Us Airways Flight Attendants' Decision
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
ITRADE
Veteran
And I'll bet you didn't have to wait long for an answer.....Or maybe your did.
Ahh, no, but thanks for asking
The US stock did go down. I sold. Nice 50% profit in about two days.
BillLumbergh
Veteran
Woah....Some one else deleted the last post which had the text deleted and closed the thread.....
Funny how so much is being made out of so little. All I see is:
1) PIT AFA (perhaps Teddy herself?) commissioned a poll to find out the stance of the members. A sensible thing to do before acting, particularly if one is committed to accurately representing one's constituents.
2) The results came back with 80+% against talking before hearing "the plan."
3) Teddy announces the results.
4) AFA MEC says that, scientific or not, the poll doesn't necessarily represent the opinion of AFA.
Given that AFA as a whole is not entirely made up of Pittsburgh members, that response is not surprising. The final decision is not Teddy's, nor is it her constituents'. It is ultimately up to all affected AFA members.
As a final note, yes it is interesting at times to see who posts what and when. It can lead to a great deal of speculation as to the parties hiding behind the handles. If it is true that the dirty laundry being aired on this board is the actual communications among US executives and union representatives, it reflects yet another reason why the airline is doomed. I sincerely hope that the speculations turn out to be incorrect.
1) PIT AFA (perhaps Teddy herself?) commissioned a poll to find out the stance of the members. A sensible thing to do before acting, particularly if one is committed to accurately representing one's constituents.
2) The results came back with 80+% against talking before hearing "the plan."
3) Teddy announces the results.
4) AFA MEC says that, scientific or not, the poll doesn't necessarily represent the opinion of AFA.
Given that AFA as a whole is not entirely made up of Pittsburgh members, that response is not surprising. The final decision is not Teddy's, nor is it her constituents'. It is ultimately up to all affected AFA members.
As a final note, yes it is interesting at times to see who posts what and when. It can lead to a great deal of speculation as to the parties hiding behind the handles. If it is true that the dirty laundry being aired on this board is the actual communications among US executives and union representatives, it reflects yet another reason why the airline is doomed. I sincerely hope that the speculations turn out to be incorrect.
To me the term scientific (bear with me;it's been a few years since Stats 101) with reference to polling means;
1. The sample was large enough and random enough to be a valid sample of the entire population polled, and
2. The questions were free of bias.
For instance, with regards to point 1, if the total population is 100, and comprised of 50 guys and 50 gals, a poll of 10 guys is invalid, as it is unrepresentative of the total population. A poll of 5 gals and 5 guys would be more accurate.
With regards to point 2, if the GOP called you up and asked, "If the election were held today, would you vote for our courageous Commander-in-Chief, or that more-liberal-than-Teddy, French speakin', Hanoi Jane smoochin' Kerry?", the bias would render the poll invalid.
Actually, if they asked, "If the election were held today, would you vote for Kerry or Bush?", that question still has an unacceptable level of bias, as it ignores Nader, the Libertarians (that one's for you, PB!), etc.
You'll see the confidence level in the poll expressed as "the poll has a margin of error of +/- x points." x should be 1 to 3 points, IIRC. As x increases, the value of the poll diminishes greatly.
Harris, AP, etc. work the stat models quite hard to produce accurate, scientific results. If AFA commissioned a reputable outfit to conduct their poll, I'd assume they work just as hard to produce scientific results, or they would not be in business for very long.
Also, in this context, scientific means an independent agency can replicate the results.
Again, the polling outfit would have to play straight pool here, or risk having the bejesus sued out of them.
1. The sample was large enough and random enough to be a valid sample of the entire population polled, and
2. The questions were free of bias.
For instance, with regards to point 1, if the total population is 100, and comprised of 50 guys and 50 gals, a poll of 10 guys is invalid, as it is unrepresentative of the total population. A poll of 5 gals and 5 guys would be more accurate.
With regards to point 2, if the GOP called you up and asked, "If the election were held today, would you vote for our courageous Commander-in-Chief, or that more-liberal-than-Teddy, French speakin', Hanoi Jane smoochin' Kerry?", the bias would render the poll invalid.
Actually, if they asked, "If the election were held today, would you vote for Kerry or Bush?", that question still has an unacceptable level of bias, as it ignores Nader, the Libertarians (that one's for you, PB!), etc.
You'll see the confidence level in the poll expressed as "the poll has a margin of error of +/- x points." x should be 1 to 3 points, IIRC. As x increases, the value of the poll diminishes greatly.
Harris, AP, etc. work the stat models quite hard to produce accurate, scientific results. If AFA commissioned a reputable outfit to conduct their poll, I'd assume they work just as hard to produce scientific results, or they would not be in business for very long.
Also, in this context, scientific means an independent agency can replicate the results.
Again, the polling outfit would have to play straight pool here, or risk having the bejesus sued out of them.
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Mweiss,mweiss said:
Why do you continue to imply that the poll was speculative.
The f/as were sent the co. plan through a slide presentation by e-mail. That's all they will get, and the co. will not put out anything. They just want us to the table.
This was a scientific random study by the Wilson Center and paid for and endorsed by AFA International.
This was NOT Teddy's study. However the PIT Pres. was asked what questions whe wanted posed in the study, AND SHE LEFT IT UP TO AFA INTERNATIONAL.
Read it and weep! AND YOUR FIGURES OF 80% IS WAY UNDER!
ps: One more side note...there was a survey done in early April conducted by AFA International that polled ALL 26 airline and their members. The poll AFA MEC is citing isthe results THAT study, NOT the additonal one PIT conducted. The reason the PIT Pres asked for the poll to be conducted again in her base is that THE SAMPLING FOR OUR F/AS AT U WAS SOOOOOO SMALL. Example: for PIT it was 34. Does that give you an inclination why the PIT Pres wanted a MUCH LARGER sampling for HER base?
Results were different.
You have a nice day, and don't waste too much of your time, you should be studying for your exams OR you'll never be able to find that BIG job you need
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Read the posts again. The f/as did see the plan through a slide presentation via e-mail. The co. has NO PLANS to show the employees a slide presentation through a road show.
It is basically the same plan as the webcast, only we are no longer compared to SW. Their labor wages and benefits are now higher than OURS!
It is basically the same plan as the webcast, only we are no longer compared to SW. Their labor wages and benefits are now higher than OURS!
