Jetblue Counts Profit Sharing TWICE in Pay Review

[J32driver]

Can you tell me what 13 minus 10 is?

Can you tell me in %, how much bigger is 13 than 10?

This argument is a F&H Jedi mind trick. And you are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Smarta$$]

Really? That's your counter argument. Maybe this makes more sense to you....

Dave has a bag with 13 lollies in it and little Robbie has a bag with 10 lollies in it. Who has more lollies and by what %???

Answer: Dave has 30% more. Get it? If it's just 3% then let's just add 3% to your mortgage.

And how many more Lollies would rob need to equal Dave's?

 

[Smarta$$]

Can you tell me in %, how much bigger is 13 than 10?

This argument is a F&H Jedi mind trick. And you are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

It is 30% more. I have acknowledged that in previous posts. More to follow when I have the time.

 

[Smarta$$]

Okay, I see that you're confused. Let me try to help.

I drink 10 glasses of blue juice.

You drink 13 glasses of blue juice, and then run around and tell everyone that the blue juice here is so much better than the blue juice was at Mesa, Trans States, Gojets, Eagle or wheever you came from. The fact is, that you still drank 30% more blue juice than I did. It's not an interptetation, a nuance, or a guess. It's a fact. Math doesn't lie.

Real airline pilots (the guys who show up on time, shave, read the checklist, follow SOP, leave their skateboard at home, put their cellphone down during taxi, act professional, and try to raise the bar) understand this.

Too many blue glove SJS people at jetBlue don't, which is why we have the worst work rules, insurance, retirement, legal and merger protections, crew meals, rest rules, and the best free pizza, of any airline in our present peerset.

We are easily the dumbest pilots that I've ever been associated with.

Go jumpseat on United, Delta, Fedex, UPS or any other real airline and see if they can help you with the math.

Idiot.

I just finally had time to read this post in full. What ********************ing Bull$hit. Since you posted after me, I will quote for you from my previous post (before your post):

"Is 13% 30% higher than 10%? Yes. But the 3% number is clearly in reference to a 3% salary match...."

There is no doubt that on a PERCENTAGE COMPARISON basis, we are 30% (or more) behind on retirement.

My original post regarding 3% vs. 30% was in response to this (note the underlined):

"Bluejet says you are only 3% behind your peers because you get a 5% match plus 5% profit sharing for a total of 10%. (For those of you that are math challenged, that makes us 30% short of our peers... not 3%)."

The problem is that the 3% number and the 30% number are NOT interchangable. You cannot simply say that the 3% number is incorrect, and should be changed to 30%. They are in entirely different contexts and used in two DIFFERENT math formulas.

The 3% figure is used in a unit comparison, where 1 unit=1% of salary matching. This is THE standard unit of evaluating 401k retirement matching. Jetblue deposits 10% of your salary into your 401k. That is 10 units of 1% salary match. Industry average is 13%, or 13 units of 1% salary match.

13-10= a deficit of 3 units of 1% salary matching. (note the addition/subtraction math operation and the context of unit comparison)

The other method is to compare our retirement match on a percentage basis. This method has you compare 10% to 13% as the percentage of increase required to raise our retirememt contribution to standard.

This formula is a multiplication/division formula.

10%*1.3=13% which is an increase of 30%
----------------------------------------------------------------

For the stupid knuckle dragging Apes on here, I have NO problem with either way of representing the numbers. Both are 100% mathematically valid.

However, I have a problem with trying to interchange the numbers by saying 3% is wrong, and should simply be replaced by 30%.

They are to different mathematical formulas, using two different orders of operation and are used in two different contexts.

Period.

We are 3% behind on a unit basis, and 30% behind on a percentage basis.

Period.

 

[J32driver]

We are 3% behind on a unit basis, and 30% behind on a percentage basis.

Period.

This is nothing but anti-pilot semantics. We are arguing "input" vs. "results". The 401k "input" is 3 points low. The "result" is my 401k has 30% less $ on an annual basis.

The "result" is all that matters.

Period.

 

[Smarta$$]

This is nothing but anti-pilot semantics. We are arguing "input" vs. "results". The 401k "input" is 3 points low. The "result" is my 401k has 30% less $ on an annual basis.

The "result" is all that matters.

Period.

No its not. You can't simply replace 3% with 30% without changing the formula, math operation and the context.

They are both correct.

If jetblue increased your company funded match from 10% of your salary to 20% of your salary, would you complain that it should have been an additional 30%? Or am I confusing the different mathematical contextual ways of representing numbers?

 

[B6Busdriver]

And how many more Lollies would rob need to equal Dave's?

Stick to flying airplanes, obviously you slept through the most basic finance classes. Did they have those at riddle or just aircraft recon courses?

 

[J32driver]

No its not. You can't simply replace 3% with 30% without changing the formula, math operation and the context.

They are both correct.

If jetblue increased your company funded match from 10% of your salary to 20% of your salary, would you complain that it should have been an additional 30%? Or am I confusing the different mathematical contextual ways of representing numbers?

I just simply don't understand why this is such a challenge.

If the company gave us a 20% match:
$100,000 of salary puts $20,000 into my 401k.

20,000-13,000 (industry average) = 7,000 over average.
7,000/13,000 = 53.8%.

A 20% 401k contribution would make us 53.8% above industry average. If they gave us that, I would happily say thank you and understand that our 401k would then be above industry average.

 

[Smarta$$]

3% and 30% are not interchangeable. They are used in 2 different calculations. Both are 100% valid, and get the same end result. How can you honestly not understand the math?

 

[J32driver]

3% and 30% are not interchangeable. They are used in 2 different calculations. Both are 100% valid, and get the same end result. How can you honestly not understand the math?

The same end result is we are 30% behind in our retirement. Any misunderstanding with that?

What about my 20% contribution? Any math issues there?

 

[Smarta$$]

I have said many times that I agree. The 20% question was to prove a point. I am not confused or asking for help.

 

[curtaindriver]

I think you two nim-rods are arguing the same point!!

Just playing, either way we are behind our peers

CD

 

[Lake Alice]

I think you two nim-rods are arguing the same point!!

Just playing, either way we are behind our peers

CD

Ding ding ding

 

[1678]

3% and 30% are not interchangeable. They are used in 2 different calculations. Both are 100% valid, and get the same end result. How can you honestly not understand the math?

You guys are arguing the same Sh$%.

It is 3% difference based on what the $ amount of is taken from

• $100,000 + ($100,000 * 10%) = $110,000
• $100,000 + ($100,000 * 13%) = $113,000
• so a 3% difference contribution is correct

However;

• $13,000 is 30 % More than $10,000
• So 30% is correct based on $10,000 as a base.

and

• $10,000 is 23.1% Less than $13,000
• so 23.1% is correct based on $13,000 as a base.

Why do you guys thinks accountants and CFO always come up with favorably numbers....


Bottom line is:
WE ARE BEING PLAYED AND IT'S GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY.

 

[BeachBummer]

Dude! ...what's mine say? Sweet! Duuude....


No way.

You guys are arguing the same Sh$%.

It is 3% difference based on what the $ amount of is taken from

• $100,000 + ($100,000 * 10%) = $110,000
• $100,000 + ($100,000 * 13%) = $113,000
• so a 3% difference contribution is correct

However;

• $13,000 is 30 % More than $10,000
• So 30% is correct based on $10,000 as a base.

and

• $10,000 is 23.1% Less than $13,000
• so 23.1% is correct based on $13,000 as a base.

Why do you guys thinks accountants and CFO always come up with favorably numbers....


Bottom line is:
WE ARE BEING PLAYED AND IT'S GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY.