retro should be as if we had a contract in 2019 since if the company had negotiated in good faith we would have had a contract then. This pay negotiation is essentially negotiating 2 pay contracts.

 

This is the correct attitude, I think.

"Punish the company for dragging their feet!!" is non productive. It's also a two-way street mentality.

$$$ and/or improvements is the ultimate goal.

Getting hung up on labels is a waste of time.

 

Don’t give yourself so much credit, I respond to lots of people and posts.

I responded to this particular post because it seems to me you requested information that you wouldn’t provide yourself and has nothing to do with the thoughts conveyed.

 

who wants to punish the company. I just want what they owe me.

 

Egggggggaactly

 

It’s important to me that we preserve the notion that even if a contract isn’t signed until after you’ve left/retired, you’ll get your back pay. That association unity is what will keep us from unnecessarily fracturing our vote - at least any more than 15,000 pilots already fracture.

I’ll gladly take a smaller retro check than a larger signing bonus if the former ensures everyone who worked after the amendable date is back-payed appropriately. The company would love to lock in the 2019 rate labor costs they got away with for all the high-earning retirees, and instead pay pennies on the dollar to the 1-5 year longevity newbies with a signing bonus. None of us should be incentivized to grab what we can with a hold-your-nose yes vote to a crappy TA because that’s the only way to salvage some partial back pay.

Stay strong, advocate for the profession and resist its perpetual erosion…and you’ll eventually get what’s owed to you. That should be the contract that we can all…hang our hat on.

 

I find this ^^^^ to be very profound. The folks that say "money is money...doesn't matter if it is a retro check or a signing bonus", miss the boat IMHO. They either miss the nuances of the two(retro/signing bonus), or understand the nuances and are content to feather their bed at the expense of those that have/will retire since the amendable date.

 

truth. And the way that clause is written is even more lame.

 

I’m all for this because of multiple reasons. Retro is the best answer, and may protect younger guys later down the road too, where a signing bonus may not.

Signed, not someone super senior.

 

I've been saying this for years. And yet every time I do I'm met with either ridicule or "well let's be realistic here..." type comments. I even had a CA ask me "What's retro pay?" It boggles my mind.
(FWIW I work at NK, not DAL)