What one really needs to look at is both Unions Log of Claims prior to the negotiations starting, and what one will find is who has been more successful than the other. Its that simple.
Really? It's "that simple" is it?
I wasn't aware that the result is judged by which unions log of claims most closely resembled the outcome. I thought it was about getting the best result for the pilots, whilst maintaining sustainable employment costs for the company.
The end result of the Long Haul Agreement Rem package was more than the Feds even asked for. So you can bang on all you like about being "realistic" but that isn't how it works. You ask for the unbelievable and negotiate back to common ground, the same way as the company starts with "you're not getting anything"" and negotiates up from that.
Its called ambit claims and negotiation.
If pilots get their hopes up and expect a result based on a Log of Claims, then they are as dumb as management think they are.
I work from the premise that most pilots will have read the document, and their respective unions advice, then formed their own opinion, with the union recommendation validating their view. I would be disappointed if there were enough pilots voting along party lines to affect the outcome. So, working on my premise, VIPA got it right because the pilots validated the union position.
Verification, or otherwise, of this will come when the final agreement is in place. If the final document is better than the one that has just been rejected then VIPA, and the pilots, will have got it right. If the final document is worse than the rejected offer, then the Feds will have got it right.