Scope
07-02-2018 | 09:38 PM
#167
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Ok Cindy so we need to take the first offer we are given because of fear? No thanks. TAs are supposed to be voted on based on their value and merits, not on fear. Fear is an emotion. Don’t vote on emotion. Really wish people would stop being so afraid of the bogeyman when voting on something that affects my family.
If you think the bull market will flip and is gonna tank in the time it takes us to fix this thing, go buy a ton of VXX and short the market. But don’t take me down with you because you are afraid.
Please enlighten me more.
If you think the bull market will flip and is gonna tank in the time it takes us to fix this thing, go buy a ton of VXX and short the market. But don’t take me down with you because you are afraid.
Please enlighten me more.
Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.
Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:
Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120
Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120
For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.
Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.
If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.
I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."
Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.
07-02-2018 | 09:54 PM
#168
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
Likes: 0
My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.
Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.
Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:
Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120
Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120
For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.
Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.
If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.
I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."
Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.
Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.
Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:
Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120
Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120
Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120
For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.
Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.
If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.
I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."
Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.
Im a Spirit pilot so clearly too dumb to do your math problem. Can you show me the answer? I’d like to see it, seriously. There are many things in the Jetblue TA I wish we could’ve gotten and some I’m glad we didn’t. I’d like to see your analysis of gong back to the table.
07-03-2018 | 02:32 AM
#169
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,150
Likes: 0
From: Left,Right, Left, Right,Right,Left, Right, Left
Im a Spirit pilot so clearly too dumb to do your math problem. Can you show me the answer? I’d like to see it, seriously. There are many things in the Jetblue TA I wish we could’ve gotten and some I’m glad we didn’t. I’d like to see your analysis of gong back to the table.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
