Don't quote me on it but I believe united is the only one to have that kind of language. They will get a snap up whenever we sign anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The "smartest guys in the room" parroted by others have been telling us trading "at risk" profit sharing 1:1 for guaranteed pay is a win/win. We can't lose!

We've been losing total compensation ever since April 2015 (15 months of losing) because of this trade. The 1 for 1 swap didn't even last 1 contract cycle before we were upside down. Now the traded away profit sharing is gone forever.

Now they want Profit Sharing and 3B4 Concessions?

It is not traded away "forever" or for even one second. You get your PS for payrates trade in your paycheck every time, twice a month, without fail. You act like we would have the current pay rates but with a higher PS payout otherwise. That is not the case. Had we left PS completely untouched in C2012 we would have slightly lower pay rates today.

Let me put it to you this way. What if our pay was zero, and we received our entire compensation via a huge annual PS payout? Then we decided to trade all of the PS away for normal twice monthly paychecks. Have you "lost" anything? Of course not. But then again, neither have you gotten a "raise." It was just a trade.

Very flawed logic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...and I believe he is correct. Our current rate would not be the previously negotiated rate, it would be where we stand now because of the snap up with 3B4. The 3B4 raise we got over a year ago (something like .5%) would have been larger to arrive at today's current rate. And PS would be larger too. What am I missing?

This is the reason the company wants to wipe out 3B4. It makes it much easier (next time if not this contract) to reduce PS.

I will concede (no pun intended) that the 3B4 might have brought up our payrates to our current rates...but I highly doubt it. The 0.55% "raise" kind of convinces me of that. The devil would be in the details.

I just think it amusing that C2K was actually applauded for removing all "scary, unpredictable" PS for "guaranteed" pay rates via a trade, but now any suggestion of the same is highly criticized.

I think the discussion fairly pointless to be honest and I am neutral on it all--so long as the company doesn't ever call a PS-for-payrates trade a "raise." I do know one thing. If we leave PS untouched and our profits tank (which I certainly don't see happening) the same guys insisting "no PS reductions" will be the first to state (loudly) "ALPA should have known this is a cyclical business and they lost their chance to lock in guaranteed pay rates."

If we trade PS for rates (again), we trade something the mediators can't cost out, for something they can.

Please PM me if you don't understand the strategic impact of that issue.

During ck2000......most around here also believed the phoney-baloney Ponzi scheme pension story as well.

What you are witnessing.... and have not woken up to....is most here have joined reality and understand what represents real economic value, and what doesn't.

Wages lag inflation. Wages require an amendable date to adjust. And wages gain zero from economic activity by mgmt. that comes at our expense, but is not on our time card.

If the 3B4 April 2015 increase wouldnt have been enough to bring us to current rates, a 3B4 increase in December 2015 would have been triggered which surely would have. You do realize our April 2015 3B4 rate increase would have been larger had our rates been lower to match AAL/UAL up to the % of the non-con raises. We would still have today's rates without the PS concession we made.

Giving up PS was a very bad move on our part. It is costing us real money today and will forever cost us more each and every year our company is profitable.

Please go on with your reason as to why you believe this.