- This topic has 688 replies, 98 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
- Posts
For customers i had customer satisfaction ratings measure, innovation i had more seat classes, internal i had ground changeover time, financial i had revenue per flight/revenue per customer
Trar was higher than 1 in both situation (3 stylist). Breakeven + profit = 18k
Incremental budget in MCQ
Environmental cost captured – right, second wrong
in B Q1 – actual learning rate higher, that mean that actual incremental time lower, and price should be lower
in B Q5 – mix yield F , near 1500 in mixes, 9k in $- Topics: 0
- Replies: 10
- ☆
Very fair paper….but the throughput a/c question was just a mess….
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
i got 5, to 6 answers as D option,, was confused why those comming so,, paper was balanced and variances was easy part, and balance score card
@Gvtftf with the HL method the fixed costs worked out at $3,200 and the variable were $8 so to put it into an equation the total costs are 3,200 + 8x. How did you get 52x?
I found it quite hard. Some of the MCQ were easy and some of them quite difficult. Both my TPAR were under 1, I think 0.7 and 0.8 something. The learning curve was tough when you had to calculate the rate… and the balance scorecard…. well………… Will be sitting again in June me thinks! The variances and the relevant costs were nice though.
Michele variable was higher than 8 – ultimately
smth like
400 – 37k
460 – 40k
60=3k near 52x
I choose 52xWhat about sales manager in Q5? Quality decrease with change in mix, and he couldn’t control this, however he maybe was able to change price in respond to customer opinion, and reduce adverse variance. )))
Exactly, the answer was with 52x obviously.quality was higher so he had to sell more by better advertising, maybe
If ingredient mix is adverse, yield is favorable as a result of higher quality
3E was 123
Relevant costing 9400 or 9600, don’t remember, I think if you make a mistake in some notes, it is only 1-2 mark.
Sales manager again. Materials more expensive (A), more mix than standard. However in case he received claims from customer about quality, and some claim to reduce price
The question about 3 Es
Economy than it was effectiveness and than efficency.
I think it was option A
Anyone?
I got 9455 plus 10 percent absorption 10400 in total. I think that variance question could be analyzed from various perspectives
I messed Q1 and Q2. Expecting maximum of like 8 or 9 marks.
But The other 3 hoping to do well. And Mcqs minimum of at least 11 to 12 right.
If not Welcome JUNE 15 haha!!
What did you get for relevant costing? Also we can discuss mcqs that interest you
The questions that are interesting for me, feedforward control, D and A, and 52x in high low method
Relevant costing was nice question as I practised that and also exact same question of balance scored came in June 13 paper and I practised that too.
Mix and yield was straightforward I think.
Discussion was I think alright. As you could have talked about mixing of poor and cheap quality hence more yield and less quality.
Even the managers point could be justified.
But question 1 part a I done
Part b I left it out
Q2 I done part a describing bottle neck
Part B haha. I done normal TPAR.
Ignored the 2nd bit of the questions as in maximising bottleneck
- The topic ‘*** F5 December 2014 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***’ is closed to new replies.