RJSAviator76

I like your RLA messaging and educating the masses. Your calculators are interesting... but your assumptions are too simplistic. It's kinda like myseniority and using it to predict upgrade times. Far too many variables - like for example when I was a newhire i.e. 15 years minimum to upgrade and 5+ years to hold ATL FO as a plug. Your spreadsheets are great, but your assumptions, particularly over the course of one's career are unrealistic because they're too simplistic. Now it's not a knock on you because it's rather impossible to predict. It would be helpful if you made your spreadsheets available so people can play with the numbers themselves.

Also, you tend to lose people when you kill them with the word salad. My suggestion would be to keep it short, sweet, simple, and to the point.

As for my political rants... yep, I've had a few and I'll still have them. In our context, it's to stop playing politics - left or right, and go back to running an airline because ours is falling apart and our focus appears to be on running a social justice PAC instead of an airline.

Prospect

You dare call into question the great Lewbronski? Stand by for a thesis with 15 ad hominem attacks implying you're a corporate plant or too inexperienced to know anything, 10 more straw men arguments, and several accusations that it is you and not he who is using all the logical fallacies. He'll throw in a bunch of data that is completely irrelevant to make his point. His gaggle of fan bois will follow suit with short one liners that make no sense.

fcoolaiddrinker

When you get a ta, which I’ll bet will be soon, every pilot can do their own math and vote. I wouldn’t really care to much if you believe the company can staff or not based on the ta. Just my opinion,

Mozam

You write a lot like flash15. AKA. TD.


Just saying

Lewbronski

Simply because information is publicly available does not mean that it is not credible. According to MIT's Airline Data Project (ADP) site, their analysis was developed:

While no source of information is without flaws, the folks at the MIT ADP clearly have enough faith in the publicly available information they used to describe it the way they did above.

Even an "expert" ALPA consultant cited the DOT Form 41 data to support her claims in a legal case from 2013 involving AA's acquisition of TWA. Apparently, ALPA's EFA committee didn't warn her away from pointing to the categorically "suspicious and unreliable," "just trust me bro" nature of the Form 41 data in her submitted testimony to the court. I'm sure opposing counsel was able to "laugh [her] out of the room" for using the mere guesswork that the Form 41 is.

OAG, the global travel data provider, uses DOT Form 41 data to "analyze U.S. airline industry trends, make cost comparisons, benchmark financial performance or plan future activity," They claim they deliver "accurate results" using publicly available information. Can you imagine if their customers found out they use "suspicious and unreliable," "trust me bro" publicly available data in their products? But wait, they tout that fact on their product web page. And they're still in business selling that publicly-available-information-dependent product.

But, digging around some more today, I did find that SWAPA's comparison of block hours flown, based on "DIIO" data, shows SWAPA pilots flying only 23% more block hours than Delta pilots. I have no idea if DIIO data is more reliable than the MIT data. But, apparently, SWAPA believes it is, so I'm fine going with that.

Just "for fun" (you hear that Prospect?) - "JUST 'FOR FUN'" - I modeled the rates it would take to achieve a 23% premium on Delta's 10-year career compensation assuming first available upgrades at both SWA and DL. They remain pretty eye-watering: for a 12-year captain, they would be $527/TFP at DOS and $566/TFP at DOS + 3 years. The rest of the pay table, as before, maintains the same ratios as the current SWAPA pay tables. On the other hand, SWAPA's data also shows that SWA pilots fly 83% more departures and 63% more passengers than DL pilots. I won't make charts based on those comparisons (yet) lest I make company apologists' heads explode with fear for the golden goose's life.



On the first point, that may happen. There is debate among my circle as to whether or not that's a good idea. And it's not a spreadsheet.

Brevity is not my strong suit. Also, a lot of these topics, especially the RLA, don't lend themselves to the style of Tik Tok messaging a lot of people these days prefer. It simply can't be adequately addressed, at least by me, in 280 characters.

Thanks for your feedback.

You really are triggered, aren't you?

mulcher

Yes, he does.

Gspeed

Lol. We all know it all until someday we see new info that shows that we didn’t. I know which side of that bridge I’m on, you may or may not figure it out at some point. While you’re at it, fire off an email to SWAPA’s E&FA team and inquire why they spend so much time with proprietary costing when they could simply use MIT’s data.

Godspeed.

Lewbronski

Never claimed to know it all. I said “it was the most recent and most credible information I could find.” Again, there are a lot of reasons to assess as reliable an analysis produced by MIT.

You only offered hearsay. I never asserted that you were wrong. I asked you to post your evidence here. A vague and non-specific claim that, at one point, you had some sort of relationship with ALPA’s EFA committee isn’t very solid proof of anything.

Why wouldn’t ALPA’s “expert” consultant use the ALPA EFA committee’s proprietary costing data rather than relying on Form 41 data?

I still don’t know for certain if the data SWAPA is using is more reliable than the MIT data. But, like I said, apparently SWAPA believes it is, AND it’s more conservative on the topic of block hours, so I went with it. It didn’t make a dramatic difference in the “for fun” rates I modeled.

If I thought I “[knew] it all” as you insinuate, I wouldn’t have spent several hours today trying to find data to prove or disprove the null hypothesis that there is no difference in reliability between MIT ADP data and other sources of data used to compare airline pilot metrics. I don’t think the question is cleared up at this point.

As I explained in another post on this thread, a former SWAPA official imbued with some credibility on their resume swore up and down that attempting to leverage the RLA was pointless because the President could unilaterally lengthen a Section 10 PEB and/or establish second or third consecutive PEB’s. They were wrong from the get-go.

Much like yourself, our former SWAPA official never produced any real evidence but instead just pointed to the supposed credibility in their background. No one ever fact checked this person until the last few years.

Word has started to get out that the myth our union official planted back in the 90’s was wrong the whole time. But it’s still impacting our ability to obtain an industry-leading contract today.

Our pilot group has likely lost out on significant gains over the last two-plus decades because we never demanded evidence. We simply swallowed the misinformation hook, line, and sinker.

So, I’m not going to apologize for asking you to produce real evidence for a claim that could have an effect on our negotiations.

Prospect

You called a SWAPA rep yet to figure out what they're hoping to get pay wise? Is that too much work? Or does the reality that your time is wasted with all your long-winded holier than thou posts scare you from confirming it's truth? Or perhaps only your data matters to you, and other data like that does not?

Busch

Show me on the doll where an industry leading contract touched you. Do you like your milk from the company bottle fed or straight from the tit? Are you spineless or should I blame our lagging contract on the likes of whatever you claim to be? What’s your deal and who do you represent? I think it’s fair to provide an explanation as to why you’re so opposed to what can benefit our pilot group.