Originally Posted by
tomgoodman
Historically, both sides would open with an absurd "wish list", haggle their way to somewhere in the middle, sign, and claim a victory. Somebody would always ask "Why don't we save time and open closer to the midpoint, since that's where we always end up?" The answer was "Because that would change the location of the 'middle'."
Even when all the negotiators know approximately where the result will be, they have to play the game, lest their constituents grumble that they gave in too easily.
Just curious, were all the circa C2K contracts (AMR, DAL, UAL) negotiated this way, i.e. historically? Maybe those successes need to be considered the "new normal?" It seems more and more that a strike threat is no longer in the quiver as it was in the late 2000s.