Originally Posted by Elevation

1.) Both sides see each other as caricatures rathar than human opponents. This leads to an over-simplification of factors at play. Over-simplification leads to insufficient nuance in planning and contingency planning.

2.) Both sides are invested in their current courses of action. Beyond current financial investments, leaders' reputations are tied to their current courses of action. Backing down will have them lose face in front of their respective sharholders, pilots, subordinates, etc. So incentives are driving people to entrench themselves in the current course of action regardless of the realities on the line.

3.) Promotion and selection is dependent on approval from those leaders who are already in place. Thus middle and lower leaders are unable to bring change despite their knowledge of conditions on the line. Pushing for change means sacrificing career goals or incurring some kind of punishment. So beyond leadership, an organization will hold to a plan regardless of realities on the line.

These problems go beyond negotiations to conduct of specific committees, maintenance practices, etc. The company seems a little worse in some areas (negotiations), and the union seems a little worse in others (certain committees).

This all comes back to managing and checking the stuff that eats away at any organization.