2008 Flight Attendant Average Wage only comparison!

[jalbalpa]

The OP used 2008 estimated cost for 10,000+ employees and divided it by the 12,000- actual employees. If you can't see the problem with that I give up.

Actually the wage numbers Mr. Herbst used are different in 2008 to those in 2007. So he used the updated wage numbers, and I updated the headcount.

Now, I looked at the 10-Q reports and did not find wage data. I know you asked me to look. So where did Mr. Herbst get that wage data? I guess I will email him and find out specifics.

 

[BoeingBoy]

these other ideas of actually breaking it down to the penny are all well and good but honestly, is it really that necessary and important to do that here on this forum?

The OP apparently thought so when starting this thread - and at least one other thread claiming proof that one side made more than the other. So perhaps you should chastise instead of defending the OP ("there is something missing, that is the numbers..sitting directly in front of me...", "there has to be a specific number for wages, just as Japbalapa ...has stated!", "just by what I have read, jalbalpa has current updated data", etc)

Like I said earlier, I couldn't care less which side currently makes more - didn't we agree that what's important is that the combination ends up better than where the two sides are now? What I do care about is someone making claims when those claims are based on mathmatical mumbo jumbo - that the employee count can go up significantly without either an increase in total pay or a significant decrease in pay rates.

Jim

 

[jalbalpa]

didn't we agree that what's important is that the combination ends up better than where the two sides are now?

You just earned yourself some brownie points mister!

 

[BoeingBoy]

Actually the wage numbers Mr. Herbst used are different in 2008 to those in 2007. So he used the updated wage numbers, and I updated the headcount.

The 2008 cost number is $17 million more than 2007 - amazingly similiar to the F/A's share of the 2007 profit sharing, which was paid in 2008 so would be included in 2008 data and not 2007.

Now, I looked at the 10-Q reports and did not find wage data.

Didn't think you'd find it since it's not in the 10-Q. Tried to tell you that.

So where did Mr. Herbst get that wage data?

As I said before, and you ignored, from the BTS Form 41 data - the same place he got the F/A count. In general, there is a 1 quarter to 1 year lag in that data - some is currently available for the 3rd quarter but it wasn't available till Dec 15 (presumably after the report was prepared), some is not available for any of 2008 yet.

As an example of why you shouldn't mix outdated and updated numbers, DL sold $192 million of stock in Dec to pay the withholding taxes on the stock given to employees. A portion of that would be for the F/A's. Herbst had no idea what that amount would be when he made his estimates, yet that could make a sieable difference in his total F/A pay figure - a difference your calculation therefore fails to take into account.

The point remains - you cannot take the pay number that is out of date by at least 6 months, divide it by the head count that's up to date for the year and call the result accurate.

If you want to wait till all the numbers are updated for all of 2008, have at it. If you want to use all of Herbst's estimates have at it - you'll get the same average F/A pay that he did. But if you insist on mixing apples and oranges, your claim of proof carries no weight.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

So perhaps you should chastise instead of defending the OP ("there is something missing, that is the numbers..sitting directly in front of me...", "there has to be a specific number for wages, just as Japbalapa ...has stated!", "just by what I have read, jalbalpa has current updated data", etc)

if this is an important issue for you, my suggestion is to take the information that is available and do some exploratory research for yourself and then come to your own conclusion, as it appears you are not getting the answers you want here..

I dont feel the need to chastise anyone..at all, sometimes you just take something for what its worth and move on, dwell on it(if one chooses), or just forget about it.. these are all really just comments when all is said and done... one thing I have noted with these forums is simply... its just not the most accurate place to find real answers, but more so a place for a lot of personal opinions (that seem to agree at times and then do not agree often).

Have a nice evening.

 

[BoeingBoy]

if this is an important issue for you, my suggestion is to take the information that is available and do some exploratory research for yourself and then come to your own conclusion

I have and needless to say the conclusion the OP cited as "proof" is wrong. In just the first 3 quarters of 2008, the DL F/A total wage number that BTS gives is significantly higher than that used in the report (which was a flat $105 million per quarter - odd that the average F/A's wage wouldn't change as much as $100 per quarter, isn't it). Without accurate 4th quarter numbers, it impossible to say how wrong the OP is, but there's have to be a dramatic drop in DL F/A wages to make the OP right.

But one doesn't really need to delve into the BTS data to see some strange items in the report. Then there's the mixing of estimated with actual data to produce a conclusion.

As for opinions, everyone is entitled to one. But when the OP says "This should put some incorrect information to rest!" and "Of course some of you will still refuse to accept the numbers for what they really are!" it ceases to be an opinion.

Jim

 

[jalbalpa]

Ok Mr. smarty pants...after emailing the author and asking for explanation this is the information I received...

My website charts use data/info from SEC filings which I reconcile with DOT41/BTS data.

If you look at financial reports from various analysts, you will find the numbers/conclusions are not exactly the same as each company/analyst reconciles and publishes all of the data a little differently.

Specific to your questions-

SEC filings will only show a total expense item for all labor costs (wages & benefits).

The DOT41/BTS reports will breakout numerous labor category costs from the totals shown on SEC filings. However, there is a significant delay in getting the DOT41 breakdowns (as much as 4-5 months for some info). Because of this delay, I use (some) estimates in my charts until the DOT41 data comes out for the previous year.

I did (quickly) read through the forum site you sent.
Contrary to one of the comments I read: FA -wage- breakdowns are available on the DOT41/BTS reports albeit you do have to make some manual calculations to find them.

DOT41/BTS employee counts generally include active employees (excludes medicals, supervisors etc.) and broken down by several labor groups. An average labor count for the year is used. Because of this reporting feature, I have found the DOT41 employee counts can be up to ~9% lower than what you will find on a seniority list.

Through Q3 2008, the DOT41/BTS data shows (calculated) FA wages (in millions)-

NWA = $197,862
DAL = $327,619

The Bio page of my website provides links to the BTS website where you can verify the data I've provided.

You can also find similar data on the MIT-ADP report-

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/default.html

Regards,

Robert Herbst

Website: Airlinefinancials.com
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (314) 518-6318

:huh:

 

[BoeingBoy]

Because of this delay, I use (some) estimates in my charts until the DOT41 data comes out for the previous year.

So everything isn't up to date through the 3rd quarter 2008 as you said. If you look at Herbst's site, you'll see that he has F/A total wages identical for each quarter of 2008 (odd when there's an increasing number of F/A's) and a note saying "Estimate for 2008" - nothing about updated with the 1st three quarters of actual data.

An average labor count for the year is used.

Since the BTS data only has employee counts annually (thus the average used), Herbst's 2008 estimate is exactly the same as the 2007 number - as I've said before, having an accurate average head count would have affected his wage totals.

DAL = $327,619

So updated through the 3rd quarter Herbst's estimated "total wage" number for 2008 is off, which makes your calculation give a false answer.

Just the total wage number results in you understating the average DL F/A wage by about $3,000 (assuming 4th quarter = the average of the 1st 3 quarters).

Your end of year total rather than average F/A head count for the year results in you understating the average DL F/A wage by another $1,000 - $1,500.

Overstating the head count, relative to the average Herbst uses, results in an additional understatement of the average DL F/A wage.

Any other claims of "proof"...

Jim

 

[jalbalpa]

having an accurate average head count would have affected his wage totals.

that is why I put in the headcount instead of using the 2007 numbers. The average headcount is actually higher than the number I provided...beings as 800 Delta f/a's retired in the 2nd half of 2008, therefore it would have lowered the wages even more!

So updated through the 3rd quarter Herbst's estimated "total wage" number for 2008 is off, which makes your calculation give a false answer.

Just the total wage number results in you understating the average DL F/A wage by about $3,000 (assuming 4th quarter = the average of the 1st 3 quarters).

Your end of year total rather than average F/A head count for the year results in you understating the average DL F/A wage by another $1,000 - $1,500.

Overstating the head count, relative to the average Herbst uses, results in an additional understatement of the average DL F/A wage.

Any other claims of "proof"...

Lets use the "actual" numbers provided above. What is the outcome? Lets have a look...


Delta = $327,619,000 divided by 12,617(the average is actually higher beings that 851 f/a's retired in the 2nd half of 2008)

The average should be closer to 13,000 but I will still use 12,617.

Northwest = $197,862,000 divided by 7,569

Delta average wage for the first 3 quarters = $25,966
($25,201 if you were to average out the headcount to 13,000)

Northwest average wage for the first 3 quarters = $26,165

Same outcome...

Now take into consideration the fact that the Delta flight attendants are more senior then Northwest.

Take into consideration that it takes Northwest 15 years to top out compares to 11 years at Delta.

Take into consideration that Northwest has a higher percentage of people with less then 2 years seniority.


The gap widens and widens and widens...

 

[BoeingBoy]

So you've gone from $4,100 difference to less than $200 difference in annual pay - and 4th quarter numbers are still to come. Didn't I say that for all of 2008 you were understating DL's average F/A wage by at least $4,000? $3,900 of it has occured in 3 quarters - wonder what the 4th quarter will bring?

Your difference is so small that it's lost in the noise of the statistics - rounding, averages, etc. Why not just wait until all the 2008 numbers are in and see what Herbst says - everything from one person's numbers instead of mixing a little of this and a little of that?

Jim

 

[jalbalpa]

I know what the numbers will be once they come out, and they will favor NW.

Compared to the end of 3Q 2008, Delta has lost over 800 f/a's...it will result in a decrease in their wages!

 

[BoeingBoy]

I know what the numbers will be once they come out

You don't happen to have the winning Power Ball numbers for this week also, do you...

Jim

 

[jalbalpa]

You don't happen to have the winning Power Ball numbers for this week also, do you...

I'll get back to you on that!