![]() |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3712137)
If you have been here for 1 year as of Dec 31st, you will get it paid out in Feb.
|
Originally Posted by togaflaps
(Post 3712286)
Didn't this change in the new contract?
|
Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
(Post 3712219)
There’s a clause that <1 year pilots will get it if United ever decides to extend that policy to another work group.
I wish we got that changed outright (even though it doesn’t affect me), never been a fan of eating the young and it’s unfair that someone who starts the first week of Jan gets nothing but someone that starts the last week of December gets the full thing. |
Originally Posted by Chuck D
(Post 3711845)
Was it? The overall pilot pool of money is based on company profit, regardless of pilot pay, except for the new DL formula mods. Retro factors by tweaking all of our individual 2023 earnings by 14%. I’ve failed to remember any useful math from decades ago but this makes me think it’s just a wash.
someone still smart please chime in If that is the case, including retro will be a big win as it will shift money away from the other groups and to the pilots. If not, it doesn’t matter because you will be getting a lot more money anyway. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3712290)
It may seem like it's eating your young, but not really. Since the profit sharing pool is finite, you're just getting more money later on as opposed to getting that first check.
To couch it any other way requires some twisted logic. 51 weeks worked as a 7 Jan. hire any no PS? Crazy. But to change it to the logical solution will cost those that went before marginally. It should have changed to the "logical solution" when there was no profit |
Originally Posted by bugman61
(Post 3712306)
How, specifically, is the payout at United calculated? If it’s actually a copy of the delta plan, there is no “pilot pool” but a pool that is distributed to all employees based on relative income.
|
Originally Posted by Race Bannon
(Post 3712361)
Unless, of course, that last payment when you are supposed to be made whole, is in a down cycle when there isn't a profit. Seems paying it out for the year you earn it(pro-rated) would be the fairest, most logical way
To couch it any other way requires some twisted logic. 51 weeks worked as a 7 Jan. hire any no PS? Crazy. But to change it to the logical solution will cost those that went before marginally. It should have changed to the "logical solution" when there was no profit |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 3712290)
It may seem like it's eating your young, but not really. Since the profit sharing pool is finite, you're just getting more money later on as opposed to getting that first check.
|
Yep, it's analogous to a Ponzi scheme. The new hire helps contribute to the profit and those that have been here in excess of a year take that NH PS portion and divide it up among themselves. They then justify by saying," You'll get your make up payment up when you put your hand in the pocket of the next NH group". Using the funds partially generated by those pilots last in the door to supplement the payment of those already here doesn't scream "respect" or "part of the team" or righteous"
It was set up poorly from the get go. Yes, I acknowledge that a righteous fix would "harm" those that got "screwed" initially. Not saying it needs to change but I can, at the same time, acknowledge that it is somewhat dorked up. . I can also recognize that it is akin to the old school way of, "Eat the young". It was probably justified as those NH are on probation so we don't owe them anything or, "reasons". Yes, fixing it would be dorked up also. |
Originally Posted by Race Bannon
(Post 3712415)
Yep, it's analogous to a Ponzi scheme. The new hire helps contribute to the profit and those that have been here in excess of a year take that NH PS portion and divide it up among themselves. They then justify by saying," You'll get your make up payment up when you put your hand in the pocket of the next NH group". Using the funds partially generated by those pilots last in the door to supplement the payment of those already here doesn't scream "respect" or "part of the team" or righteous"
It was set up poorly from the get go. Yes, I acknowledge that a righteous fix would "harm" those that got "screwed" initially. Not saying it needs to change but I can, at the same time, acknowledge that it is somewhat dorked up. . I can also recognize that it is akin to the old school way of, "Eat the young". It was probably justified as those NH are on probation so we don't owe them anything or, "reasons". Yes, fixing it would be dorked up also. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:55 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands