Originally Posted by
Gearjerk
Yes, and your point? In my example I illustrated the anger of my friend and his opinion of the "weak opener". He had failed to read the fact that D-ALPA stated it was "broadbased and conceptual in nature."
No, here is why your mythical friend was upset. He was upset because whether the opener was conceptual or not didn't change the fact that even the "concept" was incredibly weak. Example for scope: improve production balances. That statement is terribly weak even if we win it. We need to reverse scope by the end of this process. You don't do that by not mentioning any reversal. You do that by opening big, then negotiating down from there. An example of big would be: SWAPA scope language in its entirety.
Originally Posted by
Gearjerk
What am I missing?
Read above.
Originally Posted by
Gearjerk
Or what are you not understanding about him "not reading the Negotiator's Notepad" before going off about how weak of an opener it was?
Again, read the above. The fake opener that was only released to the pilots was weak. Since most negotiations end up with results significantly less than your opening position, this does not bode well. That's what your mythical friend was trying to tell you.
Carl