2008 Flight Attendant Average Wage only comparison!

[BoeingBoy]

there are sub-categories,so to speak, that fall under expense...fuel, wages and other associated business costs under that heading, that is why I have mentioned .."specifically wages"...keyword: specifically and there is a number

As I said, the company could probably tell you what they've spent for any category you might be interested in - F/A wages, pilot per diem, vacation pay for any group, sick calls, etc. But that sort of detailed breakdown isn't available anywhere else. So anyone else purporting to have such info is making estimates, as is clearly stated in the report cited in the OP.

fuel prices can be used as a recent example and the downturn in the industry.

Glad you brought that up - I thought about using that as an example of the difference between budgeting for an expense and actual spending for that expense given the wild gyrations that fuel prices have gone through this year.

sometimes(based on individual companies) when there is actually a surplus or goals have been achieved, a profit sharing is paid out.

Now you're mixing in a third variable - profit or loss - which is company wide performance. Going over budget on any particular item - like F/A wages - does not necessarily result in a smaller profit since it may be offset by going under budget on other items. Likewise, going under budget on one item can be offset by going over budget on other items. At the end of the year (generally speaking when profit sharing is negotiated) if the company produces a profit some of it is shared. That profit sharing, by itself, doesn't really say anything about how actual expenses (and not just wages) for a particular item compared to the amount budgeted for that item. In short, budgets are forecasts and profit/loss comes from actual expenses vs revenues.

but simply recognizing what has been established in the past, retain, restore and focus on making it better..for not only our group, but the profession as whole..(because we have already merged and the goal now is to move forward).

A very sensible way to look at it from my perspective. All that should matter in any merger is that nobody is worse off after the dust settles than they were before - they enjoy the best of both contracts, as it were. None of the "cost neutral" nonsense that Parker insisted on for the first year or so after the US/HP merger. If more than "best of both" can be achieved, even better.

For some reason that I can't understand, the OP seems intent on "proving" one side currently makes more than the other. Don't know why that's so important, but apparently the OP thinks it is.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

Now you're mixing in a third variable

that is because there is so much to take into consideration and it is not just isolated to one aspect.

At the end of the year (generally speaking when profit sharing is negotiated) if the company produces a profit some of it is shared.

I see your point...sometimes its not just paid out at the end of the year(profit sharing) but quarterly as well..and sometimes(of course depending on the company) it is not necessarily negotiated rather than simply paid out once certain criteria has been achieved(being part of an established benefit package that has already been in place).

That profit sharing, by itself, doesn't really say anything about how actual expenses (and not just wages) for a particular item compared to the amount budgeted for that item. In short, budgets are forecasts and profit/loss comes from actual expenses vs revenues.

but in a way to me, it does...because unless a department has maintained their budget and performance has risen that have not only sustained current levels.. but also have enabled the company as whole to show an actual profit/rankings. sometimes it may not really be in a category as simply profit sharing but rather a performance bonus when a department has not only stayed within their budget but also have met key items that have allowed the department to allow cost savings... maybe I should have included that as well

A very sensible way to look at it from my perspective. All that should matter in any merger is that nobody is worse off after the dust settles than they were before - they enjoy the best of both contracts, as it were. None of the "cost neutral" nonsense that Parker insisted on for the first year or so after the US/HP merger. If more than "best of both" can be achieved, even better.

based on my experience with USAirways employees and the professionalism, not only should your groups have the best of both combined but also include retroactively more, your groups deserves it, for that matter everyone in this industry does..

For some reason that I can't understand, the OP seems intent on "proving" one side currently makes more than the other. Don't know why that's so important, but apparently the OP thinks it is.

probably to show how one group having it in writing may have been a little more beneficial than another is all I could come up with..

 

[BoeingBoy]

I think we generally agree, with some minor disagreement on how important a role one employee group beating or exceeding budget makes in the whole picture, never mind how that financial performance is largely out of the hands of the rank & file employees of that group.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

never mind how that financial performance is largely out of the hands of the rank & file employees of that group.

financial performance and employee performance goes hand in hand for the ultimate success of the company(or I would like to think it should) unfortunately some may become fixated solely on the financial performance aspect.. who are ultimately in control(making the overall decisions) and it may appear they tend to forget it takes a team..(that includes the rank and file and even individual positive contributions that are enabled overall)..I tend to believe that financial perfomance is largely in the hands of the rank and file as they are the ones who actually deliver the product(and it matters greatly how that group performs including all departments).

but then of course there are the unforeseen issues such as fuel prices that may hamper the ability to show a profit that is not directly related to the rank and file.. that is where leadership comes into the picture and how their performance handles the situation by their decisions and planning (to me, that why they are paid the big bucks to figure out how to deal with managing a company in the good times and not so good times) and that seems to be an issue that may be needing improvement based on what has happened in the past..

 

[jalbalpa]

Last, it's somewhat surprising that the OP has such faith in the numbers in the report but then neglects the author's "Average flight attendant wage/salary" numbers - perhaps because it disagrees with the OP's premise that NW F/A's make more than DL F/A's.

That is because if you take a quick look at it you will see it only counting just under 11000 DL F/A's and 7500 NW F/A's in those numbers, because they are the numbers from 2007. Beings that I have access to that updated data I am able to substitute those numbers and apply the right ones. Just as my original post said.

I find it pretty interesting how when an independent source releases information and it favors the unionized groups all non union believers accuse those sources of incorrect information. Yes when mother Delta releases that same information with different results it all of a sudden makes sense!

 

[dapoes]

That is because if you take a quick look at it you will see it only counting just under 11000 DL F/A's and 7500 NW F/A's in those numbers, because they are the numbers from 2007. Beings that I have access to that updated data I am able to substitute those numbers and apply the right ones. Just as my original post said.

I find it pretty interesting how when an independent source releases information and it favors the unionized groups all non union believers accuse those sources of incorrect information. Yes when mother Delta releases that same information with different results it all of a sudden makes sense!

I find it interesting some people (in acts of sheer desperation) grasp a hold of less then accurate data, (even so admitted by the author) and holds it to somehow be true.

You fail again.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That is because if you take a quick look at it you will see it only counting just under 11000 DL F/A's and 7500 NW F/A's in those numbers, because they are the numbers from 2007. Beings that I have access to that updated data I am able to substitute those numbers and apply the right ones. Just as my original post said.

Ya think it's possible that the author of the report might have updated his "wage" total if he'd had the updated employee count? Or maybe you believe that the author would have just assumed those extra F/A's would be working for free so would have used the same total "wages" figure.

I find it pretty interesting how when an independent source releases information and it favors the unionized groups all non union believers accuse those sources of incorrect information.

Trouble is the independent source favored the non-unionized group - you just ignored that part by substituting the accurate employee count without considering the effect it would have on the authors total cost figures (erroneously labeled "wages").

Like I said earlier, if you want to compare wages all you need to do is compare the pay scales - that takes out the demographic factors at least. Nearly every F/A will have their turn at each step on the scale and you're comparing apples to apples - 3rd year F/A to 3rd year F/A, 7th year to 7th year, etc.

Perhaps you'd be better off paying attention to the author's own caveats:

"All data is subject to errors. Some data for UAL, NWA & DAL may be distorted due to post bankruptcy issues. NWA data has adjustments for their 747 freight operation that may or may not be accurate. Delta reports most of their data in consolidated form and as such may not be analogous with the other carriers."

"Airlines report data primarily via two publicly available sources. Raw data is sent to the BTS (Bureau of Transportation) and airlines also file quarterly and annual reports with the SEC (Security Exchange Commission). There is considerable “flexibilityâ€￾ in how each airline categorizes their data for BTS and SEC reports."

"It is unrealistic to use a narrow range of metrics to form conclusions."

Jim

 

[Dignity]

just by what I have read, jalbalpa has current updated data.. including using the reference. just because I have not, or someone else has not seen it does not mean that someone else has not?

 

[Dignity]

I find it interesting some people (in acts of sheer desperation) grasp a hold of less then accurate data, (even so admitted by the author) and holds it to somehow be true.

You fail again.

But you have to note in the post that access to current data was also stated.

 

[dapoes]

But you have to note in the post that access to current data was also stated.

Yah Data that is inaccurate by the authors own admission.

 

[Dignity]

Yah Data that is inaccurate by the authors own admission.

but jalbalpa also stated in the post, that individual had access to current data, and not soley referring to the reference, you need to go back and re-read the exact post you replied to!

 

[dapoes]

MOD Note: Please keep the thread on topic. Do not make it about a single poster.

 

[Dignity]

Then if the data was "seen" why the need for the disclaimer that the data may be inaccurate?

Dapoes,

jalbalpa stated.."Beings that I have access to that updated data I am able to substitute those numbers and apply the right ones. Just as my original post said."

I am not even referring to the disclaimer...at all.

jalbalpa stated they have the updated data.

 

[dapoes]

Dapoes,

jalbalpa stated.."Beings that I have access to that updated data I am able to substitute those numbers and apply the right ones. Just as my original post said."

I am not even referring to the disclaimer...at all.

jalbalpa stated they have the updated data.

Of course she would say something like that, only when backed into a corner. What if I said I had data that said different, or you, or every other yahoo on this forum. At the end of the day it means zip unless it can be proven. What you say you "see" and what you can prove is two different things.

 

[Dignity]

Of course she would say something like that, only when backed into a corner. What if I said I had data that said different, or you, or every other yahoo on this forum. At the end of the day it means zip unless it can be proven. What you say you "see" and what you can prove is two different things.

you know Dapoes,
that does make sense..but considering the group I have known for years, they pretty much just spell it out exactly how it is...our group is straight forward and tells it like it is regardless...I am use to that, but can understand how others may not be aware of that in an different situation. I guess I would wonder why the need to make something like that up? either they have it or they dont, and until it is disprove they do not, I just give people the benefit of the doubt.