R&I Math ... X * 1000 =
10-09-2015 | 02:05 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: 777 Capt
The real question is why are they using 1000 hours. The target for the bid packs is supposed to be 90 hrs in a 5 week month and 72 in a four week month which is 936 hours a year.
So by using 1000 hours a year you have to work 10 extra days at straight pay to meet the NC's numbers.
If I choose to work extra I expect it to be at time and a half.
The devil is in the details.
I voted no the minute voting opened.
So by using 1000 hours a year you have to work 10 extra days at straight pay to meet the NC's numbers.
If I choose to work extra I expect it to be at time and a half.
The devil is in the details.
I voted no the minute voting opened.
10-09-2015 | 02:47 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 0
Then it was hard to believe how the B-plan increase has been presented as 28%. Come on! Really? They should've rounded up to 29%!
These numbers, and what TonyC pointed to in the opening post, should make you dig deeper into the TA, instead of taking the Roadshows, videos, slideshows, etc... as gospel. IMO.
Also, thank you for your section by section analysis on Jetflyers Chuck Turpen!
10-09-2015 | 03:18 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,304
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
Maybe the "tool box" doesn't get re-routed and extended like everybody else?
Personally, I think the 1,000 hour estimate is as good of an example number as 936 is ...
And ... we got a .10/hr per diem increase. 10 cents x 1,000 hours equals $99! Just ask TonyC!
10-09-2015 | 06:57 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
I think going "big to small", and then following things up with "attention to detail" are typically excellent approaches in flying ...and critically examining certain issues
However, ultimately we need to back up and refocus on the "big picture", so we don't get ourselves too "heads down in the box"
One of my biggest concerns with the TA is that if the $260K A fund cap is a line in the sand, which will never be increased again because of new government imposed accrual accounting methods, are the two 1% raises in our B fund, over a 4 year time period a sufficient replacement going forward?
I think not.
We go from 7% to 9%
Some quick, back-of-the-napkin math tells me the slope here should be closer to 1% per year in the B fund bump, which would put us all at 13% B fund by the end of this six year contract
We'd still have the A fund as written [YOS (25 max) x 2% x 5 yr FAE w/$260K cap]--- slowly decaying on the vine due to the $260K Cap, but the B fund would be sloping up more quickly.
However, ultimately we need to back up and refocus on the "big picture", so we don't get ourselves too "heads down in the box"
One of my biggest concerns with the TA is that if the $260K A fund cap is a line in the sand, which will never be increased again because of new government imposed accrual accounting methods, are the two 1% raises in our B fund, over a 4 year time period a sufficient replacement going forward?
I think not.
We go from 7% to 9%
Some quick, back-of-the-napkin math tells me the slope here should be closer to 1% per year in the B fund bump, which would put us all at 13% B fund by the end of this six year contract
We'd still have the A fund as written [YOS (25 max) x 2% x 5 yr FAE w/$260K cap]--- slowly decaying on the vine due to the $260K Cap, but the B fund would be sloping up more quickly.
I asked this EXACT question at one of the Q&A meetings recently: does the 1% bumps(s) make up for the value I'm losing due to no change in the A plan value. Did they run an analysis for any seat, and carry it out 6 years (I know, more like 8 to 10) and compare rough numbers and/or value(s). They answered yes. I'm skeptical, but I have yet to run my rough numbers. I'll let you know when I do.
10-09-2015 | 08:38 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 0
From: Gear Monkey
I asked this EXACT question at one of the Q&A meetings recently: does the 1% bumps(s) make up for the value I'm losing due to no change in the A plan value. Did they run an analysis for any seat, and carry it out 6 years (I know, more like 8 to 10) and compare rough numbers and/or value(s). They answered yes. I'm skeptical, but I have yet to run my rough numbers. I'll let you know when I do.
I'd love to see that analysis, with ALL the specific assumptions
Current years of service, current seat, assumed upgrade time, age, deflator on fixed A fund value, assumed rate of return on B fund contributions, age at retirement, assumed life expectancy etc
And the sensitivity analysis associated with those assumptions
I believe UPS DB plan is 1% x 30 yrs (max) x High 5 FAE
What's their cap on High 5?
I'm pretty sure it yields less than our current DB max of $130K -- 50% of $260K
However, they have a much higher B plan (Defined Contribution)
UPS - 12% vs Fedex - 7%
Where's our "end game " B fund goal as the $260K cap causes our A fund to deflate over the long haul??
My guess is the two 1% B fund bumps were more of a "band aide" fix for appeasement, and the overall, long term, equivalent solution is kicked down the road a few years
Please show us the math
10-09-2015 | 10:36 PM
#18
Thread Starter
Organizational Learning
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
The real question is why are they using 1000 hours. The target for the bid packs is supposed to be 90 hrs in a 5 week month and 72 in a four week month which is 936 hours a year.
So by using 1000 hours a year you have to work 10 extra days at straight pay to meet the NC's numbers.
If I choose to work extra I expect it to be at time and a half.
The devil is in the details.
I voted no the minute voting opened.
The Minimum Bid Period Guarantees in §4.A.1. (68 in 4-week bid period, 85 in 5, 102 in 6) all average to 17CH per week. A 52-week year, then, has a minimum guarantee of 884 Credit Hours. That requires 20 extra days of work to reach 1,000 Credit Hours. We're gonna need another month!
.
10-09-2015 | 11:14 PM
#19
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 0
Excellent point, and now that you mention it ...
The Minimum Bid Period Guarantees in §4.A.1. (68 in 4-week bid period, 85 in 5, 102 in 6) all average to 17CH per week. A 52-week year, then, has a minimum guarantee of 884 Credit Hours. That requires 20 extra days of work to reach 1,000 Credit Hours. We're gonna need another month!
.
The Minimum Bid Period Guarantees in §4.A.1. (68 in 4-week bid period, 85 in 5, 102 in 6) all average to 17CH per week. A 52-week year, then, has a minimum guarantee of 884 Credit Hours. That requires 20 extra days of work to reach 1,000 Credit Hours. We're gonna need another month!
.
10-10-2015 | 01:17 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
From: Mad Dog Capt
Excellent point, and now that you mention it ...
The Minimum Bid Period Guarantees in §4.A.1. (68 in 4-week bid period, 85 in 5, 102 in 6) all average to 17CH per week. A 52-week year, then, has a minimum guarantee of 884 Credit Hours. That requires 20 extra days of work to reach 1,000 Credit Hours. We're gonna need another month!
.
The Minimum Bid Period Guarantees in §4.A.1. (68 in 4-week bid period, 85 in 5, 102 in 6) all average to 17CH per week. A 52-week year, then, has a minimum guarantee of 884 Credit Hours. That requires 20 extra days of work to reach 1,000 Credit Hours. We're gonna need another month!
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
