Dogleg and Cpdude:
Dear Commawnder Dogleg:
You are absolutely correct. I am indeed looking at the senior F/O rates.
As you say, this is misunderstood. And evidently Cos 99 is not the only place to find clarification on this point. Hmmmm...
I did as you suggested, and here are the results:
For scenario #1 - No upgrade. F/O for life
Cos 07 = $-163956 as compared to Cos 99 - Ouch!!
For scenario #2 - Upgrade in year 5
Cos 07 = $-33048 as compared to Cos 99
For scenario #3 - Upgrade in year 3
Cos 07 = $+25716 as compared to Cos 99
As I studied this, the Master Warning and Too Good to Be True lights were both flashing. That's why I brought it to pprune.
So if what we're saying here is true, you didn't burst my bubble at all. You provided just the sort of correction I was looking for. Thanks for that!
And if this is the best the AOA can manage after MONTHS of discussion with the company, I have even less faith in them than before!!!
I'll keep reading both Cos's for illumination. But in the absence of the type of benefit we've discussed here, two questions arise:
1. What current CX demographic WOULD benefit measurably from Cos 07?
2. Why would ANY current CX pilot, much less a majority of AOA members vote to approve Cos 07?
Call me crazy, but CX management isn't stupid. They wouldn't throw a stinking turd on the plate if they didn't believe that at least 1/2 of us would eat it.
I believe in the final analysis management could just impose Cos 07, and the AOA would sit in the corner sucking its thumb.
I still have the feeling I'm missing something...
(sound of shuffling papers)
Dear Commawnder Cpdude:
It appears dogleg has shown me the error of my ways. And I agree with the rates you detailed for your sample progression. Mine was a pretty fundamental error - and a very critical one, at that. Any ideas on the two questions I posted above to dogleg?
baseddude