DOT FA cost/pay-compensation chart

[aislehopper]

NxNW:

Well now, we are on post 16 of the “I guess this will put to rest who makes more between NW/DLâ€￾ thread. Clearly, it has not been put to rest.

We all know that salary is an expense to the company. Along with fuel, it is one of the main expenses for an airline.

However, you are trying to prove that NWA flight attendants currently make more than Delta flight attendants by pointing at a chart made from stale, dated 2007 “costâ€￾ data to support your argument.

Again, I am not depositing costs into my bank account. I deposit my earnings. When I plug in NWA numbers into my last trip, I come out ahead using my Delta numbers.

Again, your chart puts nothing to rest.

"Ad hominem attacks ?"

Are you for REAL? It is not I who is in denial of the facts.

Methinks you should review the definition of Ad Hominem attack.

The DOT chart certainly puts to rest the issue for me...and many others who know the difference between a neutral federal agency.

I am glad that you realize that government agencies are neutral, comprised of people who work hard to be fair, issue "just" results, and can always be trusted to get it right. The NMB comes to mind as one such agency.

What is telling...is the FACT that there are some from Old Delta that insist on not having a contract even though those at New Delta with out contracts

FYI, the “oldâ€￾ Delta was run by CE Woolman, Dave Garrett, and Hollis Harris. The “newâ€￾ Delta has been here since the early 1990’s. NWA, like Pan Am before it, is just another chapter for all of us.

 

[Dignity]

my opinion is simply, there are two concessionary policy/contract in place, its a little silly to debate who is making
more under concessions...(fact of the matter... both groups are not being compensated what they should be) lets try focusing on the future and working together to restore everything...and more.

 

[North by Northwest]

NxNW:

Well now, we are on post 16 of the “I guess this will put to rest who makes more between NW/DLâ€￾ thread. Clearly, it has not been put to rest.

We all know that salary is an expense to the company. Along with fuel, it is one of the main expenses for an airline.

However, you are trying to prove that NWA flight attendants currently make more than Delta flight attendants by pointing at a chart made from stale, dated 2007 “costâ€￾ data to support your argument.

Again, I am not depositing costs into my bank account. I deposit my earnings. When I plug in NWA numbers into my last trip, I come out ahead using my Delta numbers.

Again, your chart puts nothing to rest.





Methinks you should review the definition of Ad Hominem attack.



I am glad that you realize that government agencies are neutral, comprised of people who work hard to be fair, issue "just" results, and can always be trusted to get it right. The NMB comes to mind as one such agency.



FYI, the “oldâ€￾ Delta was run by CE Woolman, Dave Garrett, and Hollis Harris. The “newâ€￾ Delta has been here since the early 1990’s. NWA, like Pan Am before it, is just another chapter for all of us.

Actually, the only thing at question here is your ability to grasp cost and pay, indicated by your 1st, 2ed, and 13th post. That's an issue you will have to struggle with. When New Delta has to cut costs (with out your permission)..AGAIN, you come back and tell us what effect that had on your "deposit".

If you can't grasp cost/ and pay...attempting to use a term "Ad Hominem" is clearly a stretch, evidently. That's not a shocker based on your economics.

"When I plug in NWA numbers into my last trip, I come out ahead using my Delta numbers."

But of course you did. How'd that comparison to AA go? (based on the "limited" information from your 1/2 cooked recipe)

FYI..."Old" Delta was never run by a team of NW executives in the past was it? Nor was it merged with an airline more financially sound (you do know one can only get a $9.1 billion dollar loss/ credit by being poorly run?) One that brought more cold cash to the table...has that ever happened before? Just curious?

Your new "chapter" (and it's the biggest you've EVER read, with 30,000 pages) must read, "Delta, in name only, run by Northwest". The difference between your "Old" Delta and New Delta before the NW merger, you were wearing Pan Am's financial shoes with a limited future per your own former Northwest CEO's statement.



Personally, I don't care for "fiction" with poorly written "chapters" by 2ed rate writers.

 

[dapoes]

You little sweet angel.

That's the nicest thing you've said to me all Autumn!

Thank you for the gracious compliment. (truly)

You see...we can agree to disagree until we vote in our new unions. (your new contract will be just as resilient as our CEO and pilot's)

Once you go CONTRACT...you'll NEVER look back!

Ok funny ass guy, I take it back. At least Kev has some tact, class and no where remotely as condescending.

 

[North by Northwest]

Ok funny ass guy, I take it back. At least Kev has some tact, class and no where remotely as condescending.

Now dapoes...I was completely serious and sincere. Clearly, you find that hard to believe from me. I fully took your statement as a compliment. Now, be gracious and accept mine.

I prefer extending kindness over hard debate any day. Now enjoy some delicious leftovers and rest.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Hope everyone is having a nice Thanksgiving weekend.
Now, I'll quickly ad my .02

Aislehopper: Are we to believe that a year ago you wouldn't have come on a board like this one and still found something wrong with the DOT's 2007 F/A cost structure? Everything that doesn't show DL in the brightest light, you trash. So here you're conveniently claiming it's old news and doesn't reflect DL's recent "raises". Had it been published immediately last year, I'm sure you would have found something else to pick apart. (And I don't know how to tell you this but those aren't "raises"..they are pay REINSTATEMENTS. We took a 20% pay cut in 2005. Eff Jan 1st, 10 % of that will have been restored --two 3% and one 4% reinstatements-- We still have another 10% to go.) Furthermore, you showed your true colors in the statement regarding "old" Delta vs. "new" Delta and NW being just another chapter like PanAm. Now, I don't know how to tell you this, but that divisive, condescending attitude is not one that Delta (old, new, in-between) wishes to see in its employees right now. In fact, I believe DL's emp. website has, in fact, used the term "new Delta." You see, in order for this merger to work, you're going to have to be more welcoming and open-minded toward your new NW brothers and sisters. If not, you're looking at a heap of trouble. The kind of trouble airline analysts talk about when they lecture on how most airline mergers are messes that don't work; much of it due to trying to blend workforces. You should look to be part of the answer; not the problem. I think you need to sit down and really think about what the future of Delta Air Lines means to you, young lady.

NxNW: I understand where you're coming from but one POSSIBLE example of a F/A cost that is not reflected in pay would be hotel layover costs. (The footnote on the graph said the costs "included" wages, benefits, pensions, per diem, etc..but it didn't say it was limited to those things.) Other airlines possibly spend more thus upping their cost per F/A. Now, this could be because they stay in nicer hotels or it could be that their Crew Accom. Dept hasn't found as good of a pricing structure as Delta's has found. I'm not saying this is indeed fact; it's just a hypothetical of a FA cost to an airline that isn't salary/direct benefits.
Personally, from comparing with friends who work at other airlines, I believe a lot of the $$ Delta saves on F/A's is in our sick leave policy. It is a total win-win for them as is doing away with the Defined Pension program. Obviously, these types of cost-savings truly affect FA pay in the long run. But the hotel example is something I threw out there to show that the some things contained in the DOT's cost chart could be non salary-related.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Interesting, and amusing, discussion - cost structure of a company, cost to the company of the average F/A, and the average F/A pay (either gross or take home).

Take WN - among the highest paid employees (top of scale rate) yet one of the lowest cost airlines in the industry. So clearly a CEO can announce to Wall Street that his company has among the lowest costs of the legacy carriers without it meaning anything about employee cost or pay.

Then there's the items in employee cost to the company that the employee may never see in their paycheck - like the employer's matching contribution to SS and Medicare or the employer's contribution to unemployment compensation.

One thing that I find interesting, as would anyone else that worked with the Form 41 numbers, is that the AFA chart lists items that aren't broken out by employee group on Form 41. Presumably the AFA did some "guesstimating" for these items.

Jim

 

[dapoes]

This very subject was questioned to Pat Friend, AFA president at the end of the Sept NMB hearings in Washington. When asked several times who makes more, Patricia grew uncomfortable and kept replying with the whole "FA costs" garbage. When someone asked point blank who gets more "net pay" she almost squirmed and fell out of her chair! Then she muttered NWA with a total lack of confidence in her reply. If she would have said anything else she would have looked stupid to her followers. Gotta love that "Win at any cost" mantra, absent of any truth of course.

Stuff like this only reinforces how AFA "dumbs down" the FA community by pointing to reports/data and spins it to their favor. And of course when they fail to live up to expectations, they fault other entites.

 

[aislehopper]

"When I plug in NWA numbers into my last trip, I come out ahead using my Delta numbers."

But of course you did. How'd that comparison to AA go? (based on the "limited" information from your 1/2 cooked recipe)

AA's numbers are not really relevant to your “I guess this will put to rest who makes more between NW/DL" argument unless you are conceding that NWA's numbers are not sufficient to prove your point.

 

[tech2101]

Stuff like this only reinforces how AFA "dumbs down" the FA community by pointing to reports/data and spins it to their favor. And of course when they fail to live up to expectations, they fault other entites.

Allow me to correct your statement.

Stuff like this only reinforces how AFA management "dumbs down" the FA community by pointing to reports/data and spins it to their favor. And of course when they fail to live up to expectations, they fault other entities.

You represent Delta management well on this board.

 

[aislehopper]

Hope everyone is having a nice Thanksgiving weekend.


Aislehopper: Are we to believe that a year ago you wouldn't have come on a board like this one and still found something wrong with the DOT's 2007 F/A cost structure?

I think you need to sit down and really think about what the future of Delta Air Lines means to you, young lady.

Isn’t it a bit ironic that you make this statement in a post where you assert that I am condescending? However, if it was intentionally ironic, then Bravo.

Luke, one of the problems that you have with reading my posts is you consistently read into them something that is not there.

The NWA people coming to us are bringing much to the table just like the PAA flight attendants did 15 years ago. I think that this combination gives our company reach and the diversity to withstand the economic cycle. However, as the afa-CWA points out, this is a new Delta that is different from the old Delta. However, IMHO, Richard Anderson is not the dividing line, it was Ron Allen. This is yet another chapter in the new Delta story.

As for the DOT data, it was easy enough to eviscerate NxNW’s argument without needing to attack the soundness of the underlying data contained the chart, who compiled it, and the drafter’s underlying assumptions. Boeing Boy was kind enough to point this out for us.

 

[FWAAA]

One thing that I find interesting, as would anyone else that worked with the Form 41 numbers, is that the AFA chart lists items that aren't broken out by employee group on Form 41. Presumably the AFA did some "guesstimating" for these items.

D'Oh! The AFA making up numbers to try to sell its product to a workgroup that has never thought that product necessary? Never!

As always, BoeingBoy provides the most thoughtful, non-agenda-laden posts on this forum.

Most others in this thread (me included, sometimes) have something to sell. And sellers can't always be believed.

 

[North by Northwest]

AA's numbers are not really relevant to your “I guess this will put to rest who makes more between NW/DL" argument unless you are conceding that NWA's numbers are not sufficient to prove your point.

So far..you've heed and hawed about almost everything but refute the numbers with anything except a chart that SAYS it is not completely accurate.

When one can't refute with facts...means case is closed.

Now, we can continue with your side show if you wish.

 

[North by Northwest]

Interesting, and amusing, discussion - cost structure of a company, cost to the company of the average F/A, and the average F/A pay (either gross or take home).

Take WN - among the highest paid employees (top of scale rate) yet one of the lowest cost airlines in the industry. So clearly a CEO can announce to Wall Street that his company has among the lowest costs of the legacy carriers without it meaning anything about employee cost or pay.

Then there's the items in employee cost to the company that the employee may never see in their paycheck - like the employer's matching contribution to SS and Medicare or the employer's contribution to unemployment compensation.

One thing that I find interesting, as would anyone else that worked with the Form 41 numbers, is that the AFA chart lists items that aren't broken out by employee group on Form 41. Presumably the AFA did some "guesstimating" for these items.

Jim

"So clearly a CEO can announce to Wall Street that his company has among the lowest costs of the legacy carriers without it meaning anything about employee cost or pay."

There is a VAST difference in a CEO announcing to Wall Street about the lowest costs of his company vs. the lowest costs of a specific group of employees. (I am assuming that is an oversight of yours) Which is exactly what R Anderson and many other have stated, Delta's FA provide it with the lowest cost of all majors FAs.

More over, you are doing nothing but "guesstimating" about what your think AFA "guesstimated" about. Which makes your answer nothing more than a guesstimation.

 

[North by Northwest]

Isn’t it a bit ironic that you make this statement in a post where you assert that I am condescending? However, if it was intentionally ironic, then Bravo.

Luke, one of the problems that you have with reading my posts is you consistently read into them something that is not there.

The NWA people coming to us are bringing much to the table just like the PAA flight attendants did 15 years ago. I think that this combination gives our company reach and the diversity to withstand the economic cycle. However, as the afa-CWA points out, this is a new Delta that is different from the old Delta. However, IMHO, Richard Anderson is not the dividing line, it was Ron Allen. This is yet another chapter in the new Delta story.

As for the DOT data, it was easy enough to eviscerate * aislehoppe's* argument without needing to attack the soundness of the underlying data contained the chart, who compiled it, and the drafter’s underlying assumptions. Boeing Boy was kind enough to point this out for us.

Perhaps in your vision of yesteryear.

Delta brings to NW an inferior balance sheet, similar to Pan Ams. Delta brought with it a massive tax NOL credit $9.1 BILLION (we had to keep the Delta name) from bankruptcy as a result of massive financial losses, and a headquarters in a non union "right to work" state, thus helping the Northwest leaders in their quest to assist the NEW Delta in ridding itself of Unions. Delta gives NW and it's leaders a presence in South America and additional European coverage, coupled with our Asian Division (the true destination of future world aviation revenue). That's the difference in New Delta, unless of course all this has happened before in a previous old Delta "chapter."

As far as "your opinion and Anderson's dividing line" well...it's just that, an opinion. You should update that opinion with the recognition that your new leader is the x leader of the company that has placed it's own corporate leaders in most of your NEW company's leadership positions. Did that ever happen in your past "chapters?"


"it was easy enough to eviscerate * aislehoppe's* argument without needing to attack the soundness of the underlying data contained (in) the chart, who compiled it, and the drafter’s underlying assumptions. Boeing Boy was kind enough to point out his own flaws in his assumption for us."

Ditto.

AH-
You might want to do your own research since you are so skeptical about the work of others

"Work rules, SS off-set (pension), Sick time, vacation pay rate." I think you will come to the correct conclusion.

FYI, AA was mentioned as they came to the same conclusion as NW AFA in your total compensation vs. the industry.

I think it is FANTASTIC that New Delta is reinstating some of your forced pay cuts, my only concern is with the down turn in traffic, when will they unilaterally take that pay back (perhaps AFTER the election and AFA loses)?

I mean, it's not like they have to ask for permission. I am concerned because I see so many of the New Delta senior management cashing in their stock windfall. I like what the pilots have. New Delta is required by law to pay them their pay reinstatements, regardless of a drop in traffic/kinda like senior managements pay guarantees.