Notices

We Are Not Worth 1 %

Old 09-09-2015, 10:04 PM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 177
Default

Originally Posted by DLax85 View Post
Hi Baron -

I'm an off & on again, long time poster...and sometimes lurker.

Right now, I'm trying to hard to sit back, lurk, and listen to all sides of this debate.

It appears you are the opposite --- short time poster, with extremely strong views on the TA.

It also appears that you post in order to influence (or maybe just refute) others --- though your choice of words and tone simply baffles me.

Additionally, your business knowledge and experience may not be as omniscient as you believe.

Valuing a business's worth using "gross revenue" is a very common valuation model...and in some industries, compensation contracts are specifically written as a percentage of gross revenues, not gross profits

It's often too easy for businesses to use various accounting techniques to manipulate expenses --- cash, non-cash, depreciation, other write-offs etc --- while gross revenues may be more transparent and more verifiable.

Thus, your characterization of his post as "meaningless crap" appears a bit misguided, as does some of your business acumen.

There were many reasons Delta pilots voted against their most recent TA.

One was because the "profit sharing formula" was being changed --- under the new TA, management bonuses would be subtracted out first, thereby reducing profit.

Delta pilots were concerned that the "profits" could be manipulated in some ways.

Additionally, the arrogance and tone of the "yes" voters was found offensive by many of the "no" voters. It motivated the "No" voters to work harder and find more creative ways to get their views out.

If your goal is to influence in favor of the TA, you may want to study what happened over at Delta a little more closely, and change your tactics.

In Unity...and Civility,

DLax
Thanks DLax. Thought you had moved off the reservation or were somehow forced into silence...Always look forward to reading your thoughtful posts.
Some guy is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 06:25 AM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Position: MD
Posts: 194
Default

Block 4 rep justified the lack of an A-plan multiplier and/or A-plan cap bump based on the "staggering" and "huge" liability on FDX.

I plan on reminding him via email about the "staggering" and "huge" cost savings achieved following the company delay tactics with respect to massive cost savings since the original and adjusted amendable dates. They can afford it with plenty to spare. Don't forget the ability to annually "bump" the cost to customers the standard 5% annually. Doing the math on $50 billion of revenue annually (approx) at 5% ... that's a coool $2.5 billion that just hit the books. FDX can easily afford it.

How easy it must be to forget the corporate profits, exorbitant executive bonuses, and shareholder value gained during this period.
Place some value for once on your careers!

I will not give the company a pass on their tactics, nor will I back down from the position that this is a COLA TA at best and concessionary in a number of significant areas (productivity and financial gains). Maybe the MEC leadership and block reps need a wakeup call similar to our elected officials. YOU WORK FOR US. I appreciate the efforts of the NC (thankless job). However, it's improbable that this TA is universally accepted as a WIN. Far from it ... this is a substandard SETTLEMENT.

Industry leading? Maybe for a few months. It won't take long for us to fall further down the ladder especially with a 6 year deal. Go ahead and add a minimum 2-4 years to that before the next one.

I encourage EVERYONE to read the "blue print" from cover to cover on the TA, watch every contract section video, and the webcasts. It's an undeniable "sell job" without a single mention of the negative aspects. I expected a "give it to me straight" presentation of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Typical car salesmen pitching a lemon.

I will take the endorsement of the TA by the Block 4 rep and toss it in the circular file. I'd rather stand for what we've earned and deserve than settle for a TA rife with problems and substandard compensation in pay and retirement.

I'm a reasonable guy, but it's a solid ... NO
GetRealDude is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 09:03 AM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
kronan's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Default

as to what we're worth

Express 2015 'profits' were 1.6B....therefore we're worth more than 100%, spread it over 6 yrs and we're worth 16.6%, over the 10 some project and we're worth 10%

the one thing I think we can all agree with is that FedEx, shoot any airline, will never pay us what we think we're worth
kronan is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 05:08 PM
  #44  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 47
Default

Originally Posted by Sloper View Post
Completely agree J586. I've always been one of the 60% yes voters...until now.

I see this contract as symptomatic of what is going on in America today. Employees are made to feel like they should be fortunate to just have a job. Only management (and shareholders) can enjoy the rewards of a company's success - forget about rewarding those who actually did the work.

The pay increases in this contract barely match the government's dishonest numbers. The increases in the B fund are laughable compared to the savings the company gains by effectively freezing the A plan. Work rule changes will end up being neutral for us at best once the lawyers interpret them in ways other than intended.
It's downright insulting ain't it?
J586 is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 06:36 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
machz990's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 494
Default

FedEx - A Buy Into Earnings, Will Head Over $200
Sep. 10, 2015 3:00 AM • FDX

The company's estimates are calling for $2.45 in EPS this quarter, compared to $2.10 one year ago. The company is expected to post $12.3 billion in revenue, versus $11.68 billion in revenue the year prior. The company is on track to hit it's guidance of $10.83 per share this year, and estimates are calling for $12.44 per share next fiscal year.
Applying a modest 15-18x P/E to next year's earnings says to us that shares will eventually wind up over $200. Those with a long-term focus, we believe, could DRIP shares from the company's nominal dividend and hold on for the ride.

Hold on for the ride it says. I'm glad someone has to hold on.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
machz990 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Airfix
Major
6
11-17-2013 08:10 AM
Bayou
Military
149
08-17-2011 06:58 PM
Sunvox
Major
87
06-13-2011 10:33 AM
SiShane
Flight Schools and Training
10
05-18-2011 06:34 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices