Originally Posted by
Gspeed
It's very simple: it's because their analysis is based solely on publicly available data. They have no deep dive financials or costing because those are generally all sitting behind NDA walls. They don't even have access to seniority list info, demographics, etc.
Essentially, the MIT info is a best guess.
Good luck.
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:
...using the most reliable sources of public data available: U.S. Department of Transportation Form 41 (U.S. DOT Form 41) from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), and relevant filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).Consistent with airline industry practice, U.S. DOT Form 41 data is used to analyze aircraft and employee productivity, operational performance and other significant operational statistics. The SEC filings are the primary source of financial statistics.
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.
Originally Posted by
RJSAviator76
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.
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.
Originally Posted by
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.
You really are triggered, aren't you?