Again, lots of folks seem to be absolutely positive they have the gouge on what exactly is in the TA. Maybe some of them are right, but they can't all be.

I'll wait because I have to - that's the process. But, like Flare, I think the process is flawed. What is the process-changing process for Contract 2018? I've been thinking of the following:

- Negotiations are going to be under NDAs. I think that's a necessity.
- After the negotiations produce a TA, release to the membership for a 14-day period of review, during which pilots can review (and/or bring to their own professionals to review) and comment to local/national reps. Even if we got only 5% of the pilots to do individual analysis, that's a 600-brain network focused on finding inconsistencies, loopholes, Trojan horses, and other problems.
- During this 14-day review, each local would have 2-3 open meetings to answer questions and get feedback and direction from their constituency.
- After the 14-day review, a 7-day period of debate followed by a recorded and published MEC vote.
- If approved, to the membership for ratification.

This looks like it extends the timeline by 14 days, which I don't think is much in the scheme of things for a 3-4 year contract. And, if the contract is a stinker that gets struck down during review, it sure does. That gives incentive to produce a winner the first time.

However, if the contract is a winner, it really doesn't add any time (and maybe even shortens the process), because the TA would be reviewable by the pilot force 1 week earlier than current practice, and the 3 weeks between release and MEC vote wouldn't be wasted time - 2 weeks of member education and debate, which would continue through the MEC debate/vote process). Thus, the time between the MEC vote and ratification can be shortened.

Not a factor for this contract, but something to think about for the next time.