Batna for Soutwest Airlines and Muse/Transtar

788 Words4 Pages
CASE OVERVIEW Muse/TranStar amid the 1982 traffic controllers’ strike and still struggling until the end of 1984 where they were looking for a merger to survived. Southwest Airlines acquired Muse/TranStar in 1985 and a few series of complexity negotiation commenced between both company and Muse/TranStar run as a separate operation. Trough TranStar Pilots Association (TPA), Muse/TranStar negotiates a combined master seniority list where an agreement was reached as followed: 1. A pilote hired in Jun of 1982 by Southwest senior to a Muse/TranStar pilot hired in January 1981. 2. Improved the relative seniority of all Southwest Airlines pilots. 3. Fence 4. Captain seat protections 5. TranStar pilots pay parity no later than December 1990 However, it resulted the TPA BOD rejected the proposed Integrated Seniority List (ISL) with hope it will create more leverage for their merger committee.In the end, 146 pilots who had seniority numberas the TPA BOD decision lead to misapplied and overestimate BATNA. THE ANALYSIS Muse/TranStar apparently failed to analyze its owned BATNA properly. They need to be alert on their own BATNA and know what their BATNA is relative to a possible agreement and consciously work to improve the BATNA. The company also did not aware about other party’s BATNA and failed to compares to what other party was offering. THE STRATEGIES If I was appointed as one of the negotiation team representing the Muse/TranStar, I would suggest the TranStar to dissect both company’s position and interest. In this case, Muse/TranStar was looking for a merger to keep it afloat and manage its struggle. Then, Muse/TranStar should look at the sum of these parts relative to all the alternative options available. Muse/TranStar has to determine all alternative option then pick the best option. Finally, do the reverse from company’s

More about Batna for Soutwest Airlines and Muse/Transtar

Open Document