Ok, here it is. Prior to 2011, our contracts had pay rates effective on the DOS (date of signing). In the 2011 "bridge contract," the language was changed to the pay rates effective in the bid period. Now, on the surface, this might not seem like a big deal, but when you run the numbers, this can be a substantial loss for the pilots and a savings for the company.

Let's take our current pay increase which takes effect with the November bid period. In our first two contracts, the pay increase would have taken place on the DOS, which would have been October 31, or November 1. This pay increase now takes effect with the beginning of the bid period. Big deal, right? It is when you actually run the numbers.

So, let's examine the cheapest scenario for the company if the pay rates took effect on the DOS. If that were the case, the company would make October a 4 week bid month and November a 5 week bid month to save money. Taking a conservative approach, let's say that the hour difference was 17 more hours in November than it would be for a 4 week month. Since they are buying up lines in most seats, that is the difference between a 68 and an 85 credit hour BLG. Now, looking at the pay rate increase, with the highest being over $12 per hour and only first and second year pay being below $7 per hour, let's assume for simplicity's sake that the average increase is over $7 per hour.

Now, when you take the >$7 per hour increase and multiply it by 17 hours, you get approximately $120 in pay per pilot or more for the month. Now take that $120 per pilot and multiply that by our 5000 pilots, and the pilots lost $600,000 as a group in compensation. Again, remember, these are conservative numbers.

Now, let's assume that October stayed a 5 week bid month. If the pay rates took effect on the DOS, then since the bid month covered the effective DOS, the entire month would have been paid at the higher pay rate. This is how it was done prior to 2011. Since 85 hours is the minimum that any line in October would pay, let's use that number. 85 happens to be 5 time 17. So, if you take that, and multiply the lost money from above by 5, you get a loss of pilot income of $3,000,000.

So, by allowing this simple, innocuous change in the wording to creep into our contract, the pilots lost, or the company saved, at least $600,000 - $3,000,000 in one year. Now, this doesn't happen every year, but I wonder if the union factored this in with there increases in the value of the contract, or if it slipped by like other items that were sold?