Very accurate. Oddly, less accurate in vacancy and displacement bidding for some reason. Sometimes just wrong even. I’m not a true math guy so I can’t elaborate on that one.
an example of how it works. One of thousands of inputs might be to search for the phrase “for the good of the company” of variations of those words with the same context. Tha’ts one input. What people say.
It matches those keywords in what people say and what people do, and a bunch of other factors they call regressors into our fancy thingamajig.
It doesn’t matter if you’re saying that you would do x or vote for x or run the apu or expense a meal, etc. Although those provide some slightly valuable data, just the occurrence of “for the good of the company” in any discussion indicates how often you even consider concept as an input for your decision, whether you eventually and individually agree to it or not. The number of times it comes up. Not even the context. Crazy powerful, eh! Just you using that phrase opens up a world of info on you. That's one tiny tiny tiny little piece of a mega machine.

Are you starting to see yet why you don't understand 1% of management? This is one example on top of the others I gave you. Stop trying to be a manager, there are other things you could spend your energy on to help yourselves.

We look at what people do. That’s easy. We have all that data since it’s ours. No bots needed. Do you refuse this non-c seat, expense dry cleaning at every instance or just some, call payroll in a given scenario scenario, etc.
From there, we leverage or don’t leverage that info.
I’ll even share some data.
We’ve discovered that you guys have a very low level of making contractual decisions “for the good of the company.” Understandable, but keep in mind, you’re part of the company. You get profit sharing. Your groups general attitude with this metric is to cut of your nose to spite your face.
We use the C-64 for other things too, not just contract discussions. So In terms of daily operations, you have a fair- moderate level of acceptance of “for the good of the company.” Think policy, not contract. APU usage. Accepting a non-contractual DH seat if it will cancel or delay a flight. Accepting a non-c seat if it won't affect a flight doesn't get tallied into that particular metric, since it's wouldn't be categorized as "for the good of the company"

This absolutely effects contracting and policy. If you did some things for the good of the company, just a little more, we would all gain in either efficiency or revenue, and you’d actually end up better off from the whole. Look up “Tragedy of the Commons” But I completely understand why you wouldn’t in contracting times. Some others, you probably already give a little too much “for the good of the company” It’s just the nature of life.
I would love to see the data on similar items, from SWA, and see how their finances benefit from some of these regressors, but alas. I do not get to peek up their skirt.
Changing behaviors? Hard, and not my department. Getting you guys to realize you’d make more money by no doing stupid things for yourself. Not my job, but I wish you would for your bank account and mine. That’s hard anyway and takes time. I see the $Cheddar impact though, and historical data. Your data on this regressor went up a lot after Oscar, and you guys don’t realize how much that affected your profit sharing in a good way. Significantly. You helped yourselves out by changing your culture under Oscar. You profited. A really decent amount.