Originally Posted by
Pineapple Guy
The big beef I have with both you and Carl, is you both think if we just set an objective of XX, then we can achieve it, without any consideration of the negotiating environment, economic environment, financial strength of Delta, industry peer group, etc. etc. etc.
I have my own goals and objectives; but I am also a realist. If we can achieve those --- great. If it becomes obvious we cannot, I'd rather take something than nothing.
As the APA strategy is now entering the final stages, all of you that were so proud of them standing firm, really need to reassess the strategy of "standing firm until i get what I want". In the end, APA stood firm, but NEVER got what they wanted.
I don't think any of us have said that "all you have to do is set the objective", but setting one is the single most important part of any strategy. Without one, you look unfocused and amateurish. Another extremely important part of the strategy is the negotiating environment as you correctly point out. APA didn't realize that the NMB had changed to an arbitration board until they were years down the road. They also made a poor case for restoration adjusted for inflation. We have a tremendous road map to a quick and lucrative contract using the SWAPA contract as leverage. First, we put the entire SWAPA contract on the table with very large increases in every section. By December of 2012 we methodically drop our position to the SWAPA contract plus 5% for the MD88 plus premiums based on larger aircraft capacity. That's our last best offer. Now the NMB is faced with an employee group who wants a small premium over their largest competitor. A competitor that is as profitable as we are.
I believe this strategy uses all of our best tools at our disposal in our fight against management and our struggle to show fairness and respect to the NMB. It is a winning strategy because it moves the process quickly.
Carl