View Single Post
Old 11-11-2007 | 12:45 PM
  #30  
machz990's Avatar
machz990
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
From: 777 CAP
Default

Originally Posted by bluejuice
Did anyone read the new AOD magazine? Great article from the CFO about how each revenue dollar is broken down in terms of costs. Wages and salaries were approximately 1/3 of our costs. So let's consider what the over 60 policy is doing to FDX financially. Approximately, we have 200 over 60 SO's in the DC10 and another 200 in the Boeing. We'll assume DOS+1 and 15 year longevity for all SO's.

DC10
((1) crewmember x 140.90/hr) x 1000 hrs = $140,900 per yr
200 * 140,900 = 28.2 million dollars per year

727
((1) crewmember x 123.91/hr) x 1000 hrs = $123,910 per yr
200 * 123,910 = 24.8 million dollars per year

So, as of now, FDX is spending 53 million dollars per year for labor from the over 60 engineers, of which they see very little productivity due to sick time, vacations, lack of flying, and general over-populus of the seats. This number accounts for only wages and no other costs are factored in.

Now, considering the AGE 60 debacle looms for another two years, FDX is expecting to retire another 500 guys, assuming 80% hang around and "take" an engineer seat, that's another 400 guys and puts FDX over 100 million per year just in wages alone.

Now, there are two arguments to this. First, if I was over 60 and I knew I'd be able to sit on my butt and make $140 grand per year with minimal effort, I would do it. In contrast, from a non-over 60 perspective, this situation has the potential to really hurt FDX and ALL of its employees. I'm pretty sure JL didn't think of the financial impact when he put his retirement policy in motion, but looking at the rough numbers, it's in everybody's interest, except the over 60 guys, to close that loophole. It's nothing but fat that needs to be trimmed.

Sure, you'll hear "it's none of your business" and some other condascending comment, but in reality, it is our business considering it affects every employee of FDX. I'm sure at least 50 or 100 million could be better spent for the future of FDX (FDA's, LOA's, contract 2010, new airframes, new hires, COLA's) than spending it on over 60 SO's that are dead weight.
Your cost numbers for the over 60 crewmembers doesn't take into account that if they were retired most of them would be drawing over $100 grand in retirement with "0" productivity. Even with large vacation and sick banks the company is getting some productivity out of these crewmembers. Plus once they do leave the actuarial tables say they will be almost dead so not a lot of retirement money will have to be doled out.
Reply