Originally Posted by TNDeltaFlyboy (Post 3739107)

If your PS plan is the carbon copy of Delta's everyone says it is, then, no, prior year's PS isn't included. If it isn't, then you scored a big win with that.

And the IRS view PS payouts as a bonus, not normal income which is why taxes are withheld and a hire than normal rate.

Originally Posted by Myfingershurt (Post 3739113)

Taxes on bonuses are withheld at 25%. I’d say that’s probably lower than most major airline pilots effective tax rate.

Originally Posted by Myfingershurt (Post 3739052)

you get profit sharing on your profit sharing? That’s cool.

Originally Posted by Brickfire (Post 3739160)

The company has a formula to determine the total amount which will be paid to all pilots.

Then they have a formula to divide the pot. Including PS and Retro disproportionately inflates the earning of senior pilots. It doesn't really get you "more" profit sharing.

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1 (Post 3739163)

Interesting. Delta specifically takes previous year's PS payment out of the calculation when divvying it up. Yes I know this doesn't affect the total PS paid to pilots, but it affects pilots on an individual level.

Originally Posted by GoCats67 (Post 3739100)

The good news is that with the 2023 retro counting in the earnings most should be getting whatever the percentage ends up being off a significantly larger number than last years earnings.

Originally Posted by OpieTaylor (Post 3739251)

Seems like this wouldn’t matter if the PS pot is a hard number.

The United pilots divide 400m with regular W2, or the United pilots divide 400m with spiked W2.

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp (Post 3739271)

Since the spiked amount varies, it'll obviosuly benefit those who had larger retro checks more than the ones who had the smallest. They'll get an even bigger share proportionally.

It's a pretty insignificant difference, though, since it is only the 2023 portion that matters.

Originally Posted by OpieTaylor (Post 3739333)

The spiked amount varies, but for PS purposes spiked W2s would have to have more variance the not spiked W2s.

Seems like it would be hard for anyone to detect that an equal % raise paid retroactively increased collective W2 variance.