R&I Math ... X * 1000 =
 

Some of you may have noticed the Negotiating Committee has now published their Roadshow Slideshow. It's too bad they didn't publish it ahead of the Roadshows so we would have had an opportunity to study it and ask more informed questions, but at least we have it now.

Without Copying and Pasting images here, it's a little cumbersome trying to reference a particular slide and have a conversation about it here, but I'm going to try. I'll begin with the slide titled "15 year WB Captain Scenarios". It's about #91 in the lineup here: Roadshow Presentation pdf. Alternatively, you may find it easier to look at this YouTube video with a time bookmark -- click here and it should take you directly to the selected slide: Memphis Roadshow - Begin at 1:22:57


This slide is the first of four which present the Retirement & Insurance Committee Chairman's projections for "Total Additional Cash Out the Door" for those who are able to take full advantage of the "Die Trying Program." It includes increased pay, increased DC contributions, maximum vacation buyback, and maximum "bonuses".

I draw your attention to the lines near the top titled "Yr 1 Pay" and "Yr 2 Pay." The values presented on these lines represent the direct compensation of 1,000 Credit Hours at the respective pay rates.

Now for a little focus on math. If I multiply a pay rate which consists of dollars and cents times 1,000, what will the last digit in the result ALWAYS be?

$DDD.CC * 1,000 = DDD,CC0

The "one's" digit will always be zero -- it can never be 1, or 7, or 9, or 3 ... it HAS to be zero.

Now go look at the slides.

286.67 * 1,000 = 286,671

295.27 * 1,000 = 295,271

304.13 * 1,000 = 304,129

325.78 * 1,000 = 325,783

335.56 * 1,000 = 335,557


And that's just the first slide. There are 3 more slides with the same errors. These are errors one might expect to see on the back of bar napkins, but not in formal presentations prepared for consumption by 4,200 interested pilot voters at Roadshows, and now on the internet for anyone to see. Gee, in what grade did we learn, was it 3rd or 4th, that when you multiply a number by a factor of ten, you don't change the number, you just slide the decimal point?

Now, you may be asking why I would point out such a tiny error, and what difference does it make, anyway? Good question. It's not the few dollars here or there on the slides that matters. It's the lack of attention to detail and perhaps a deficit of mathematical acumen that matters.

Remember, these are the same guys who signed the non-disclosure statements, took a look at The Company's books (or at least, the ones The Company wanted to show) and said, wow, you're right, you can't afford to improve the A Plan.

It's the same team that says 3% + 3% + 3% = 8%. :rolleyes:


I think we could use the help of outside experts who at the very least know how to multiply by 1,000.






.

Holy crap they used a spreadsheet that rounded the last digits up or down accordingly.

Burn the witch!

I'm sorry... what was your major in college? If you don't understand that 286.67 * 1.03 = 304.1281 (~$304.13 rounded to the nearest $0.01) * 1000 = 304,128 then you've gotten bigger problems.

First, it was the Astana Air three-across economy seating. Then it was the definition of what "leading" means, now it's the mystery of the missing zero.

Tony, you really need to step back and take a breath. These ridiculous arguments you're making undermine any legitimate beef you may have with this TA.

And it's the "Yes" voters who are doing all the fear-mongering, sheesh...

Let me be brief, and use big numbers.

They say, right there on the slide, "Assume 1000 CH / Yr". So, take hourly rate and multiply by 1,000:


$260.61 * 1,000 = $260,610 -- they got that one right

$286.67 * 1,000 = $286,670 --- they say, $286,671

That's not a rounding error.

$304.13 * 1,000 = $304,130 -- they say, $304,129

Again, not a rounding error.






.

So the sneaky bastards rounded up on one and down on one. They must be hiding something from us.

That is a rounding error. You realize that they carry forward each year with a 3% pay increase, right. When you multiply by 3% you get numbers which are carried over to the tenths, hundredths, and thousandths place, right? Since we don't get paid in thousandths of a dollar, they rounded the payrate to the nearest cent. But those other digits are still there... so, when they multiply by 1,000, magically, they appear in the ones place. Because math.

Funny for someone who got all upset when the NC rounded the 2.96% slope (or whatever it worked out to be) to 3%, and who wanted them to be precise and exact... now that they are being precise, you want them to round numbers. They can't win with you. I get it. Whatever they do is wrong, and you're right. Sounds like my kids...

You must be a real charmer at the gas pump when you're paying $1.879 per gallon. I hope you get your change in multiples of $0.001...

What He Said LOL

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.

Apparently you don't understand rounding.

$286,671 rounds to $286,670, not the other way around. What is shown on the slides is the opposite of rounding.

The pay rate is right there on the slide with no discussion needed or provided as to where it came from or how it was derived.

Then it is multiplied by 1,000.

Take the decimal point, move it to the right 3 places. It's just that simple.

I am surprised by very little anymore, but I am surprised by the contortions here to defend the errors.






.

I agree. As I explained in the original post, it's not the numbers themselves that are the big deal. The big deal is we are asked to trust the same people who produced this to analyze whatever numbers or version of the numbers that The Company will allow and determine whether The Company can afford improvements to the A Plan.

When we rely on them for that very important analysis, we should have unwavering confidence in their ability to analyze the data, and we must insist on attention to detail.

Trust, but verify?






.