Raging white

Basically cost of living bump? I'd live with 2004 and a cost of living bump.

They got full retro. You're spinning. Poorly

404yxl

Exactly, lets go back to 2004 and apply 3%/4% raises on those per-bankruptcy rates for all the years since. It would be far more expensive for the company than a 22% raise starting Jan. 1 2016.

Bradshaw24

If you consider 3-4 % full retro four years late. But in my book full retro is more than that.

forgot to bid

BACK TO THE TABLE FOR THE WIN!

22/8/5/5

No PS changes

17% 401K

Full Retro to July 2015.

That MSP family plan, all bases, including the Peachtree City base.

150 CS100s ordered, 76 seat fleet reduced to 100, 0 50-seaters allowed, 100 B1900E (two class 19 seater) ordered and CessnaBeechcraft restarts the line.

JV language improved from **** to awesome. 100 A350s ordered... all growth.

AMERICA! **** YEAH!!!.

-Henry

Bradshaw24

They didn't have to, they were already working for less when everyone else went bankrupt. Pretending 3-4% is full retro doesn't pass the crew room test. It's not anymore full retro than it would be if we got our TA in 2020 and our MEC claimed that 3-4% for four years late is full retro. Let's call it what it is, a signing bonus.

sailingfun

This has been covered before. Southwest retro was based on small raises up until recently. On paper it's full retro. Reality is something quite different. If our contract drags out 4 years I have no doubt we will see the same full retro SW got. Retro on 3,3,3, with perhaps 18% at signing. I want to see you posting on here how wonderful our full retro is when that happens!!!

Raging white

So you agree. Omar was spinning.

hockeypilot44

Common sense tells me we are going to allow more large rj's with the hope that the company comes towards position in section 3. Looks like our wins will be :15 per day of vacation pay, no credit and higher pay rates. Everything else will stay the same or get worse. We'll see if the company moves enough to get us an AIP.

FL370esq

Ummmm.....guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, huh? Not sure what part of my "guess"/"observation" established a lie but ready, FIRE, aim your comments whenever.

Seeing as you are so quick to assert that SWA got full retro, what did their "full retro" look like? I seem to recall (again....observation and conjecture...not claiming it to be a fact there 404yxl) that their "full retro" really was a series of COLA bumps disguised as full retro. I don't recall it being 18% in 2103, then 4% in 2014 and 4% in 2015 and 4% in 2016. In our case, full retro would make the 18% bump (or whatever %age is agreed upon) effective back to 1/1/2016. If our negotiations continue to drag on, we might still get full retro à la SWA but that 18% number (or whatever is agreed upon) will look like a lot more like 4%/4%/4%/6% four years down the line.

TED74

Those :15 will add up quickly. Our youngest voters will net almost $25 EXTRA every month after taxes! I'm not sure they even need to read the other sections with those gains in vacation. That kind of generosity will yield an instant YES, right?