Thread: Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
View Single Post
Old 12-22-2011 | 04:38 AM
  #84121  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Carl Spackler
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default
Originally Posted by Rather B Fishin
Those would be three completely different statements/time lines. I don't waste my time teaching my dog calculus. I should do the same in having a logical discussion with Mr. Almighty Whale Captain.


OK, let's take my statements one at a time:

Carl Spackler
The NMB is not involved from the start, so you don't have to worry about losing them from the start. They're only involved at the end of the normal process when one or more parties seek the NMB.

This is absolutely correct. Since it is the parties themselves that decide when the normal negotiations process is futile, they also decide when it has ended for them. When that decision has been made by the parties, seeking NMB involvement is the next step in the process.

Carl Spackler
Regardless, the NMB is not involved in openers or negotiations until their latter stages.

This is also correct. The NMB is not involved in openers at all. The NMB is only involved at the latter stages of negotiations, typically when someone wants an impasse declared. The only body that actually gets to decide that an impasse actually exists and a 30 day cooling off period begins is the NMB.

Carl Spackler
Regardless, the NMB is not involved in openers or negotiations until their latter stages. So please enlighten this fool. So is your final answer in regards to the NMB:

A: "That is much sooner than the NMB normally gets involved."
B: "They're only involved at the end of the normal process when one or more parties seek the NMB."
or

C: "Regardless, the NMB is not involved in openers or negotiations until their latter stages."

Items B and C are explained above. Item A is also entirely consistent with my statements above. In our contract, we didn't want the company to have the ability to drag negotiations out for years before the NMB was called, so we have a provision giving a date certain when the NMB will be called by both sides to become involved if an agreement hasn't been reached in direct negotiations. Because this is in our contract, we've already decided a date certain when the normal negotiations process has ended and NMB involvement begins. This contract provisions sets up NMB involvement much sooner than is normally the case. But either way, it signifies the end of the normal negotiations process.

You seem intent on trying to find contradiction where there is none, so maybe you're right about that teaching a dog calculus comment.

Carl