NW loss Widens

[jenny@nw]

The $100M in union busting money was spent before the bankruptcy. I doubt if its included. Remember the hotel that didn't get paid? How many other countless vendors had to take it on the chin when nwa went into BK? I think the balance of the union busting cash went into Dougie's pocket. You know...for a little walkin' around money.

Probably not included, most likely having it allocated elsewhere. Someone needs to keep their jobs at other's expense. :down:

 

[Don Smith]

Now, you can play with the inputs if you believe they do not represent a fair ratio of labor to vendor in the baseline. As a sensitivity, here is the savings if we assume vendor was equal to half of the labor in the 2005 baseline.

Baseline Labor - $400M
2006 Labor - $279M ($400M * (1-30%))

Baseline Vendor - $200M
2006 Vendor - $254M ($200M * (1+27%))

Baseline Total - $600M
2006 Total - $533M
Total Savings - $67M
% Savings - 11.2%

Now, I don't have exposure to the actual breakout of labor costs vs. vendor costs in the 2005 financials.

Heres a figure for you. nwa was allowed to outsource almost 40% of its labor. Do you think they only outsourced 25%? NO. They outsourced the entire 40%. They also pushed the envelope by outsourcing above the 40% mark. If you put it on a chart it would look like a wave crestint at around 50% and down to 38%...but never going below the amount the union agreed to. Their response when caught doing this..."file a greivance".

Also you can help me out Beanie since I only got B's in math. If baseline labor is $400M and you take 50 % of that at $200M. The labor done inhouse does not remain at $4ooM. It drops to $200M. The way your last figure is spewed out it gives a percentage of 150% for labor costs.
$200M for the vendor and $400M for the inhouse. I SMELL SMOKE. Its the smoke job you're trying to lay on us.

 

[local 12 proud]

I SMELL SMOKE. Its the smoke job you're trying to lay on us.

Don get a grip man! do you really believe some company bootlick bean counter would twist numbers to get favorable results?....

 

[Don Smith]

Don get a grip man! do you really believe some company bootlick bean counter would twist numbers to get favorable results?....

What was I thinking Local!! :blink:
I think he really believes the kimshee he's laying on us. I just felt it was time to get a shovel!

 

[Bob Owens]

What was I thinking Local!! :blink:
I think he really believes the kimshee he's laying on us. I just felt it was time to get a shovel!

Well you know how the saying goes "When you cant dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with Bull Sh#%$!

 

[finman]

Also you can help me out Beanie since I only got B's in math. If baseline labor is $400M and you take 50 % of that at $200M. The labor done inhouse does not remain at $4ooM. It drops to $200M. The way your last figure is spewed out it gives a percentage of 150% for labor costs.
$200M for the vendor and $400M for the inhouse. I SMELL SMOKE. Its the smoke job you're trying to lay on us.

I was giving an example of how the total expense cost/benefit calculation would work given a set of inputs. I don't know if the baseline is $400M labor and $200M vendor, which I clearly stated. I don't know what you are talking about with the 50% reduction in labor, since that was not an assumption I used (I used the 30% reduction referenced in the article).

I'm not trying to confuse the issue, but rather clarify how comparing the % increase in one cost item to a % decrease in another item does give an accurate picture of the net financial difference. You need to apply those percentages to the baseline values of each. Again, this is gradeschool level mathematics I'm explaining, which I had to do because of false conclusions that were made from the earnings announcement articles.

 

[jenny@nw]

I was giving an example of how the total expense cost/benefit calculation would work given a set of inputs. I don't know if the baseline is $400M labor and $200M vendor, which I clearly stated. I don't know what you are talking about with the 50% reduction in labor, since that was not an assumption I used (I used the 30% reduction referenced in the article).

I'm not trying to confuse the issue, but rather clarify how comparing the % increase in one cost item to a % decrease in another item does give an accurate picture of the net financial difference. You need to apply those percentages to the baseline values of each. Again, this is gradeschool level mathematics I'm explaining, which I had to do because of false conclusions that were made from the earnings announcement articles.

Again, it is not gradeschool mathematics used to get the outcome, rather it is just logic within certain parameters. Gradeschool mathematics were used to get the wrong answer.