At least at the regional I was at, the senior pilots were so interested in not sharing any money with pilots that escaped to better places that they never even considered anything that could be called "retro." You'll find most examples were regionals that also likely had decided to avoid anything that shared money with those who left.

 

We got pretty darn close to it. We also got retro for those that retired, those that went elsewhere and our deceased.

 

I didn't get any retro since the TA was reached after I left, and anyone who left wasn't included. I doubt anyone still there had any kind of retro either to be honest, but I don't know the details. For me, it honestly has less to do with the money, and more to do with preventing this from happening again. If we were to get something in the next agreement that included raises tied to inflation past the amendable date, I would consider it.

 

A better question might be why would Mooner not advocate full retro?

 

Even better question, why didn’t you read the post? It says why I’m agnostic. You can put retro value anywhere, from 100% upfront in a check, combination of a check and larger raises for out years, or no retro check and even larger out year raises. The total value at the end is what matters. A simple calculator can tell the whole story. Context gives meaning.

I just went through the calculation for the latest and greatest rumor at United. 15 5 5, not including the 5% coming in 2023. So really it would be 15, 10, 5. It’s unclear whether or how much retro was stipulated in the rumor. Looking at inflation, they would beat it by .6% compounded annually for the 6 year deal. Not great, but a positive number and certainly better than the long term negative number. Any retro will of course move the annual compounded rate higher.

Some will declare victory if we capture inflation. Some will declare victory if we capture inflation plus x%. Everyone’s x is different. Less than 100 retro upfront may do the trick to reach your x depending on what the initial pay raise and outlying years look like.

My personal desire is to maximize the attainable value over the entire contract.

 

Who isn't advocating for full retro? Sure give me 15% back to the amenable date........only that will never happen.

 

“full” retro never seems to get defined

 

That's why I prefer "back wages" based on negotiated rates for 2020, 2021, 2022 and soon 2023.

 

Exactly this. This is full retro to me. Not 20% every year, but a modest raise equal to or greater than inflation for 2020, 2021, and 2022, and then a larger raise in 2023 (assuming we sign a contract beginning then). Anyone who worked at all during those years gets the retro, including retirees and deceased. No retro for VEOPs after their VEOP date, but any work prior pays retro or "back wages."

 

Exactly this. Back pay maintains the principle for those that retired or left but performed work for parts of any year after the amenable date. If it were to only cover inflation (or a modest amount above it), then it also wouldn't be a huge windfall (likely less than the signing bonuses at Alaska for many). This is also probably much easier to explain to anyone who isn't a pilot, "X percent for 2020, Y percent for 2021, Z percent for 2022." It also has the added advantage of making new rates in the contract not look obscene to other work groups, etc. If the baseline is moved for the previous years via modest increases, then compounding interest would make a less eye-popping percentage increase for 2023 actually pay out more.