Signing Bonuses or Turd Sandwich

[MOGuy424]

Not sure why you quoted me?

Ah that was an accident thought i deleted yours

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I guess it just seems like the mentality there is "Well, since I won't ever be on first year pay again, I don't care about that, instead I want to butter my bread first."

And I get that, I do, but it also presents the image that the existing pilot group (negotiating committee) also doesn't give a damn about the new guys. I know I'd want to push for a regional that appeared to have a group that honestly cared for the tribe as a whole, not the senior guys.Instead, it's a "We did our time, and suffered through it, so now you get to as well" mentality.

You're forgetting that there are two parties to a negotiation. Management has their reasons for wanting to keep first year pay low, so if you want to raise first year pay, then you have to trade an outsized provision of your CBA to get it. It isn't as easy as you think.

If there is money to throw out retention bonuses for every pilot on property, then there certainly is money for increasing first year pay.

That's a very one-dimensional way of looking at it. It's quite a bit more complicated than that. A retention bonus is something that they can do one time (or a few times) and be done with it once their short-term staffing needs are addressed. An increase to first year pay becomes a permanent part of the agreement from which they have to bargain in the future, so it drives up their costs indefinitely.

 

[ozziecat35]

You're forgetting that there are two parties to a negotiation. Management has their reasons for wanting to keep first year pay low, so if you want to raise first year pay, then you have to trade an outsized provision of your CBA to get it. It isn't as easy as you think.



That's a very one-dimensional way of looking at it. It's quite a bit more complicated than that. A retention bonus is something that they can do one time (or a few times) and be done with it once their short-term staffing needs are addressed. An increase to first year pay becomes a permanent part of the agreement from which they have to bargain in the future, so it drives up their costs indefinitely.

Can you expound on that? I was under the (very possibly wrong) impression management had a number in mind for pilot compensation, how that's divvy'd up isn't as important. Wouldn't raising first year pay above their competition fill classes? I know that's a very singular way of looking at it, and other things go into it, but from a purely compensation / "pilot shortage" it seems to be a no brainer.

 

[wheelsup]

Can you expound on that? I was under the (very possibly wrong) impression management had a number in mind for pilot compensation, how that's divvy'd up isn't as important. Wouldn't raising first year pay above their competition fill classes? I know that's a very singular way of looking at it, and other things go into it, but from a purely compensation / "pilot shortage" it seems to be a no brainer.

Pay isn't nearly the number one item guys look for when picking the commuter they are going to. If it was, XJT would be filling classes and people would be leaving TSA and PSA to do it. The opposite is true now.

They know this and that's why PSA has been successful at attracting folks without large bonuses.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Can you expound on that? I was under the (very possibly wrong) impression management had a number in mind for pilot compensation, how that's divvy'd up isn't as important.

No, that's not correct. Yes, management does have a number in mind for what they're willing to spend, but they are very interested in how that number gets spent. Some things are easier to get changed in the event that they have to go into bankruptcy, for example. Some things will cost more in the long run while not costing as much in the short-run. Some things are "religious issues," which is just a bargaining term for an issue that one side or the other refuses to budge on out of pure principal. Etc. Management is interested in every detail of where that money is going, and they certainly aren't going to let you divvy it up however you want.

Wouldn't raising first year pay above their competition fill classes? I know that's a very singular way of looking at it, and other things go into it, but from a purely compensation / "pilot shortage" it seems to be a no brainer.

It might. But then what happens when they no longer have trouble filling classes? They're still paying higher first year pay. With the signing bonus, they can just end it. No negotiations needed (assuming it's not part of an LOA). Management would much rather offer a bonus than a permanent increase to pay.

 

[ozziecat35]

No, that's not correct. Yes, management does have a number in mind for what they're willing to spend, but they are very interested in how that number gets spent. Some things are easier to get changed in the event that they have to go into bankruptcy, for example. Some things will cost more in the long run while not costing as much in the short-run. Some things are "religious issues," which is just a bargaining term for an issue that one side or the other refuses to budge on out of pure principal. Etc. Management is interested in every detail of where that money is going, and they certainly aren't going to let you divvy it up however you want.



It might. But then what happens when they no longer have trouble filling classes? They're still paying higher first year pay. With the signing bonus, they can just end it. No negotiations needed (assuming it's not part of an LOA). Management would much rather offer a bonus than a permanent increase to pay.

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Pilots good..Management baaaad. Me over here, smash rock now.