From ALPA web board---hold out for more pay?
 

This comes from a poster on the Dalpa website, and I think it's a good representation of the contrast between "time value of money" and holding out for more pay during "normal" section 6 negotiations.


Assuming starting pay of $150k

2012 pay - $153,000 (4% raise last half of year)
2013 pay - $169,260 (150k *1.04 *1.085)
2014 pay - $174,337.80 (150k *1.04 *1.085 *1.03)
2015 pay - $179,567.93 (150k *1.04 *1.085 *1.03 *1.03)

Actual TA:
Total pay 4 years = $676,165.74
Avg annual pay = $169,041.43

Hypothetical "Plan B"; New contract, 2 years from amendable date which includes a 25% pay raise on day 1:
Total pay 4 years = $637,500
Avg annual pay = $159,375 (Inferior to TA.)

Hypothetical "Plan C"; New contract, 2 yrs fr amendable date and has a 30% pay raise on day 1:
Total pay 4 years = $645,000
Avg annual pay = $161,250 (Inferior to TA.)

Hypothetical "Plan D"; New contract, 1.5 yrs from amendable date and has a 25% pay raise on day 1 and another 3% the following year:
Total pay 4 years = $661,875
Avg annual pay = $165,468.75 (Inferior to TA.)

Hypothetical "Plan E"; New contract, 1.5 year from amendable date and has a 30% pay raise on day 1 and another 3% the following year:
Total pay 4 years = $673,350
Avg annual pay = $168,337.50 (Inferior to TA.)

Hypothetical "Plan F"; New contract, 1 year from amendable date which includes a 25% pay raise on day 1 and another 3% the following year:
Total pay 4 years = $680,625
Avg annual pay = $170,156 (Marginally superior to TA.)

Hypothetical "Plan G"; New contract, ON the amendable date which includes a 25% total raise (8.3% pay raise each year):
Total pay 4 years = $678,919.17
Avg annual pay = $169,729.79 (Marginally superior to TA.)

There was a rumor that non-contract employees are getting raises of 10/5/5/5, starting Jan 2013, and that this is better than 4/8.5/3/3.

Hypothetical "Plan H"; New contract, ON the amendable date which includes annual raises of 10%, 5% and 5%:
Total pay 4 years = $670,162.50
Avg annual pay = $167,540.63 (Inferior to TA.)

Pay is only one part of this. You need to quit getting so microfocussed on it.

Pay is one part a lot of people have heartburn with. This explains time value of money. It's a great way to see what happens if you turn down this TA and have to go another couple years before getting a huge 25% or 30% raise year one. Is it wrong? I am not micro focused on it either. Somebody actually did the math. Please dispute it.

Pay doesn't get me more days off.
Pay doesn't eliminate the 7th short call.
Pay doesn't eliminate outsourcing of jobs.
Pay doesn't increase the work rules.
Pay doesn't = QOL

Until the TA is fixed, pay won't lure me in.

I think the pilots who are in support of this TA are making ALOT more assumptions then the pilots who against this TA.

Assuming you do go a couple of more years. And no, I'm not expecting that big of a pay increase. More like an 5/10/5/5. If the first TA went fast, why not the second?

This TA gets you more days off.

This TA only adds a 7th SC for intl categories when the FTDT rules change and the 24 SC is eliminated....(FYI, the company is required to reopen negotiations once FTDT is finalized, another opportunity to improve work rules)

This TA caps and cuts roughly 1500 outsourced jobs just domestically.

This TA improves many work rules (on top of all the 1st SOT fixes)

This TA improves lots of QOL and gets you improvements now, instead of 2-3 years from now.

This TA fixes many problems DAL pilots wanted fixed. Do DAL pilots want even more? Of course!

Another airline hit the "3 years in mediation mark" yesterday.... Where is the leverage of a job action to make a deal better than waiting THREE YEARS for a 19.7% day one and $60,000 retro for FO's?

(name an airline that exceeded 19.7% and 100% retro on day one, plus a calculation to cover the retro on work rule and scope improvements for a previous time period...)

I've been on reserve mostly since Jan of 2010. The most short calls I've ever had was 5 in one month. Most months it's been 3 or less. 7 14 hour short calls is better than 6 24 hour short calls, imo. The seventh short call is only for months when the reserve guarantee is 75 or greater, so I don't mind doing a 7th short call once in a while for an additional 5 hours of pay.

Last night I had an epiphany. The proposed Sec 1 will save our company BILLIONS by letting them escape the RJ heavy mx and their super long contracts.

So why are we going to settle for pathetic pay raises, pathetic increases in vacation day value, pathetic TAFB rigs, pathetic training pay, pathetic vacation policy for reserves(the company physically gets 3 days out of a reserves vacation week and it still wasn't corrected), pathetic less credit values for reserves vs line holders, and whatever else we can add to the list?

They want us to clean up their pathetic RJ debacle, and they can't fix any of that? I say whizz off. Choke on your 50 seaters. Choke on your 70 seaters. Hell, you can even choke on your B717s. If I could vote NO more then once for this slap in the face, I would.

Do any of those hypothetical plans include a Retro amount figured in? If not the numbers are bogus aren't they?