2008 Flight Attendant Average Wage only comparison!

[dapoes]

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.

You can choose to believe anything if you want to Dig. Its ok.

 

[Dignity]

You can choose to believe anything if you want to Dig. Its ok.

well isnt that thoughtful of you!

its not that I believe everything moreso than tend to try to give people the benefit of the doubt especially on this forum.

well I believe you are a kind and generous soul, that would walk in the meadows with the rest of the cattle, chickens, barn yard animal that just may happen to show up out there... would pick up a flower and then exclaim "I want to give the world a hug"....is that close?

 

[jalbalpa]

Hey dapoes, if my numbers are "made up" like you say they are, why dont you go ahead and prove me wrong.

For those of you that have access to DLNET, go ahead and go to the Seniority Integration link on the left once you log on. On the next page you will see a link on the left that will say "Active Head Count" with a breakdown of bases and a total number for DL and NW. Are my numbers incorrect or fabricated?

 

[dapoes]

Hey dapoes, if my numbers are "made up" like you say they are, why dont you go ahead and prove me wrong.

For those of you that have access to DLNET, go ahead and go to the Seniority Integration link on the left once you log on. On the next page you will see a link on the left that will say "Active Head Count" with a breakdown of bases and a total number for DL and NW. Are my numbers incorrect or fabricated?

Pathetic :blink:

 

[jalbalpa]

Pathetic :blink:

Actually what is pathetic is your response, you know why?

Because you are once again opening up your mouth and putting out absolutely no substance.

The difference between me and you is that when I am cornered I back-up my point of view and my information. You on the other hand only provide one line statements such as the one above with meant to try and move the other person off the facts and onto your fantasy of fabricated accusations!

 

[dapoes]

The difference between me and you is that when I am cornered I back-up my point of view and my information.

Yah with flawed and BS data...job well done!

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Actually what is pathetic is your response, you know why?

Because you are once again opening up your mouth and putting out absolutely no substance.

The difference between me and you is that when I am cornered I back-up my point of view and my information. You on the other hand only provide one line statements such as the one above with meant to try and move the other person off the facts and onto your fantasy of fabricated accusations!

I'll second that. Why else would someone assert that AFA used the fact that the merger hadn't been approved yet as one of several excuses to "stall"the election and when called on it, never addressed said ridiculous assertion. The thing that you all have to remember is that substance isn't important to some here, it's style. Having a union would cramp Miss Dapoes 'style. Why? Who the heck knows? But she is definitely afraid of what could be coming. Hence, her obsession with it.

 

[Kev3188]

I'll second that. Why else would someone assert that AFA used the fact that the merger hadn't been approved yet as one of several excuses to "stall"the election and when called on it, never addressed said ridiculous assertion.

Maybe because that would mean having to admit that she's been parroting what Joanne Smith has posted on DLnet?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Hey dapoes, if my numbers are "made up" like you say they are, why dont you go ahead and prove me wrong.

Speaking only for myself, I have no doubt that your updated employee count is as current as DLNet or whatever it's called is. My problem on this subject is correcting one of the estimates in that report without correcting or even considering the effect more F/A's would have on another pertinent estimate - total "wages" (costs, really). You end up taking estimated total "wages" for ~11,000 flight attendants and dividing it by ~12,000 flight attendants, resulting in an artificially low average DL F/A "wage".

Like I said before, the only way your approach is valid is if the extra ~1,000 DL F/A's are working for free - not very likely.

Jim

 

[jalbalpa]

He used wage reports from 10-Q filings from the first 3 quarters of 2008, and a projection of the 4th quarter. So he is using updated data from that, however he is still using 2007 numbers for the headcount because the 2008 headcount is still not available. Beings that we do have it available if you substitue those numbers you will come to my conclusion. Under his 2007 numbers, almost 2000 F/A's don't exist.

 

[Dignity]

You end up taking estimated total "wages" for ~11,000 flight attendants and dividing it by ~12,000 flight attendants, resulting in an artificially low average DL F/A "wage".



Jim

taking into consideration there are those who are on leave, one month leave..(considered off payroll who are not active)some are awarded a schedule and then drop to zero or fly a single trip for the month after trading away their line, considered on payroll or active status but may fly a single minimum duty one day for the month, it may be necessary to actually lower the actual number to take into consideration those who do not collect a paycheck at all or those who do and it is not very significant. they may not be actually working for "free" but close to it..as the actual headcount may actual fluctuate month to month.

there may be 7500 Flight Attendants on a list, but that does not mean that 7500 are drawing a full salary.

working for free - not very likely.

after the door closes thats not the case but before..well
...from report-boarding-door closes we have real responsibilities/duties and to me, should be compensated other than per diem, ya know?

 

[FWAAA]

He used wage reports from 10-Q filings from the first 3 quarters of 2008, and a projection of the 4th quarter. So he is using updated data from that, however he is still using 2007 numbers for the headcount because the 2008 headcount is still not available. Beings that we do have it available if you substitue those numbers you will come to my conclusion. Under his 2007 numbers, almost 2000 F/A's don't exist.

The flaw in your thinking (and that of others agreeing with you here) is that the 10-Qs DO NOT contain any breakout of wages by workgroup. As BoeingBoy posted, the BTS filings don't contain a breakdown of FA wages. Thus, Bob Herbst estimated the FA wages for the purposes of his fine spreadsheets.

Y'all can argue all day about whether you have an accurate count of FA bodies, but that doesn't matter - since you don't have reliable wage info. You've latched onto an argument that you desperately want to make: That NWA FAs make more money - and in the process, you've relied on estimates instead of actual data. That doesn't make the conclusion any more believable.

 

[Dignity]

The flaw in your thinking (and that of others agreeing with you here)

what is interesting regarding that comment is simply, I have not read one comment posted that has actually agreed with anyone on this thread.

is that the 10-Qs DO NOT contain any breakout of wages by workgroup. As BoeingBoy posted, the BTS filings don't contain a breakdown of FA wages. Thus, Bob Herbst estimated the FA wages for the purposes of his fine spreadsheets.

so automatically the original poster is completely wrong about everything?

Y'all can argue all day about whether you have an accurate count of FA bodies, but that doesn't matter -

who is arguing? but obviously some are very bothered by the original post..for whatever reasons

since you don't have reliable wage info.

how do you know for a fact they dont?

You've latched onto an argument that you desperately want to make: That NWA FAs make more money - and in the process, you've relied on estimates instead of actual data. That doesn't make the conclusion any more believable.

that does not make your "conclusion" any more credible because...
where is the information/data to disprove everything that has been posted that will dispute that? thats right..you did not post it.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

What's the point in splitting hairs with this? And that's all they are. If DL f/a's make more, it's not all that much more and vise versa.

This is really back to the union argument. And as someone already posted here, most people have already made up their minds.
It's like this:
You either trust you'll never get in a car accident, or...you buy auto insurance.
You either trust you'll never get sick, or......you buy health insurance or gain employment with a healthcare benefit.

You either trust DL management (which is now made up mostly of former NW mgt or complete outsiders), or....... you vote for and pay dues for a contract.

 

[dapoes]

what is interesting regarding that comment is simply, I have not read one comment posted that has actually agreed with anyone on this thread.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see you agree with (deleted by moderator)

so automatically the original poster is completely wrong about everything?

Yes that is plausible.

who is arguing? but obviously some are very bothered by the original post..for whatever reasons

You are, obviously you are bothered by people disagreeing with (deleted by moderator) and feel a need to defend her.


MOD NOTE: Personal attacks (including the bastardizing of a poster's name) are not allowed. Continuing to do so will result in time off. Thanks.