Originally Posted by
tsquare
And you believe we do not have that? You think it is a bunch of rank amateurs that go into each and every contract negotiation, completely unarmed and completely clueless? Your lack of any kind of faith in those that are representing you is amazing, but what is even more amazing is that you think paying someone who has absolutely nothing to do with this, and does not have to live with any of the results will give us a better product. I really do not understand that mindset. Hired guns don't are about you or me. They care about their paycheck. And when it's done, it's done. As a matter of fact, when you think about it, they have less incentive to deliver a timely superior contract because that way they can stretch it out and make mo money.
The contract is what it is. I have 12 years left if I stay until 65. I might.. might not, it depends on whether or not I am still having fun.
.
So, first, I take exception to your inference that I have the such limited or simple concept of how negotiations are conducted.
Of course I believe they are prepared and are doing what they perceive as their best work.
Facts show that this is not always the case.
Our contracts, as well as others ALPA has done, have been peppered with language loop holes that have had an adverse effect on us. Taking the time to have a TA proofed by an unjaundiced third party is good business for the pilots.
Additionally, your view of how to effectively motivate an outside negotiator is too linear and simple.
Instead of the common pedestrian view, branch out T.
A firm that were to take on a negotiation for a measured percentage of the the gain over the previous contract is now a vested partner. When bouncing this idea off of the CEO of a large multinational law firm, this individual contemplated this for a moment and offered that if this ever materialized that the pilot group would be one of their top 5 clients.