Fair criticisms DK.
To give you an idea of where I am coming from. When I look at long term projections, I look at the previous projection estimates that are then tested against what actually occurred. An excellent example is
Infrastructure Australia 2015 Population Estimates The report goes into meticulous detail and audits their previous estimate performance, and show their methodology.
The issue is that projections are highly sensitive to initial input conditions and assumption in the later years of the projections due to the compounding and magnification of small initial errors. This is why ANY modelling is fraught with error. Its also why weather forecasts are so short range.
If I don't see a review of previous forecast performance, I am therefore suspicious of motive. I still contend that Boeing would be much happier to over, rather than under estimate demand for labour. There is little upside for them to under estimate demand.
The small print from the
Boeing 2016 Pilot Forecast
The statements contained
herein are based on good faith
assumptions and provided for
general information purposes
only. These statements do not
constitute an offer, promise,
warranty or guarantee of
performance. Actual results may
vary depending on certain events
or conditions. This document
should not be used or relied upon
for any purpose other than that
intended by Boeing