Originally Posted by
Ottolillienthal
Wide body pilots already have a higher hourly pay rate than narrow body pilots, and their trips are far more productive, so they would have enjoyed a higher pay out anyway, as their w-2 wages are higher.
Pure retro is the difference between what you made and what you would have made under the new contract. The pay raise for LCAL's 737/757 was about half of what it was for the WB fleets, thus the retro would have been about half. You can argue 737/757 pilots were overpaid relative to the WB pilots and thus only deserved half of the retro, but there would have been some very vocal disagreement. BTW, how does productivity increase payout?
The union negotiated voluntary junior man provisions in the cba (contract 02), and while no CAL pilot is on furlough, pilots have a right to pick up VJM. The MEC would not (and is on the record as such) penalize anyone who utilized provisions in the cba to maximize income; as long as no CAL pilots were furloughed.
VJM goes back to C97 and there were no restrictions while pilots were on furlough. Just 'cause it's legal doesn't make it right. Scabbing is legal, but we all have to look at ourselves in the mirror each morning.
It didn't reduce the windfall, because those who were actively flying full bid periods over the 48 month look back were already getting full credit for that period of time. It's like giving those VJM pilots "extra credit." It actually enhanced them to some degree.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how our retro formula worked. My understanding is half was based on income earned and half was based on the time flying on property. I don't see how a longevity element could possibly help those who were out only for themselves.
I don't know enough about the mil pilots cause to say yea or nay. If their cause is just, I hope they get it. However, there are valid reasons for the method of calculation of the retro. My bet is the lawyers will make money and anything recovered from CALALPA by the plaintiffs won't even cover the legal fees.