Originally Posted by dracir1

Then you can take umbrage w/ me because it's just not true.

First, from a common sense standpoint, the notion that a non-viable company (in ANY industry) is one worthy of comparison for wage bargaining purposes is asinine. If NK ever was our peer, that ended a while ago. If AA were to declare bankruptcy twice in the same year (and the company furloughing and looking to offer further concessions) with an industry posting double digit margins, do you think the UA pilots would be comparing their company to them at the bargaining table? C'mon now bro, this is so ridiculous, it shouldn't even have to be mentioned.

Second, NK and F9 are similar in that they are both ULCCs and while you are correct in that we have been trying to emulate their product for a while, peer groups share way more than bag policy and seating arrangements. NK's network and product are significantly different. TBH, NK is a better model - they are just the victims of bad timing and shoddy aircraft construction. NK has wifi, big front seats and more frequency/redundancy in their network. Their app is better. About the only area F9 exceeds NK is in the rewards and CC programs (and even that is debatable). In almost all other areas, F9 is a step below NK in terms of product. F9 and NK are essentially 2 different airlines that offer similar priced items but are no more similar than SWA and JB (and I'd dare you to try and convince a SWA pilot that JB is their peer). In fact, NK is probably closer to JB than F9.

It would be safe to say that F9 really doesn't have a peer group given the unique LACK of services and product.