To add to that AV8OR, it might be a real good idea to make sure that it passes, before we even bother wasting bandwith discussing it.

 

Agree. I think you know I'm voting yes and encouraging others to do the same. Guess we'll see.

 

Typically the reason a company prefers the signing bonus approach instead of "retro" pay, i think, is because they do not want to have to go back and revise the previous quarters or years financial statements. The signing bonus lets them show the costs at the time that the cost occurred, at contract signing, rather than submit a bunch of revised financials. I am not sure why so many people think it is a concession.

Congrats in the TA,

WG

 

It is a concession because "retro" is exactly that. They go back and make you whole for your 401K, your retirement, everything that compounds. Taking a signing bonus is a concession to the company. You have given them money to "use" free of interest for the whole time negotiations went on. It also gives them an incentive not to get the next contract done very fast either. If it will not cost them the retro they save money in the long run, hence no pressing need to get the next contract signed.

 

P.S.

I do not mean to say that Astar took a concessionary contract. I do not know. I have not seen what is in the TA. Please do not read this as a flame. Just trying to explain the big difference between signing bonus and retro pay. Retro is WAY, WAY better.

 

Most think it is a concession because you get less pay for the rest of your career, and the company saves money for the rest of your career!

 

Not taking it as a flame. It's clear that no matter what we do, you guys won't be happy with it. Not that I care. "Drop your scope suit!" OK, did that. "Well, what did you get for dropping it? You guys must be trying to hose us!" Huh? "Retro is better than a signing bonus." Well, duh. Given the current situation around the cornfield, if anyone thinks this TA is concessionary, they're whacked. Gains in all areas. No give backs. 'Bout all I've got to say about that.

 

Hvy,

Take a deep breath. Not everything is about you. I was explaining to Worldguy why people consider a signing bounus as consessionary. ABX pilots have no room to throw stones since we took a hosing in our last contract with a signing bonus, so relax, it is not always about you or Astar.

 

BH,

Yes, it is all about me. I guess I should have broken it down into two posts. To you was the part about getting that yours wasn't a flame. If you look at this entire thread though, the things I wrote about and more have been thrown our way. That's what the rest of it was about. They're all ABX posters.

 

Hvy,

The questions are being asked because some of your peers have been dropping sketchy details of a potentially inflammatory nature. I don't want to rehash the whole scope arguement. Suffice it to say we are both familier with the details. You have now dropped the litigation. Great, but the situation has changed. You are now, once again, argueably part of the "DHL family" since DHL has taken a 49% interest in Astar. They do not have a similar interest in ABX. We would like to know what changes were made to the language that might have an adverse impact on us, our careers, our ability to support our families. Do we need to start looking for employment elsewhere? The language may give us some idea.

As to whether or not the rest of your T/A is concessionary in nature, I really don't care. We will have to fight our own battles. I may do my own analysis based on the scanty info now available, or I may not. I may do one later when more info is out there. Depends on how bored I am and how much time I have on a layover.