MEMFO4Ever

This.

Any computation that is dependent on an annual credit-hour basis should be based on the memorialized minimum of 884 per year (68x8 + 85x4) or a mean of 73.66666666666667 (For Tony) per month. I would never design a budget based on anything beyond the minimum expected, especially having worked here long enough to know that the minimum (and lower) can and does occur. At DOS, this is a potential overstatement of $23,575.84 ($203,240 - $179,664.16) in annual earnings for a 15+ year WB FO.

IMO, no calculation that involves an annualized credit-hour basis should ever include extras like the various international pay provisions or inflated hours that most of us will likely never gain anyway, particularly over the long run. This is especially important when attempting to forecast pension, DC, or 401K outcomes. My numbers are significantly below prior CBA estimates sold at roadshows (apparently not a member of the Chimenti 'gold standard' club).

It is kind of like test driving a fully loaded car on the dealer lot when you know you will only be buying and driving the base model. Simply; buyer beware. YMMV.

TonyC

I am simply pointing out the difference between what we are GUARANTEED through Minimum BLGs and what is EXPECTED to meet the SLB calculations. The Min BLGs were significant both before and during our trip through §4.A.2.b., as many lines were "bought up" to those values prior, and built to less during. The Min BLGs could easily become significant again.


It's nice that you did not suffer during §4.A.2.b. Many of us did.

Both prior to and during §4.A.2.b., the MEC wrestled with ways to mitigate the effects and "share the pain" of going below the contractual Minimum Bid Line Guarantees. One of the important questions we had to grapple with was, "What about the guy close to retirement trying to build a good 'High 5' year? Should he be forever penalized in retirement with a lowered income because he was not able to work extra while the rest of us were suffering from lower BLGs?" Going forward with this TA, the question would be, "What about the guy working on his SLB years? Should he be denied the ability to work extra so he can take full advantage of the bribe to work 'One more peak'?"






.

FDXLAG

So if we take Chuck's 935 target and add the hidden 10% Carry Over we get 935 + 93.07 = 1028.65. It is not what you want to work, it is what the average pilot gets. FedEx has to fly the revenue hours and luckily only FDX list pilots can do it. We won't even talk about 16.3 hours per training and 30 or 40 hours for vacation buy back. See if you can spot the math errors.

Laughing_Jakal

TonyC was using "Tough Guy Math"

Tony...I know this TA has you wrapping duct tape around your head to keep it from exploding, but you ought to loosen it a little.

Tony once had a problem with a biblical passage....when he found out God new the numbers of hairs on his head...he needed to know if that included the hair in his nose and ears....not to mention all the little hairs in his inner ear....cause technically those are IN his head and not ON his head.

When calculating the 3 degree descent formulae...he often uses 2.96 as that is technically more accurate and usually results in a calculation much like PROF which enables him to avoid getting down .016666667 miles early.

Rock

Not a bad analogy. Especially the part about YMMV. So when you buy a car and you are looking at the estimated gas mileage, would you rather see: A. The expected average, B. Gas mileage when driven by a 75 year old who automatically subtracts 15 MPH from every speed limit while cruising comfortably in the left lane or C. The 16 year old who thinks it's cool to lay a patch at every stop light while driving his mom's Hyundai.
Personally, I prefer the expected average.

MEMFO4Ever

In my evaluation of the TA, when it comes to money, I have to determine the lowest possible (potential) earnings under normal circumstances. Personally, that basis is minimum BLG in all months. 1000 credit-hours a year means nothing to me, just like the international pay conventions. While I appreciate the numbers put forth by the association's negotiating committee folks, their compensation totals far exceed what I realistically expect to earn. My track record with prior contracts here (and at another airline) consistently bears this out.

As for cars...well if I ever buy a new one that comes with that fiction based window sticker, I will let you know.

MaxKts

If hiring continues and we are properly manned how long will the current "average" remain? How far did they do a look back to get the "average"? Does the "average" include all the extensions and revisions? These are all valid questions when trying to evaluate the "expected average" $$ value of the TA.

You realize that "expected average" for a vehicle is done on a dyno and not by actually driving the car. And, we now know that test can be skewed, just ask VW

CloudSailor

MaxKts,

Are you saying this TA is equivalent to VW's TDI engine?

Sold as one thing, while in reality it's something completely different.

FDXLAG

Are they hiring to increase manning or replace retirees? IOW do you expect our current manning of approx 4200 pilots to increase or decrease?

FDXLAG

For a power point slide, dont you think that average is as good a number to to put on a slide as any other. I suppose the they could have a memfo4Ever slide, a wolfpac slide, or maybe even 4200 slides with each of our hours. Of course then we would complain that each month is different and we would need 12 slides for each pilot. My guess 1000 hours a year is < the average hours paid per FDX pilot.