That's interesting. I suspected you were in management because of what you wrote and how you wrote it. I guess I lucked out.
As you correctly point out we all have our "opinions" and you're certainly entitled to yours. Likewise, I am entitled to mine and we do not always agree. I will tell you specifically where I disagree below.
Notice I asked if you were in senior management. By that I mean - at the Vice Presidential level or higher. If that was the case you know a lot. If it was not the case, then you only know the "spin" that you got from your bosses. Sometimes that would be accurate and other times it would be no more than what they wanted you to believe. That is quite different from what you call "the facts".
I was not a member of Company management so I would NOT know what you were told or by whom. You acknowledge that you were not “at the table” but even if you were that would not give you 100% of the story. Why? Because senior management often knows things that never come across “at the table”, unless that is what they want at that moment. In all major negotiations the big deals are often not cut “at the table”. Those deals are made behind the scenes and thereafter finalized by the actual negotiators/lawyers. That is true on both sides of the equation.
There’s another side to the stories that come out of negotiations and that is the Union’s side. It is also subject to a certain level of “spin”, which is normal in these proceedings.
Unless one has direct and frequent contact with the highest management levels on both sides of the spectrum one does not have all of the facts. Very few people actually know everything about what went down and what didn’t. However, lots of people think they know – based on what they were told.
For example you said:
On its face that simply is not true. The MEC and the Company are jointly responsible for how the negotiations went and how they could have ended. It’s a two-way street. It takes at least two people to disagree my friend, not just one.
Then you said:
Sorry but that is mostly Company spin. The Company had equally multiple opportunities to close the deal and chose not to. Don’t blame the Union for what is a joint responsibility. I’ll just say that if that is what was “reported” to you, you did not get a complete and factual report. By the way, its mediator not arbitrator.
I know that mediators are supposed to be impartial but humans are never what they’re supposed to be 100% of the time. A Mediator has only one true objective and that is to get an agreement. What’s in that agreement is not important to them. They often take sides if they think it will achieve the desired goal, i.e., to get an agreement.
It is therefore not always prudent to hang your hat on what they might say. They “spin” just as much as the next guy, maybe more.
Negotiations are always difficult and especially in the end game. Some facts you might want to consider are these:
Delta’s acquisition of the Company took place before the end game began. That fact changed the entire tone of the negotiations process and substantially delayed the outcome as well as the final results. It became immediately obvious to the Union side (at the table) that the Company’s chief negotiator (at the table) no longer had the power to make decisions without first consulting Atlanta. Whether or not Atlanta actually knew what it wanted or didn’t was anybody’s guess. Sometimes it took them days to make the most simple decision.
Then the Company’s chief negotiator went away and was replaced by a person who, from the union’s perspective, was not only incompatible and intransigent but more interested in making a name for himself than in reaching an agreement. I believe, just my opinion, that this change in the Company’s principal at the table had a major negative impact on the process. The process changed from a strong dispute to a virtual war and it was not the union’s negotiators that caused that.
At about the same time on the Union’s side the MEC Chairman retired and was replaced by a new MEC Chairman. My personal opinion is that the change in MEC leadership had very little, if any, negative impact on the outcome one way or the other. Others may have a different opinion. One thing it didn’t do was change the union’s positions on the issues.
However in fairness I will say that it is also my personal opinion that the top leadership in the National Union (D.C.) did have a decidedly negative impact on the negotiations as a whole. The MEC was basically fighting a war on two fronts. Publicly all was well in the Union but privately it was a horse of a very different color. Some of that was no secret. I know why those difficulties occurred but that’s a different subject for perhaps another time.
I have no idea how the management felt about the change in the Union’s MECC, but I do know how the union felt about the changes made in management (CMR to Delta) and the Company’s chief negotiator, as well as the resulting changes in the company’s positions and strategies. It was a whole new ball game..
Both of those events had a major effect on what happened subsequently, whether we like it or not. Some might think that effect was positive while others might think it was not. Or the opinions could be split. I suppose that depends on whose side you were on. You’ll have to make your own decision on that.
Some (perhaps you?) have the opinion that the MEC wanted a strike and caused the strike. That’s not my opinion. Once the company decided that it didn’t care or even wanted a strike, there was nothing the negotiators or the MEC could have done to avoid it - short of just caving completely. That wasn’t going to happen.
I think I know that the MEC, while fully prepared to strike, did not want a strike. I have the opinion that Comair’s management also did not want a strike. But, Comair’s management wasn’t running the show any more. I believe that a strike would no have occurred if Delta Airlines had not taken control of the company and the process..
I believe that Delta management intentionally took the position of “who do they think they are? We’ll show them how things are going to be in the future. Now that we’re in charge they’ll back down in a heartbeat. Those pipsqueaks wouldn’t dare strike Delta.”
I don’t blame them completely for that. Remember, Delta management had never dealt with anyone at the bargaining table other than the Delta MEC. The Delta pilots have never struck their airline. They always cut a deal at the end, even if it’s not exactly in their favor. That being the case it was difficult for DAL management to believe that a bunch of “commuter pilots” would dare to strike almighty Delta. Not when thousands of Delta pilots had never had the cojones to do it. They were confident that ultimately CMR pilots would roll over.
In other words I’m saying that Delta management made a conscious decision to force the strike. They assumed that Comair pilots would either back down right before or shortly after and it would be all over in a couple of weeks at most and they would emerge as the clear winners. As it turned out they were wrong.
Out of a situation that might have cost them $50 millions over 5 years, they managed to create a debacle that cost them $700 millions in 90 days and nearly cost them a $2 billion dollar investment. They’ve hated Comair pilots ever since and still do. But, it was their fault.
