Originally Posted by kc135driver

No and I think your numbers are a little off. Hired in 1999. As of when the merger was announced (the second time), May 2010, I had almost 8 years on property and a little over 3 years furlough. So compared to a 2005 CAL hire I had twice as much time on property. How that balances against a min-time CAL captain, those are not the details I'm trying to posture on here. There is a give and take for sure.

Personally, I fear being integrated so far back in the pack that any career advantage I originally had as a younger new-hire in 99 is completely wiped out by a younger group of CAL new-hires in the 2005-2007 range. Everybody likes to point out the large,steady wave of retirements over the horizon, but for me and many in my range, I will NEVER make it up.

I know most of you guys don't want a staple job, anymore than I'd want a DOH situation. It is not right. Problem is, and we all know it, both of our MC's will argue from these extreme positions, giving the arbitrator a pretty wide range to miss and get it wrong, in my opinion. It is basic arbitration theory, the closer the sides are going into arbitration the more equitable the decision. Sorry, I don't buy into the theory floating around here that it is all out of hands. BS! It is and will be in the hands of our elected reps.