Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Jetblue Counts Profit Sharing TWICE in Pay Review

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
I have said many times that I agree. The 20% question was to prove a point. I am not confused or asking for help.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

We are 3 basis points behind PLUS jetblue needs to restore our former profit sharing plan.

If not then we are closer to 8 to 10 basis point behind in retirement and PS.

Since 2007 when PS was used to fund retirement Jetblue would have at least provided 3-4% in additional PS on top of what should have been a 13% QRP.

This is where the double counting begins.

Jetblue says that PS is retirement.

Okay then we need a new PS plan.

Jetblue then says you alrealdy have a PS plan and it is guaranteed.

But it is Retirement?

Yes!

Then we need a new PS plan.

You already have one and it is guaranteed.

And so on and so on and so on.

5 years later this pilot group is still lost in the woods and likes it that way.
 
We are 3 basis points behind PLUS jetblue needs to restore our former profit sharing plan.

If not then we are closer to 8 to 10 basis point behind in retirement and PS.

Since 2007 when PS was used to fund retirement Jetblue would have at least provided 3-4% in additional PS on top of what should have been a 13% QRP.

This is where the double counting begins.

Jetblue says that PS is retirement.

Okay then we need a new PS plan.

Jetblue then says you alrealdy have a PS plan and it is guaranteed.

But it is Retirement?

Yes!

Then we need a new PS plan.

You already have one and it is guaranteed.

And so on and so on and so on.

5 years later this pilot group is still lost in the woods and likes it that way.

Obviously I agree. However, the original post made it seem as though this was part of some NEW pay review process. Where is it?
 
Obviously I agree. However, the original post made it seem as though this was part of some NEW pay review process. Where is it?

"The Rob" has indicated that the current, agreed upon process belongs to Mikey B and isn't going to be honored "on a go forward basis" because Mikey B isn't here anymore. Sounds like a good way to treat your pilot group, doesn't it?
 
"The Rob" has indicated that the current, agreed upon process belongs to Mikey B and isn't going to be honored "on a go forward basis" because Mikey B isn't here anymore. Sounds like a good way to treat your pilot group, doesn't it?

Is this a serious post? How can you read my post, and think this actually answers my question?
 
Is it any wonder the JetBlue pilots couldn't agree on the *(#$%ing color of the sky, let alone a math problem or which road to go down.

Sometimes it is a little embarrassing.

Here's a little advice.

Enjoy your life and family.
Come to work rested, prepared, and on your game.
Keep the customers happy....(we all have our way of doing it, but it starts with the best flight you can provide) They will keep coming back and allow you to continue to draw your pay and therefore allow you to enjoy your life and family.
If you can't come to work and do it properly, without an attitude, don't come to work and ruin it for the rest of us. Stay home, use some vacation or PTO, or quit and find something to do that makes you happy.

Rant over.

A350
 
Don't bring your Jetblue religion or MWW talking points to the flight deck.

It works both ways ladies.

Don't spread your false beliefs about Values and I will not have to point out the reality that you are just King Sh!it of Turd Island. I'm sure that works for you, so, good for you,
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top