Originally Posted by Theoden

So Higney other than you people daring to use your date of hire as your date of hire, what other anomalies were there with your list?

Also, and I know it's not really a point or a debate anymore, just more curious than anything, but what is the deal w/ the 9E SLI proposal? I can't see how a 6 year 9L guy should be lower than a 1 year 9E guy. The category class system doesn't make sense to me as I've heard it described because it seemed to rank jet FOs as a category above turboprop captains. It seems to me that if you were going to use that system, it would be jet CA, Prop CA, Jet FO, prop FO. At our company where we have jets and props, nearly every Jet FO is junior to every Prop captain. In all the years of XJ having both jets and props there has never been a wave of pilots bidding out of prop CA seats so they can be Jet FOs. In fact it's been exactly the opposite. So there's no reason to believe that it will be that way in the new company and the alleged 9E proposal doesn't seem to make any sense.

Of course the problem with the 9L proposal was that it implied that a 30 year pilot was the same as a 7 year pilot. At least with their method no one would have a huge loss, though. The problem with our straight DOH method is that it creates a huge loss for Colgan captains. Another issue is career progression with XJ parking Saabs, but that gets muddy with the flow through and one or two other considerations. It's a turd burger trying to come up with something fair. If I had to choose one I probably would have choosen Colgan's.