Originally Posted by Lewbronski

I’m not saying it’s not “significant.” I’m not saying we shouldn’t leverage it.

But I am saying the credible threat of a strike is much, much more significant in terms of leverage than even more than one pilot per day leaving.

The cost to train one pilot is ~$50K. So, let’s say the rate of attrition is now up to 1.33 pilots per day. Even at that rate, a strike, just in the simple terms of straight lost revenue, costs the company 977X more than pilots leaving right now. If the rate of attrition increases to two pilots per day, a strike costs the company 650X what pilots leaving would cost it.

How many flights per day are being cancelled per day as a result of pilot attrition versus how many flights per day would be cancelled per day as the result of a strike? I don’t know the numbers on lost revenue per day as a result of attrition, but I think it’s safe to assume it would take A LOT of flights cancelled per day to begin to approach the financial impact of a strike - probably many, many more flights per day than may be being cancelled now as the result of attrition.

Just saying, it seems like our primary focus as a pilot group is fixed upon a source of leverage that is hundreds to thousands of times less powerful than the credible threat of a strike. It seems to me like we’ve got it backwards.