Originally Posted by EWR764

I believe management deliberately dragged its feet in certain aspects of the negotiations, at least with respect to how closely it could integrate the two carriers without actually having to achieve joint labor agreements. That said, nobody in their right mind could have anticipated a rapid close to the negotiations.

Most agents, F/As and pilots on the front lines aren't closely involved in the labor negotiations, and, to a man (or woman), it would be difficult to find someone who wouldn't be happy with a rapid, favorable resolution. Unfortunately, the blockbuster contracts in the boom years of the late 1990s in part led to the need for deep givebacks in the early 2000s when the economy turned south. The desire to avoid that is shared by both sides, but there is naturally a difference of opinion of how to get there.

I think the part that gets lost is that the labor pictures at UA and CO were extraordinarily different, almost diametrically opposed, save for the fact that both were heavily unionized where DL was to a much lesser extent. Philosophically, integrating UA and CO was and continues to be a monumental task. There was very little common ground regarding work rules, pay, scope clauses, workforce demographics, etc. making the groups themselves difficult to integrate regardless of orientation toward management. Management probably could have run right down the list and conceded all of the pilots' demands and there would still be a host of internal conflict amongst the UA/CO ALPA MECs that need to be hashed out. Same with the AFA (which needed to be voted in ahead of the IAM first, before even sitting down at the joint bargaining table), Teamsters, etc.

Things are moving forward slowly, and even though blaming this "incompetent" management team (I use quotations because competence is more of a subjective assessment) is en vogue, as always, there is a lot more to the story.