742Dash

They are MBAs. They are taught that if you can not measure it then it does not matter. Little Robert McNamara clones.

Thus concepts such as leadership, loyalty, character and ethics are lost.

In their training they are taught that employees are fungible, and any warm body is as good as the next one. They mistakenly think that every worker is motivated by the same shallow rewards, thus they think that a nurse in a NICU is motivated in the same way as a used car salesman.

In other words just another day in modern American business.

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.

No Land 3

So it's a battle of egos, not what's best for the company and employees.

wjcandee

It is typical positional bargaining. Very-inefficient. It's why I said, mostly-seriously, that someone has to read "Getting To Yes".

zerozero

I think it's actually a little more complicated (or "nuanced" as Elevation characterized it).

This is really about CONTROL. It's a struggle for control over the basic business model of the company. Or, in other words "Scope".

The company obviously wants to be free to conduct their business as they see fit. The union wants to draw some lines obviously in order to protect jobs, seniority and career expectations.

The company refuses to be pinned down. The jobs, seniority and expectations of the crew members are irrelevant to executives.

JonnyKnoxville

It is not about ego as long as the pilot group is okay with their leaders signing an extension of their current contract. No job protections, inadequate work rules and pay at 50%-60% of our peers would suggest that one side is way over reaching. However, if the pilot group is good with this and simply wants a deal, any deal, no matter how bad it is, they can vote accordingly in the next election.

The negotiating committee is not and has not negotiated for one single item that is not already enjoyed by other pilot groups.

kodiakallstar

Nobody wants that. some people do seem to think we have some kind of Kalitta plus 1 offer on the table we should’ve taken but I’m not one of those.

It’ll be 10 more yrs before we get this chance again and who knows what kind of economic climate we will find ourselves in. Industry standard or nothing and if you don’t like it please go to Kalitta or ATI.

Globemaster2827

If we'd have gotten a "Kalitta Plus $1" deal while I was there I still would've left for Purpler Pastures... I'm not sure what the point of yall accepting that would've been. There would've been no real gains in a contract like that. Just a higher rate.

Elevation

I don't think people want us to cave. Far from it. As Kodiak said, this is a rare opportunity. We do have to make sure we're fighting smarter and harder than our opponents, though.

Ultimately I'm here to support you. That doesn't mean you need to like me. It does mean that we're going to fight as a team. About the worst thing any of us can do is blow sunshine up your chimney. So here is a review of the points I made earlier along with some suggestions.

1.) Do we see each other as cariacatures? Yes.
Jeff C talks about keeping Indians on the reservation. It's clear he and his cohort think we're simple-minded and easily fooled with. There's no chance of serious negotiations until we change that perception. Avenues to drive that change can be discussed privately.

How much consideration of the crews went on when some folks just dinked with our internal communications? Did they think of us as people or some cartoon versions of ourselves?

There are more examples.

2.) Are both sides invested in their current courses of action? Yes.

It's pretty clear that they are. The company is losing business rather than adjust to realities. They're in too deep to change course. Most all of us in the union know we're in too deep to change course at this point too. While that means there's support for our course of action, it also means we aren't able to adapt to change or surprise. Like a nudist in a football helmet, we better be ready to guard against hits in other places.

3.) Are the practices that both parties use for promotion and selection divorcing us from facts? Yes.

Let's consider how many instructors and line check airmen are consistently worried about the same threats. What real results are we seeing though? Look at one of our instructors that got fired after testifying. That was a clear effort to tie career progression across the training department to towing a given, party line. If they're doing it, we have to assume we're doing it to some extent.


Incentives and Structures:
First, don't fire or replace personnel. The same issues will arise with new people in place. Instead adjust incentives and structures. Simply acknowledging our failures redirects people back into productive courses of action.

We've already done this. For example, some of the very same people that were pushing BOOT and SHOP are now vociferously pushing compliance with orders. This is a great success. We can use that model to mold the parts in place into a better, fighting organization. We have the ability. We just have to do it. Decide what results we want and where we can apply pressure, then set the incentives and communications to drive those results and produce that pressure.

Second, you may also want to consider building taller fences between union and training center positions. People are human. Conflicting interests are going to get the better of anybody.

Third, actively solicit criticism with a caveat. Criticism must come with proposed solutions. Criticism is good. People that solicit solutions are buying into a union effort. This will do more to build solidarity than anything.

Finally, collect more and better data. Data is a weapon. If we're no longer getting data automatically, we might need to drop trousers and let folks know to communicate with us directly. New and verifiable data sources help too.

We're ready to work. Let's do something.

BluePAX

Makes two of us.