That's pretty close to my preference. I've advocated for starting a tally at the amendable date and updating it each month with the additional lost wages. ALPA receives data from The Company each month to indicate each pilot's seat and longevity, and we know what the system-wide average BLG is. One line on a spreadsheet for each pilot, and one column for each month of delay. Multiply the pilot's new hourly pay rate by the system-wide average BLG and put that in the spreadsheet cell. Add up the months across the columns and multiply by a factor to account for the missing "B" fund contributions and lost value of time, and that would determine the pilot's bonus. Total all the pilots' bonuses, and there's the lump sum required to consummate any deal.

In my world, the Negotiating Committee chair would be passing a piece of paper across the table to The Company at the beginning of each negotiating meeting that shows the grand total of the cost of delaying. The longer it takes, the bigger the number.


And yes, that would not eliminate the unfairness of having pilots held back from upgrades because of The Company's abuse of our ridiculous training methodology. But it solves the problems I see with most other methods of computing the delay penalty.


Now, about Expedited Mediation ...






.

No, not viola. He said violà, which is a lot closer to voilà than I've seen other some people type it. I particularly like the ebonics version, wah lah. :D






.

BLG, plus add all of the draft flying and spread that out among those that held the line.

To be clear, those are hours that should be counted as well as BLG. They need to be split up to the entire group.

TA???? Rumors???
 

I guess autocorrect doesn’t recognize French Etymology. ;)

Bingo (because I can’t spell voilà right the first time). :D

The purpose of retro pay is to try to make each pilot whole for the delay in negotiations. If it takes 2 years to get a contract, then there should be a year of retro pay based on the lost hourly pay increase from the year without a pay increase.

Then why did you say this...

And if you think everyone should be equal, why reduce the amount for those on property after a certain date? If it is one signing bonus for all, then it should be one signing bonus for all. If it is truly compensation for the delay in pay increases, then each seat, NB or WB, Capt or FO, should have a different amount.

because I’ve accepted that most people here would rather have retro or a signing bonus than better long term rates/pension per diem so I’m trying to plant seeds in peoples minds for better ideas that don’t reward those don’t fly their line.

I am tired of hearing people complain about this. The union came out and said not to give people a hard time about it, but there you go again.

We ARE NOT in self help. You are ADVOCATING for an ILLEGAL WORK ACTION that can bite us, big time.

While I am not a fan of draft at this particular time, beating on people who make that personal choice only serves to divide us.

STOP IT!

im not advocating for illegal work action. I’m just advocating that we don’t reward those who are already greedy. Big difference.

Not directed at you...just commenting in general:

Nothing like being a 75 FO who is denied a WB seat fo 2+ years now and having a junior hired FO on a WB telling that denied NB FO not to fly extra.

Just because WB jets are flying the wet lease doesn't mean a NB pilot wasn't affected. As jets are moved around to "move the freight" the effects are felt system wide.

100% that's why all these little squabbles to divide us all up is just one big management play to keep us divided. Just like the different fleet lanyards.