|
Originally Posted by Gjn290
(Post 2525829)
Have you watched the videos? If numbers don’t lie, than you’d be a yes vote.
|
Originally Posted by CMFIC
(Post 2525839)
By "numbers," are you referring to the analysis concluding that our 920M gain is offset by a cost savings to the company of a mere 12M per year?
|
Even if the numbers are way off as far as the cost savings to the company, it's still way less than our gain.
Ex... Rough numbers 12M year savings plus reduction of 200 pilots (alpa estimate) avg compensation top and bottom of the pay scale would be around 166/hr... Figure it out at 72 hours and you have 28.6M year... Add them up and you get 40.6M post year cost savings to the company 5 year total savings ~ 203M Gains in ta1 ~ 920M Even if numbers are off substantially, there is no way its cost neutral. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Squeaky banana
(Post 2526459)
Even if the numbers are way off as far as the cost savings to the company, it's still way less than our gain.
Ex... Rough numbers 12M year savings plus reduction of 200 pilots (alpa estimate) avg compensation top and bottom of the pay scale would be around 166/hr... Figure it out at 72 hours and you have 28.6M year... Add them up and you get 40.6M post year cost savings to the company 5 year total savings ~ 203M Gains in ta1 ~ 920M Even if numbers are off substantially, there is no way its cost neutral. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk Get out of here with that logical thinking! :p |
Watch the TA Q &A video and watch the committee handle the question about how cost neutral this contract is. It is one of the first questions. That notion is shot down very clearly by several people. I believe the number was for every $1 gained by the company there was $14 gained in the TA. 14 to 1. Not even in the neighborhood of cost neutral
|
Originally Posted by Beans
(Post 2525689)
Yep! Reading through the threads I see people defending this TA. If they would actually take the time to get others contract or use this comparison power point they would realize that TA1 at Spirit is not even close to industry standard.
|
Originally Posted by Tjamaica
(Post 2526471)
Watch the TA Q &A video and watch the committee handle the question about how cost neutral this contract is. It is one of the first questions. That notion is shot down very clearly by several people. I believe the number was for every $1 gained by the company there was $14 gained in the TA. 14 to 1. Not even in the neighborhood of cost neutral
|
Originally Posted by SourGrapes
(Post 2526986)
funny, i hear the work rule adjustments are yet to be determined how much it will save them. so 14 to 1 is an 'estimate'-----we've been beat up screwed so many times, even sued, we're now supposed to trust that they won't take complete advantage of us with these massive changes in scheduling?
|
Originally Posted by Tjamaica
(Post 2526993)
Well yeah. Any rational person realizes there is a little give or take in there. So 12-16 to 1? It could go up or down but not much. They have a good estimate based on other companies experiences. Look, change is not easy. Some big changes are happening so I understand the skepticism. How do you think you will be taken advantage of?
|
Originally Posted by SourGrapes
(Post 2526995)
were you hear from the beginning of the last contract? that should answer your question...
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:30 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands