Since you don't get the point (that his math is wrong), I crunched the numbers, albeit I cut them with an axe, to see what the effective pay raise is.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...e-page-001.jpg
So, what we have is a 17.5% pay raise after 4 bumps, which is 4.375% per bump.

Believe whomever you want. And, if someone sees an error in my methodology, please let me know, so I can correct it.

No wonder Delta turned down their TA. Those are some pretty low numbers. :eek: :rolleyes:

........:D!

That's why I said I get his point. I've got to tell you, I really don't care his numbers are off.

If we had 100 pilots do up their own calculations, we would have 100 different answers, but the point would be obvious. The "raise" sucks!

I don't give a rat's ... that he may be off. If the seniority block rep is being denied data by ALPA national, and a MEC member can't even be allowed to give us accurate information (see block 1 post on ALPA website) why should I chastise anyone for using imperfect numbers as they try to make sense of this?

I will only care when the discussion is no longer rigged and slanted!

Frequency of bumps? Why don't you normalize those to 1-year periods, and include those periods where we received no bumps.


Also, do you happen to know the actual rate of ALPA dues? It's not 2%.






.

Frequency of bumps and ALPA percentage was incorrect (but close), but I purposely used the OP's numbers for an apples to apples comparison.

In the end the ALPA percentage doesn't matter since we are looking at percentages. It'll change the dollar amount, but as long as the dues don't change year over year, the payraise (percentage) stays the same.

I have to go to work later, so it's nap time, feel free to normalize my numbers to whatever you want. I'd be curious to see.

Come on, man... that's got to be one of the silliest things I've read on here. You don't care the numbers are wrong? So you'll just go with the incorrect numbers that proves what you have already decided for yourself. The raises suck! I don't want to hear anything that might prove me wrong! Come on, you're better than that, bud.

Because two wrongs don't make it right. I think it's BS he wasn't able to look at the costing numbers. But... I think that had to do with the A-plan liability and why the company was saying they couldn't afford to up it. I don't think that had anything to do with payrates.

And I guess in your mind it will no longer be rigged or slanted when all the numbers prove your hypothesis. You're starting with the premise that the pay raises suck, and anything anyone shows you to the contrary is either wrong, rigged, or slanted. It couldn't be that maybe your initial starting point was incorrect, could it?

For all those who are curious, I ran the numbers with the change from 7% B-fund to 9%. That caused the percentage bump in compensation to change from the 17.5% above to 20.9%. FYI

But, it's not a 9% B fund for a very significant portion of the pilot group. There is no cash over cap in our current CBA nor in the TA. Thus, the B fund value is reduced and can be as little as 7-7.5% using reasonable projections of IRS limits and earnings for wide body captains. Even narrow body crew will likely fall into the cash over cap hidden concession by the end of the TA.

To say that a balance for not indexing the value of the A fund is an increased B fund can only work if the B fund percentage is much larger and that there is cash over IRS cap returned to the pilot as pay.

You're right, but ...


I think you missed the facetious nature of his post.

An additional 2% of B-fund cannot alone account for an additional 3.4% compensation, but if we're not interested in accurate math, who cares, right?



73.4% of all statistics are just made up anyway. ;)






.