Well looky here. An explanation. Not a good one, but an explanation none the less. The problem, as I see it, is that our contractual profit sharing is based on s-UAL earnings, not consolidated. And, our contractual ps is based on exluding special items, not adjusting for them. The ALPA audit will be interesting.

from Skynet:

Why was s-United' profit sharing payout higher than s-Continental last year?


In 2010, s-CO and s-UA had separate profit sharing plans that remained in effect after the merger in October 2010 through the end of 2010. While there were some differences in the terms of the plans, the primary difference in payouts last year was because United was more profitable than Continental in 2010 prior to the merger. For example, for the first nine months of 2010, UAL's stand-alone pre-tax profit adjusted to exclude special charges was $764 million and Continental's was $489 million.

In 2011, the new United established a single, combined profit sharing plan, the terms of which are identical for all eligible co-workers, and which is based on the company's consolidated profits (the profits of both subsidiaries combined). Despite a 36.5 percent rise in consolidated fuel expense for 2011 compared with 2010 (on a pro forma basis), excluding the impact of hedges, we were able to achieve a level of profitability for 2011 that provides profit sharing of approximately 5 percent of eligible earnings for participating employees. Overall, our profit was lower in 2011 than 2010. Adjusting both years for special items and excluding profit sharing expense, the 2011 profit was $1.33 billion and the combined 2010 profit of both companies was $1.488 billion. Had fuel prices been as high in 2010 as they were in 2011, neither subsidiary would have had profit sharing in 2010 on a stand-alone basis.