Originally Posted by
DeadHead
I'm sure their is pros and cons in both negotiating tactics, but I worry about getting the wrong people in charge one day who will attempt to exploit one side of a pilot group against the other. Not that I see that from our current management, but I'm sure roles and actions tend to change when heading to the negotiator's table.
Personally, I think management will try to rationalize their position with truckloads of data that very convincingly defends their point of view on why something cannot be afforded. That is a slippery slope to start getting involved with, and I think it is imperative not overstep either sides area of authority/responsibility.
While, I agree, and uncaring, not-my-problem kind of attitude is not the best angle, I also think a easy-going, overaly-amicable approach can be equally as inefficient.
All of that can be done with IBB too. The main thing it does is cap the top end of the value off the bat. Values still need to be assigned to each item.
The biggest thing that divided in the past was the FAE and the ability or need to keep that high. Now that it is a DC percentage, it is about the numbers but to a lesser degree the numbers at the top end.
If this group wants to be split there is no tactic that will stop that. Pick and issue and it can be done.
IBB works great if you agree that the number used is based upon today's numbers, value, regulations etc. A change in anything can greatly devalue the total value you agreed to. It at a min as to be off the costs of Day One of talks.
ALPA and the company both spend an enormous amount if time valuing each item. The goal is to keep both sides honest and to get the best valuation you can. The EFA committee at National is always very busy doing this. They do it for LOA's, MOU's and section six agreements.