One side is mistaken
06-25-2015 | 08:44 PM
#141
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: 7ER F/O
That's all fine and good. But, you do realize that you don't address my post, right?
Do you think you guys are doing a good job explaining what you did with the profit sharing and our pay rates?
Because, it seems as though you a doing a good job in telling us how much money we will be making, but not such a good job as to where the money will be coming from.
Do you think you guys are doing a good job explaining what you did with the profit sharing and our pay rates?
Because, it seems as though you a doing a good job in telling us how much money we will be making, but not such a good job as to where the money will be coming from.
I captured the impact of the lost profit sharing with the variation in 2017 and 2018 actual pay increase. The PS concession is a potential annual loss in total pay, but how much lost income varies primarily on how much the company makes. The maximum amount of lost PS (if the company makes $6B+) can be though of as a percentage of total pay, but this percentage will decrease as pay increases (estimated at 5.44% of 2017 pay, and 5.14% of 2018 pay if $6B profit). If the company makes less than $6B, then the effect of the PS concession will be less. For example, if the company only makes $3.5B profit in 2017, the impact to your 2018 payout will be about 1.5% of your 2018 pay. The pay scale would show your pay was 21.5% higher in 2018 than now, but the lost PS in this example would mean your actual raise was only 20% from current levels.
06-25-2015 | 09:45 PM
#142
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
I have nothing to do with DALPA. I am a 2014 hire with a heavy math background. I've noticed a big push by some to prove how paltry the pay increase is with some pretty awful math. I don't get the need to do that? To me it undermines the credibility of the rest of the arguments.
I captured the impact of the lost profit sharing with the variation in 2017 and 2018 actual pay increase. The PS concession is a potential annual loss in total pay, but how much lost income varies primarily on how much the company makes. The maximum amount of lost PS (if the company makes $6B+) can be though of as a percentage of total pay, but this percentage will decrease as pay increases (estimated at 5.44% of 2017 pay, and 5.14% of 2018 pay if $6B profit). If the company makes less than $6B, then the effect of the PS concession will be less. For example, if the company only makes $3.5B profit in 2017, the impact to your 2018 payout will be about 1.5% of your 2018 pay. The pay scale would show your pay was 21.5% higher in 2018 than now, but the lost PS in this example would mean your actual raise was only 20% from current levels.
I captured the impact of the lost profit sharing with the variation in 2017 and 2018 actual pay increase. The PS concession is a potential annual loss in total pay, but how much lost income varies primarily on how much the company makes. The maximum amount of lost PS (if the company makes $6B+) can be though of as a percentage of total pay, but this percentage will decrease as pay increases (estimated at 5.44% of 2017 pay, and 5.14% of 2018 pay if $6B profit). If the company makes less than $6B, then the effect of the PS concession will be less. For example, if the company only makes $3.5B profit in 2017, the impact to your 2018 payout will be about 1.5% of your 2018 pay. The pay scale would show your pay was 21.5% higher in 2018 than now, but the lost PS in this example would mean your actual raise was only 20% from current levels.
If you look at my posts, I think you will find that the problem I have is with the way the details of this TA are being communicated. If you look at the transcript I posted in the TAFACTS.com thread, you can see how hard it was for me to get information. I think if you also look around, most people will say the pay raises are not what bothers them, it's the rest of the TA. For me, it's the rest of the TA, as well, along with more omissions.
It seems like the more you find out, the worse it gets. And to find out how bad it is, you have to dig deep.
This is not normally how it's done.
06-25-2015 | 09:55 PM
#143
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: 7ER F/O
If you had any interest in being honest with what we're voting down, you'd also state that we're voting down:
1. More wide body flying lost
2. A new B scale
3. More jumbo RJ's for non-Delta pilots
4. Greatly diminishing FO seniority and growth opportunities
5. Huge privacy rights violations in order to use sick leave
6. Everything else in TAFacts
Since I know you meant to say this, allow me to thank you for your thoughts.
Carl
1. More wide body flying lost
2. A new B scale
3. More jumbo RJ's for non-Delta pilots
4. Greatly diminishing FO seniority and growth opportunities
5. Huge privacy rights violations in order to use sick leave
6. Everything else in TAFacts
Since I know you meant to say this, allow me to thank you for your thoughts.
Carl
06-25-2015 | 10:26 PM
#144
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: 7ER F/O
Honestly, I've had a bit of the opposite experience. Because most of what I heard at the start was that this was practically the worst thing in the history of aviation, as I've done my own digging I've backed away from the ledge. There is plenty that I like about the TA, and some of the issues in the cons column aren't quite the sky is falling as they first seemed. Maybe it is Stockholm Syndrome (though the extreme hyperbole by some in the anit-TA crowd doesn't help).
06-26-2015 | 12:58 AM
#147
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
With all due respect, the PS impact doesn't work that way. You have to compute your annual pay raise and then add in the PS impact each year. It can't be shown as a single impact on one year's pay increase, and even if you could (you can't), the first year's pay it impacts is 2017, as the 2016 PS payout is based on 2015 profit and the existing construct. Finally, you have to at least understand that the actual pay increase varies depending on how much profit the company makes. Consider what 8/.26/3/3 would look like after compounding:
2016: 8.3%
2017: 11.5%
2018: 14.9%
Here is what the actual pay raise looks like factoring in PS:
2016: 14.5%
2017: 12.5% to 17.9%
2018: 16.3% to 21.5%
I'm probably a bit more bearish than some on future profits and think by 2017 we will be coming back down. If the company only makes ~$3.5B in 2017, then the raise from the TA would be effectively 20%. But even if you are convinced the company is going to be making $6B+ for the next few years, you still fully realize the 14.5% raise in 6 months, and a 16.3% raise in 30 months.
Probably still not enough for most no voters, but at least be honest with what you are voting down.
2016: 8.3%
2017: 11.5%
2018: 14.9%
Here is what the actual pay raise looks like factoring in PS:
2016: 14.5%
2017: 12.5% to 17.9%
2018: 16.3% to 21.5%
I'm probably a bit more bearish than some on future profits and think by 2017 we will be coming back down. If the company only makes ~$3.5B in 2017, then the raise from the TA would be effectively 20%. But even if you are convinced the company is going to be making $6B+ for the next few years, you still fully realize the 14.5% raise in 6 months, and a 16.3% raise in 30 months.
Probably still not enough for most no voters, but at least be honest with what you are voting down.
If you actually just score it out it's a 10.6% raise over 3 years. The rates go 8633, but the total difference between life with and without the TA is 10.6%.
Just use $150/hour 12 year pilot at 90 hours a month and use the current 17% PS and 15% 401K vs the TA's adjusted PS for 2016 and 401K change for 2017 and apply the PS for both in the year that they were earned. Also use all of 2015 so that means with TA2015 you use 150 for the first half, raise the rate 8% for the second half of the year and use the full 17% PS for 2015.
I see a total of $871,884 in value without the TA and $964,447 with, a 10.6% increase.
06-26-2015 | 01:18 AM
#148
La Familia Delta
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,467
Likes: 0
From: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Honestly, I've had a bit of the opposite experience. Because most of what I heard at the start was that this was practically the worst thing in the history of aviation, as I've done my own digging I've backed away from the ledge. There is plenty that I like about the TA, and some of the issues in the cons column aren't quite the sky is falling as they first seemed. Maybe it is Stockholm Syndrome (though the extreme hyperbole by some in the anit-TA crowd doesn't help).
06-26-2015 | 05:21 AM
#149
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 0
06-26-2015 | 06:15 AM
#150
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
That TAFacts website is exactly what I'm talking about in my last post. It was the first place I saw the math shenanigans with the PS and pay. I came to the website as a newbie thinking this TA sounds pretty bad. They start using the fuzzy math and it comes off as deceptive, and the site lost any credibility. Made me skeptical of the entire website.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
