this is factually inaccurate. Your understanding doesn’t match reality. It’s all there to read in a public, bullet point document.

 

​​​​​​
So educate me. IMO:

Retro Payment: A payment that makes us whole for the lower income we had between the amendable date and DOS. Should also go to those that left after the amendable date, but before DOS (prorated for time). This payment also serves as a reminder to the company that dragging their heels in future negotiations really doesn't save them anything.

Signing bonus/One Time Payment: Small bribe to accept a new contract long after the amendable date, saving the company lots of money, gets the retirees nothing, and makes sure the next time the contract becomes amendable we know it will be another few years before we get anything.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Real question: Why doesn't every union push for at least COLA after the amendable date? Is there a reason? Honestly don't know, but has baffled me since I started flying in the US 2 decades ago.

 

C2016 was labeled as a signing bonus but was calculated off of the retroactive pay raises swapa and the company negotiated "would have happened". Then they took the amount of tfp you earned between each "raise" and paid you the difference, including what you would have been paid extra from the rates on their 401k matches (my memory is fuzzy on that part).

Importantly, it was not true full retro, because they didn't retroactively go back and introduce the work rules or the b fund, and they also didn't pay any interest on the loan they forced the pilot group to give them.

That being said, despite it being labeled signing bonus, the good part of it was that it went to every pilot who had earned tfp during the time that the contract was amendable. That included pilots who departed the company, including those who quit, died, or retired.

My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the biggest reason the company doesn't like to label it retro is for sec/irs rules, as they would be required to go back and amend all of their filings during the period affected by a "retro" check.

The biggest question I'm going to have about the retro rules on this contract is going to be whether pilots who are currently on LoL/STD/LTD/etc will be rolled into the new system. It goes without saying I will be hugely vociferous about my HELL NO vote if they're not brought back into the family.

For your second question, I used to be very much in favor for a COLA at least raise that went into perpetuity in the event of stalled negotiations. I'm kind of torn on that right now.

Right now we're starting to see some movement in negotiations based in part on the fact that the company is starting to have trouble filling classes, and is starting to see people vacate the premises due to the lacking contract.

I agree with Lew that the biggest part of our leverage is the credible threat of a legal strike, but that doesn't mean that attrition/attraction isn't starting to be a concern. Another indisputable fact, in my opinion, is that I wonder what the affect on pilot unity and displeasure would be if we had already gotten, say 18-20% raises just due to inflation. Conversely, if the company had already been forced to already increase our pay by 20%, maybe the lower price tag of the QOL improvements/etc would act to lower the incentive of the company's desire to delay.

So on one hand should we take the time value of money in COLA raises, and possibly motivate the company to fix the other stuff as it's a lower percentage of the overall cost of the package? Or should we hope for increased leverage both in galvanizing the pilot group and reducing the attractiveness of swa as a career.

I'm honestly not sure. It's a complicated question, I think.

 

Can't say I disagree with any of that. I see what you say about it being harder getting the fellow workers fired up if you had 20% already. On the other hand, you have 20% already! And you wouldn't get all the headlines like we see now: "DL pilots get a 30% raise!!" (not really, corrected for inflation they kept the same rates pretty much..). I guess I feel getting the guaranteed bump would leave more time and effort to make sure all the other boxes are checked, but is just my view. (sidenote: "Another indisputable fact, in my opinion" was pretty funny to me).

And most of my post was directed at flownit, because he has all the answers, but makes you look it up yourself.

 

you claimed some people aren’t getting paid because “it’s not retro.” I’m not saying it is or is not retro. But payments are being made to estates of deceased pilots. So what you claimed was inaccurate.

 

Maybe start by looking who you are replying to.