Originally Posted by leavemealone

I suppose APC Jetbue profile is wrong as it says that the PS is 10% if the PM was under 18%. Either that or I'm misreading it. How is it calculated? I read online that 2018 PM was a little more than 8%.

Originally Posted by GuppyPuppy

It is not 10% of your pay.

It pertains to a formula as to what total amount of profit sharing is available to be distributed amongst all eligible employees.

For 2018 the total pot was $3M.

Gup

Originally Posted by hilltopflyer

Yep I would. If they want to arbitrarily raise the 190 pay to make it competitive they should have done it with the contract or give a lot more then just pay rates to everyone to make it worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Bluedriver

Very, very incorrect.

You are confusing two different concepts and actually making it sound better than it is. It's worse than you say.

The 10% is the amount of the company's profit set aside to be distributed to the employees (but they don't actually distribute it, because of the cliff, they keep 99.98% of it for the company).

The 5% Cliff is in relation to your eligible wages.

For example, this year if not for the Cliff (Cliff is a fancy term for the company stealing your 1st 5% of your eligible wages via profit sharing) you would get a profit sharing check equal to 5.2% of your wages. But, since the 5% Cliff is always the final step in the mathematical order of operations, it (very, very intentionally) has a massively disproportionate effect on the payout to the employees (did I mention it was very, very intentional?).

So instead of receiving 5.2% in profit sharing, you get *.2%.*

You can see that that simple 5% Cliff, always calculated at the end of the formula, **erased** 96.1% of your profit sharing check.

As a result, I have ZERO F's given about the company's financial metrics.

And... If we were still under the profit sharing formula from 2 years ago, before the company FORCED this worse profit sharing plan on the employees, you would be getting a check for approximately 2.8% of your eligible wages. Here again, the forced change 2 years ago from 15% profit sharing pot to only 10% APPEARS to be a reduction of profit sharing payout of only 1/3 (15% to 10%), but because the Cliff is always the final mathematical operation, that formula change *removed* approximately 92.8% of the *PAYOUT* to employees. 2.8% instead of the new improved formula you only get .2%

Again, this change was VERY, VERY INTENTIONAL.

Now tell me I'm "being to negative" again y'all... And tell me again how they'll be no deferrals in 2019... Tell me again how the company will negotiate in good faith ... And Moxy isn't BlueJet's west coast plan (this one I'm only 75% sure of)...

Originally Posted by hyperboy

You could also bid the 320? Make 60,000 more a year?

Originally Posted by hyperboy

I am also 100% sure that you have no humbleness either.....Man you like to toot your own horn.

Originally Posted by hilltopflyer

Yes but if they want to raise the 190 pay they should have done it during contract negotiations. Now it’s going to take a lot more to not have everyone bail off the 190.

Originally Posted by Bluedriver

Sorry snowflake. You might be better off actually understanding the content of my posts as opposed to simply labeling them "too negative".

Originally Posted by hilltopflyer

Yep I would [vote against a 190 pay raise]. If they want to arbitrarily raise the 190 pay to make it competitive they should have done it with the contract or give a lot more then just pay rates to everyone to make it worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Mattio

It seems like a double standard. Vote Yes (assuming you were a yes voter) for the contract that wasn't quite good enough and then vote No for a pay raise when it becomes abundantly clear that everyone shafted the 190 guys too hard. Or, in other words, Vote Yes to not raise the bar and then vote No because a 190 raise alone doesn't raise the bar high enough......

It's lock-step with the history the airline world has of pulling the ladder up once you get to the top, and also lock-step with the story I heard of Airbus guys thinking 190 guys should have to re-interview before going to the Airbus to make sure they have the "right stuff"