Of course they don't publish it. It is proprietary, highly coveted, and valuable. They will release it to certain company financial analyst personnel when in the course of assisting a represented pilot group's bargaining. Even then, they will only do so when it is protected by NDA. They obviously release it to union personnel that are assisting with the bargaining process as well.

If SWAPA wants access to those types of analyses then they must hire E&FA to do that work. The APA has done this frequently in the past. I assume that SWAPA has paid a third party to do some sort of contractual deep-dive cost analysis on your current contract and any requested changes. If they have, then you can attempt to get that data from SWAPA, though they likely won't let you have it without you signing an NDA.

All this goes to say is that your well-intentioned posts are basically based on "trust me bro" numbers. You think you're doing your pilot group a favor by "educating" them, but you're likely not. You're swaying them based on your assumptions and the numbers from suspicious and unreliable sources.

SWAPA should be communicating these types of things to your pilot group. If they aren't, then you possibly have bigger fish to fry.

So basically you are saying "trust me bro" to not "trust me bro" Lew?

lol get out of here.

Swapa does have its own E&FA people…in fact, all of Swapa’s people are usually the smartest people in the room since the union actually collects and tracks data…while, for some reason, the company does not.

Im not asking you to trust me with anything. I’ve worked directly with E&FA on multiple projects over the years and have seen the data with my own eyes. Lew’s approach might be noble but it is not reliable. Do with that whatever you want.

That’s good to know. I would assume they did but didn’t know for sure.

Garbage in = garbage out. We both know that.

Lew means well, but he goes off on tangents that take away from his message.

SWAPA has some fantastic E&FA folks and I trust them to present the right thing. Some people can't seem to let go of the past and the garbage that the old guard was, and though I understand their concerns, I don't care to listen to the constant whining about how we're gonna be sold a bill of goods.

Support SWAPA, go to pickets (when you're off probation) or volunteer if you're around, stay engaged, don't be afraid to ask difficult questions, and vote accordingly. If you think another airline is a better fit, it seems that we have become an unofficial flow through partner of Delta Air Lines. Nothing wrong with that either.

Interestingly, CM made the first public statement last night in ATL last night implying that SWAPA is indeed looking for rates higher than 737 rates.

"Company is going after 737 rates, not looking at matching rates of bigger aircraft".

.
You still haven’t explained why the data from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Airline Data Project is a “suspicious and unreliable” source. Again, maybe it is and maybe ALPA’s data is more accurate.

But it’s not like a project produced by MIT comes with a baked-in assumption of dodginess and inaccuracy. It goes without saying that MIT is one the world’s leading research universities. It has produced game changing technological innovations, is affiliated with 100 Nobel Prize laureates and has 10 Nobel Prize laureates as current faculty members.

Here are the bio’s of the MIT folks behind the Airline Data Project. I don’t read those bio’s and think to myself, “Yes, these people clearly wouldn’t know what they’re talking about. They are as ‘suspicious and unreliable’ as all get out.” Do you?

So, again, I’ll ask, why is the MIT Airline Data Project considered “suspicious and unreliable”? Maybe it is. Maybe you know something that’s not immediately obvious or you have access to inside information that would establish why what you’re saying is, in fact, the case. If so, please post your evidence here. But, so far, you’re making a “Trust me bro” claim that you have yet to back up with anything but your own hearsay.

And, if you can establish that MIT’s information is “suspicious and unreliable,” I’d be happy to redo the one chart that I produced based on the MIT numbers that demonstrated the TFP rates that would be required to achieve a 30% premium over Delta. All of the other charts have been derived entirely from the official SWAPA and DALPA pay tables. Or are those pay tables also suspect?

Thank you RJS for the pat on the head.

Can you please be more specific with your constructive criticism of my “message.”? It’s not like I go off on partisan political rants. So, what is it you don’t like?

Prospect, for example, really, really, really didn’t like that I made a “for fun” post that showed it would take $600/TFP to achieve a 30% premium over Delta at 10 years. If I recall correctly, you didn’t like that I produced some charts going out to 30 years. You said they weren’t realistic or something. I don’t remember exactly. Can you refresh my memory?

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.

For me....many posts seem to be very long winded. I'm just not going to devote 20 min of my life to read it. I've read the RLA stuff....but the collegiate essays aren't really needed on a public forum....that's more for a publication like the RP. So if you're gonna post a 1200 word response....at the end do a TL:DR paragraph. Lol

Other than that...I like most of the stuff you put out.