You are correct, and the MIT data should be used only when one can compare apples and apples. MIT uses Form 41 which is not pilot block hrs but aircraft. Given we augment a ton, you cannot look at the figures for block hrs per pilot per month and get an accurate reference of efficiency from it. Using their data we are down at 50 or so hrs per pilot per month, and SWA is at 65-68. If wrong given the fact that we augment.

You missed the point of my statement. (Or you're just trying to see if we'll buy off on a red herring.) As a reminder, I said: "Don't get so lost in the MIT data, sailingfun. There's more to the story than that."

The difference between sailingfun using MIT data and me using the data presented in the SWAPA/AirTran document is that the latter shows actual average pilot compensation, i.e. W2. Sailingfun's beloved MIT data comes from Form 41, which doesn't have all the context needed to determine whether it's really an "apples to apples" comparison of what one airline's pilots actually make on average versus another. The SWAPA data is actual stats showing what their averages were at the time of publication. The fact that it was presented in their AirTran Welcome to SWA sales pitch is irrelevant... i.e. either the data is correct or it is not. Are you saying it's incorrect and they just made up those numbers? If so, I'm assuming you have proof of that, right?

Question for Alan Shore: do you still purport to be a neutral, average line swine... and not a connected DALPA insider?

I think we all know the answer to that.

Why don't you grow up? Can't you see the adults are having a conversation here?

You know, I don't remember exactly what you said and I'm not going to take the time to sort through multiple pages to try and find it. I vaguely remember the post I think you're talking about and I also vaguely remember thinking that you wrote it in a way where it was wide open to creative interpretation. In other words, more of the same kind of political doublespeak legalese that I get from my reps. That's probably why I never responded. Care to try again?

I think PD has a legitimate point there. If "Alan" is not a well connected DALPA insider, he sure has the talking points down to a science. Or maybe he's just Lee Moak's doppelganger? ;)

I always find it interesting how when someone can't intelligently discuss the issue they try to redirect the conversation towards the poster, or who he may or may not be.

I think it's important to know a poster's position. It's completely obvious that you and Alan Shore have an agenda here. At least Alan tries to dispense good advice between the "non-talking-point-talking-points" he posts here. You appear to contribute nothing save the company/DALPA party line.

You had 10 posts in a row earlier today spewing alibis for DALPA's inability or unwillingness to man up on C15.

There is no doubt that I am a greasy line schlub who demands accountability, transparency, and performance from "my" "union." That is my agenda.

Why are you and Alan Shore (and shiznit, herkflyr, sailingfun, et al) so clearly opposed to disclosing your (insultingly obvious) agendas?

Do you want less money and time off than we rate? Or are you a management type who makes good money no matter what contract we negotiate?

No he doesn't. He has nothing to add, so he resorts to name calling and conspiracy theories. Frankly, I don't care whether Alan is an insider or not. Maybe you believe it better if all the "insiders" just clam up so you and purple and Carl can overrun the conversation. I don't know. If you want to discuss the issues, fine and I am willing to do that but when his childish ramblings are interjected they add nothing. You just like what he says because he's on "your side." I don't like what he says, because frankly it's juvenile the majority of the time which is why I have had him on ignore since before the wonderful banishment period that ended all too soon.

Both have actual numbers and averages, and neither provides the context from which those averages are derived. For example, when the Form 41 shows that the average pilot salary at Airline X is $100K, was that airline overstaffed such that there was little to no overtime to be had and everyone was at a low ALV, or was it the opposite?

What was the staffing situation at SWA at the time that those averages were derived? How much overtime was their average pilot flying? Was that overtime equally available to all, or did some bases do much better than others?

You have repeatedly held up this pamphlet as a proxy for the value of their contract, yet we now know that, due to their staffing changes, there is less overtime available today. Yet, their contract itself has not changed.

My point then, is simply that the MIT Form 41 data has neither less nor more validity and context than the SWAPA infomercial.