Originally Posted by
jsled
DAL/NWA was done by a "Category and Status Ratio". Those are the exact words used by the arbitrator in the award. In other words, the combined group was broken into 4 categories...wb cap, wb f/o, nb cap, and nb f/o. The pilots were ratioed within those categories based on the number of pilots existing in each category/status before the merger. Quite different than just taking into account relative seniority within a straight seniority list. Interesting that the Alpa merger policy now has "category and status" as one of the criteria, as well as longevity. And both were added after UsAir and DAL.
By default, DAL/NWA was done on relative seniority. The comparable WB/NB ratios might lead one to believe that Category/Status ratio is referenced in their SLI. The disparagy between CAL/UAL WB/NB fleet ratios, don't allow fair juxtaposition of status and relative Sr.
Consider 2 factors. 1, Not all pilots consider super-long haul on the 777 desirable. Personally, I've spent way too many days with 17 hours at FL430. I could fly the 75/76 until I retire. I never want to spend more than 7.5 hours above fl280 again if possible. 2, CAL NB's pay more than UAL WB's, in most cases, anyway. The whole equipment argument is based on the premise that larger a/c pay better rates; not the case in this merger. My family would prefer I fly a SWA guppy or Jetblue A-320 above 80hrs than a UAL whale.
Lastly, I went through the UAL/AAA merger in 2000. It failed against popular coronation. I hope this merger fails as well, because there is nothing in it for the majority of my pilot group. I think that UAL could be a great stand-alone company with the best pilot group. But your management has neither the ability or desire to be the great airline that UAL should be. Fckng Shame. Bless us all.