Originally Posted by
TheManager
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 a 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.
I was an architect in another life. My wife wants a house that is flood proof, storm proof, fireproof, tornado proof, bomb proof, impossible to break in, and she wants floor to ceiling glass in every room that has 20' ceilings. Possible? Maybe. In the construction world, you have to deal with God. In the world of contracts, you have to deal with lawyers who are trained to argue both side of any issue. There is no such thing as a contract that will not have an exploitable loophole. I think what you are advocating in red is way more expensive than the potential gain that would be realized. I don't want an outside vested partner. Why do you? Dealing with God is much easier, and probably costs a lot less than dealing with lawyers.
Oh, and T4 is abysmal... professionally speaking.