I never said it was on our side. But sometimes you can bring something to the negotiating table that doesn't really cost us anything but can get us something tangible in our pockets.

When you are "costing" items on the terms sheet, it really is no cost to either side (xcpt maybe for an appropriate pro-rate [in our favor] to move from one system to the other that first year). But, if you believe the Crew Resources monthly "Graphs for Laughs" claims that there is an alleged spike in sick leave useage during April and May which is costly to the operation (more premium time issued to cover the alleged increase in sick), then any reform to the current system (which, of course, the company had to have in TA2012) would be a fiscal gain for the company. Good negotiators should recoup as much of that gain as possible by, for instance, increasing per diem rates by an amount greater than TA2015's proposed $0.05 increase in per diem.

However, demanding full retro back to the date of the first stock buyback is merely a waste of keystrokes. It isn't going to put an extra dime in our pockets.

Cheers.....