company for 20+years, they are around for less than a decade). I hope I have made you understand my point. 