gloopy

I think you're giving them way, way, way too much credit.

Every time another bottom feeder overpromises and underbids and hurts DL's operation, the MBA bonus monger mercenaries will jump all over themselves to fix the issue by signing another bottom feeder that overpromises and underbids even more, and they will cream their pants to sign the same ACMI providers to larger and larger "RJ's" if we allow it.

It is a religion to them.

gloopy

I think the concern over the DALPA opener is that whatever it is will likely be the high water mark that will then be lowered to some degree towards the company's (obviously much lower) opener. IOW, whatever our opener is, there will be little room at that point to go up but infinite room to go down. So if our opener is weak, we start off from a position of weakness and then start bargaining downward from there.

Wanting to see our opener isn't about getting a sneak peak at the definite end result, but rather seeing where we stand and what the high water mark is.

Of course we could always just ask the DCI MEC's what they saw during their required "meet and confers" that way we can at least get an idea on our Section 1 openers. That is, if the DCI MEC's are willing to tell us what's in our own opener. We should ask nice, cause they don't have to tell us either.

gloopy

So that's why we hired the "best of the worst" to do our NYC expansion for us?

Jack Bauer

Astute oberservations. Unfortunatley based upon the ALPA "insiders" here we are headed for trouble. Their defeatest attitudes, going out of their way to publish the other sides talking points show a basic lack of negotiating know how and aggressiveness.

To your point regarding high mark starting position we can glean some good tips from negotiations in other fields and how these principles contrast with where ALPA seems to be taking us. Read on....

Anchoring a negotiation

Research has confirmed that the way negotiators perceive the value of any offer made in a negotiation powerfully correlates to any number affiliated with that offer. Given that numbers related to an offer tend to have a magnetic influence on the judgment of negotiators, these numbers are referred to as anchors.

First offers have a vigorous anchoring impact in situations of great fluidity and doubt, as in the case with many negotiations. First offers maintain a strong authority throughout the negotiation. This influence is so powerful that even negotiators who are aware of the hypnotic allure of anchors in terms of their judgement are often unable to resist this influence. Therefore, their assessment of a first offer seldom breaks out of the field of influence of such anchors.

Even people who recognize that they are wise to anchors are invariably influenced by anchors. This relates to the fact that high anchors selectively direct attention towards strong, positive attributes, whereas low anchors selectively direct attention towards weak, negative attributes.

Making or not making a first offer

Research into the affect of anchoring strongly suggests that negotiators who present a first offer frequently enjoy a substantial negotiation advantage. In many studies sellers who make the first offer have been found to achieve higher negotiated prices than buyers making first offers. Making the first offer anchored the negotiation in the favour of the sellers.

Furthermore, researchers have also discovered that the likelihood of a first offer being made powerfully associates to an increase of the negotiator's confidence and sense of control at the negotiation table. Those who are lacking confidence and who feel disempowered by the structure of a negotiation or the availability of alternatives are less apt to make a first offer.

There is also a great deal of evidence that the size of the first offer impacts the outcome of a negotiation - with higher or more aggressive first offers delivering better outcomes.

First offers predict final settlement prices more so than ensuing concessionary offers.

Aggressive first offers are advantageous to negotiators for the following reasons:

Such offers assist sellers to attain higher final agreements;
Higher list prices lead to higher final selling prices, as it causes buyers to concentrate on the positive features of a purchase; and
Aggressive first offers generate leeway for negotiators to give concessions without exceeding their BATNAs.

First offers that are timid generally place heavy limitations on the ability of a negotiator to agree to and extract concessions / counter-concessions, or not to go beyond their real base (walk away value). On the other hand, aggressive first offers allow the other party the scope to negotiate concessions. The ensuing result is that it increases that party's sense of achievement and satisfaction, and consequently the possibility of a mutually beneficial outcome.

Using an "Aspiration Base" focus

When negotiators ponder aggressive first offers, they should make such offers within the context of the following;

The strength of their BATNA,
Their aspiration base (the target at which their hopes and desires would be fulfilled) and,
Their real base (the bottom line beyond which their BATNA kicks in).
Although a clearly defined real base is an exceedingly important component of any negotiation, it is important that negotiators concentrate on their aspiration base when developing a first offer. Research findings reveal that negotiators who concentrate on their aspiration base when considering first offers are inclined to make more aggressive first offers. They generally achieve more beneficial outcomes than negotiators who focus on their real base.

nerd2009

We figured at 15%, 4 legs/day....then only $10 tips from 25% of pax....still blows you away. We work for peanuts ! And Management knows it.

A Sky Cap at EWR told me once that they pulled in about $120,000 per year...and they proudly wore their hats LOL

Sink r8

Well, we've had this discussion earlier, and I thought you were wrong about the opener coming out automatically. You were sort of right.

Since that time, I've attended a council meeting, a local council meeting where line pilots asked questions, and there there was a lot of debate on this topic. Some good points were made, that I had not considered previously. Apparently, there is a lot of debate at the MEC level as well. I don't know if the other reps want to wait to disclose the opener, or not, but mine are open-minded. They just made the point we don't autmatically show our opener to the world initially, but we do it for a purpose, i.e. just before a strike vote, to show how far apart we are.

The mood in the room seemed to be that pilots were willing to give the negotiators lattitude to start negotiating without having table positions in public, assuming the company is not taking an extreme position, and isn't making their opener public.

That's the way the discussion evolved. I suppose there is a convergence of ideas on this, because the reps are discussing this very point, and we're discussing this very point with our reps.

So I'll ask again: assuming we're not starting out too far apart, and it appears the company is willing to deal, and they're not putting out a public opener, what exactly do we gain by putting ours up?

tsquare

Unfortunately, no. They will bankrupt us all personally...

tsquare

Interesting mixed metaphor.

tsquare

While it might be outdated and a slap, etc.. it is still the law of the land. I don't like it either.

CAPA scheduled meetings huh? What did they accomplish? If those meetings were a complete waste of time... which is inconceivable the federal government would ever do... I would prefer that our association didn't spend our dues moneys on that waste of time. But that's probably just me..

tsquare

I am not management at DAL, but I couldn't care less what you think, troll...

Don't you have more seniority to steal?