DOT FA cost/pay-compensation chart

Dapoes--

Why not answer the questions raised about the Form 41 data, then? All you did with your red ink spewing is prove NxNW's assertion that you refuse to discuss facts... I didn't see a single actual rebuttal in there.

Because Kev, the rebuttal has already been answered by many others here already. You and the others just dismiss it.
 
NW FA are compensated more than old Delta...End of story.

----------

As clearly stated.

Well, we have made some progress. You are going closer to a primary source instead of cutting and pasting something from an afa website, and you are also backing off of that silly costs to the company argument to try to prove "who makes more between NW/DL."

However, to be more correct, you should clarify your statement to "As clearly stated for 2007." Alternatively, you can state that NW flight attendants were compensated more than old Delta in 1997.

However, you are still trying to prove something in the present using stale data from the past which will not work.

Interestingly enough, if you dig further into the website, you will find this chart, Average Annual Wages and Salaries Flight Attendant Personnel, It muddies the water even more.

In fact, it shows that in the 13 year 1995 to 2007 time period, the DL flight attendant average wage and salary was higher than the NWA average wage and salary in all years but 1995, 2000, and 2005. (The 2000 data is suspect. it show the DL average at $19,519 - over 18K less than 1999 and 2001).

Going by the average salary chart, it would appear that your proposition historically has been wrong (except in 1995, 2005, and possibly 2000.) and trending toward being wrong in 2008.

So, in post number 62, your statement that "I guess this will put to rest who makes more between NW/DL" is still not true.
 
This really quickly devolved into a cost vs earnings debate. The original post said that the AFA chart should put to rest "who makes more." I still offer no opinion, except that the average employee (incl F/A's) could care less what it costs the company to have them on the payroll. Ask them what they make, and they'll respond with the hourly rate they get, gross/take home from their paycheck, or some other similiar number. Not many, if any, will even know the cost to the company of having them on the payroll and fewer will even care.

Jim
 
Because Kev, the rebuttal has already been answered by many others here already. You and the others just dismiss it.

But when the questions are put to you, you refuse to answer them. Are you saying that you're content with others answering for you? That seems lazy to me, but maybe I'm misreading your statement above.

As for the Form 41 data, I'm not dismissing anything, because you haven't responded with anything to dismiss....

I just find it interesting that you continue to evade the questions asked of you, that's all. I would think after so many posts there'd be at least a few with substantive answers. Clearly, I'm expecting too much....
 
Yes you did, and yours and mine's personal opinion about why "you" think they didn't strike is irrelevant to this thread or the strike. It didn't concern you.

"I would have struck the day the new terms were imposed."
(I would have too...but it wasn't up to you or me)

Besides, this thread is NOT about your personal opinion regarding NW FA's striking (I suggest you start a thread if it is an important subject for you).

It s about the compensation levels of NW/DL FAs.

Excellent retort when your "facts" have been discredited by real facts. Keep up the good work :up:

You're trying to sell union memberships and supporting your argument with dubious "facts" prepared by the AFA, so of course you don't want to hear dissenting views on the value of the cowardly AFA (the one that did everything possible to avoid striking before the judge prohibited the strike). Good luck selling that cowardly union to the Delta FAs. :up:
 
I recall there was a 15 day notice that was required, could that have possibly been the "several weeks" you are referring? or did you simply forget to mention that along with your comments?

Negative. The FA union offered (despite no requirement to do so) to give 15 days notice. Then, the cowardly AFA self-imposed a moratorium on August 10, 2006 (date the war on liquids commenced). They realy didn't want to strike and it showed. If I were gonna elect a union, I'd at least want one that hasn't demonstrated its reluctance to exercise self-help when its contract was abrogated and the employer imposed its own terms on the employees.
 
Well, we have made some progress. You are going closer to a primary source instead of cutting and pasting something from an afa website, and you are also backing off of that silly costs to the company argument to try to prove "who makes more between NW/DL." (the AFA CHART came from the SAME SOURCE, and they ALL came from company SEC filings..so the joke is on you and your cooked up pay scale)

However, to be more correct, you should clarify your statement to "As clearly stated for 2007." Alternatively, you can state that NW flight attendants were compensated more than old Delta in 1997.

However, you are still trying to prove something in the present using stale data from the past which will not work.

Interestingly enough, if you dig further into the website, you will find this chart, Average Annual Wages and Salaries Flight Attendant Personnel, (NO IT DOESN'T CAUSE AS IT CLEARLY STATES"NO ADJUSTMENTS MADE" WHICH MEANS IT DOESN'T INCLUDE COMPLETE COMPENSATION) It muddies the water even more. (Your little side trick is correct IF DL FAs have 100% free medical, NO SS-offset and a host of other PAY differentials...which THEY DON'T)

In fact, it shows that in the 13 year 1995 to 2007 time period, the DL flight attendant average wage and salary was higher than the NWA average wage and salary in all years but 1995, 2000, and 2005. (The 2000 data is suspect. it show the DL average at $19,519 - over 18K less than 1999 and 2001). (SEE "NO ADJUSTMENTS" in BROAD capitol letters above your part compensation chart)

Going by the average salary chart, it would appear that your proposition historically has been wrong (except in 1995, 2005, and possibly 2000.) and trending toward being wrong in 2008.

So, in post number 62, your statement that "I guess this will put to rest who makes more between NW/DL" is still not true.
(KEEP TRYING...the horse is in rigamortis now)


My GOD...this is the worst stretch of a FACT that has been posted in ages. The FACT is the data posted proves NW FAs are compensated MORE than DLA FAs...in cold hard numbers in the most recent figures, NOT when NWFAs were working under BK imposed wages or DL was attempting to prop up wages to ward off a union.

Send your silly formula to the SEC where the info comes.
---------------------------

NW makes more than DL no matter how you cook it. That compensation COSTS the company MORE for your deposits. You can stretch it till the cows come home it won't change the FACTS and FIGURES. :lol:

Unless of course you are accusing Delta of sending FALSE information to the SEC..



NW-$53,797.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2007%20...rlines%2007.htm

DL-$48,937.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2007%20...rlines%2007.htm

"New Delta" has $102,081,000. (just to bring "old" Delta FA up to NW FAs current compensation level) reasons COSTS per year NOT to want a unionized FA group. (So much for empty DIRECT relationship rhetoric)
 
Excellent retort when your "facts" have been discredited by real facts. Keep up the good work :up:

You're trying to sell union memberships and supporting your argument with dubious "facts" prepared by the AFA, so of course you don't want to hear dissenting views on the value of the cowardly AFA (the one that did everything possible to avoid striking before the judge prohibited the strike). Good luck selling that cowardly union to the Delta FAs. :up:


Your irrelevant 2cents has nothing to do with the thread.
 
This really quickly devolved into a cost vs earnings debate. The original post said that the AFA chart should put to rest "who makes more." I still offer no opinion, except that the average employee (incl F/A's) could care less what it costs the company to have them on the payroll. Ask them what they make, and they'll respond with the hourly rate they get, gross/take home from their paycheck, or some other similiar number. Not many, if any, will even know the cost to the company of having them on the payroll and fewer will even care.

Jim


No opinion, "except".

Frankly, you don't know what a FA out of hundreds of thousands will say. I dare say there are far more involved in knowing what their pay and cost is than your dismissive post. Even more ridiculous is for you to assume that FA aren't interested in their "costs" to the company, especially when it comes to a raise or billions in forced concessions OF THEIR PAY. You speak as if they are so dumb they are not interested in the "costs" of their total compensation like medical, pension, 401k ect. Those are certainly costs to the company that every FA that I have ever known was aware of.

Your guestimation as to what FAs think is just that, as well as the ridiculous statement that costs is unimportant to pay.

I suspect if I asked a US Airways FA if they understood, and was interested in company costs and their pay they might differ with your statement.
 
Negative. The FA union offered (despite no requirement to do so) to give 15 days notice. Then, the cowardly AFA self-imposed a moratorium on August 10, 2006 (date the war on liquids commenced). They realy didn't want to strike and it showed. If I were gonna elect a union, I'd at least want one that hasn't demonstrated its reluctance to exercise self-help when its contract was abrogated and the employer imposed its own terms on the employees.
it was not an offer it was a required negotiated notice by the former association/company(it was not negotiated by the current association, they honored the language as they should)... the rest of your reply is just a personal opinion.
 
No opinion, "except".

Frankly, you don't know what a FA out of hundreds of thousands will say. I dare say there are far more involved in knowing what their pay and cost is than your dismissive post. Even more ridiculous is for you to assume that FA aren't interested in their "costs" to the company, especially when it comes to a raise or billions in forced concessions OF THEIR PAY. You speak as if they are so dumb they are not interested in the "costs" of their total compensation like medical, pension, 401k ect. Those are certainly costs to the company that every FA that I have ever known was aware of.

Interesting how you seem to use the terms pay and cost interchangably. Naturally, every dime paid in salary/benefits is a cost to the company and I certainly assume that F/A's (and most other employees) know what that amounts to (at least roughly).

However, there are costs associated with having any employee on the payroll that the employee never sees - be it on their pay stub, medical deduction from their gross pay, pension/401K report, etc. These are the difference between "how much do you make" and "how much do you cost the company?"

I'll make you a deal - ask the next 10 F/A's (or mechanics/rampers/pilots/etc) you see "How much do you make?" - that's the question you "solved" in the OP. Don't elaborate, don't ask "How much do you cost the company", or anything but "How much do you make?" If more than 1 out of 10 respond with "I cost the company $X a payday/month/year" I'll apologize and shut up.

I definitely don't mean to cast aspersions on anyone, much less F/A's. But personal experience tells me that nearly no one will count such things as payroll taxes or unemployment compensation contributions paid by the employer in their answer to "How much do you make?" Most won't even include pension/401K contributions made by the company (if that applies) or the company's share of health/dental insurance. I'd even wager that you don't know how much NW pays in unemployment compensation contributions - it's not listed on any pay/benefit document an employee would normally see.

Jim
 
There's one thing the AFA-prepared propaganda piece certainly puts to rest: The AFA is the most dismal of the flight attendant unions when it comes to pay/benefits.

According to the AFA, the most expensive FAs are TWU-represented WN. The next most expensive are the independent union AA FAs. Third place belongs to the IAM-represented CO FAs. Finally, the AFA-represented NW FAs, costing their employer $10,200 less than AA FAs and $9,600 less than CO FAs. The AFA represents the poorly paid US FAs, who cost US $10,000 less than the NW FAs cost their employer. And the AFA thinks this chart (with its mere 5% difference between NW and DL employer cost) is gonna sway any DL FAs its way?

Organized FAs may indeed make more money (not that this chart proves higher pay), but it's pretty clear that organizing with the AFA is the ticket to the poor house compared to representation by the TWU (at WN) or the APFA (at AA) or even the IAM (at CO). FAs at those airlines cost their employer substantially more than NW FAs cost NW.
 
There's one thing the AFA-prepared propaganda piece certainly puts to rest: The AFA is the most dismal of the flight attendant unions when it comes to pay/benefits.
so the financial crisis in the airline industry played zero factor and its all the Flight Attendants fault?