T, when you are talking about various airlines' growth potential, are you referring to growth of stock price or growth of mainline fleet?

I feel your pain bro.

But its probably not fair to use that past performance as a future indication. 14 years means about 2000 hire. Since then there has only been 4 years of hiring in that 14 years until early this year. 10 years of stagnation and half a decade of furloughs. That 14 year block is likely not represenative of the next 14 year block for a new hire hired today.

I think if a new hire can pass up an opposite coast upgrade for a while and is willing to be a reserve or junior line holder for a while, DL is a pretty good choice for many with west coast ambitions given the trend we're seeing. While its subject to change, so are 100% of the alternatives.

Yeah I tried that this month by bidding reserve with Xs at the end. I have been off since Monday, and I am off the rest of the month. My category hasn't had any GSs all month to speak of. Prolly none gonna come my way either.

Yup. UCAL is giving up gates in LAX, isn't even trying in SEA, but does remain in SFO.

That was one of the funniest analcyst articles I've read in a very long time.

So DL's refocus in BOS (I'll believe it when I see it by the way) is good for JB because its going to hammer JB and force them to change almost everything about their business model (did you see he even put "fleet simplification" in there! LOL!) so let's price that in now. :D That's good stuff. I mean that's really good stuff.

Growth of earnings which would come from growth of fleet (whether it be organic or codeshared) Yeah I know we don't like codeshare, but I am talking about their ability to grow earnings which attracts investors. Dividends and a good balance sheet will only go so far. They have to grow or else the big money will eventually abandon ship for companies that are growing earnings at a higher rate which translates to a better stock price. So.... The pilots' scope clause is onerous to allow much growth going forward. They need to provide some sort of product that they do not now offer. (1st class, international... something) The only way out of it is to add a second or third aircraft type.... or... get rid of the scope clause. But to answer the question more directly, I am looking at it from an investment perspective which will drive management's tactics. They are handcuffed by 2 things: Their fleet (the 737 is played out in all the markets that make it efficient, and profitable markets are all drying up) and that scope clause. Something has to give.....

Yeah I thought it was an interesting angle. Hey, give credit for trying to spin some positive....."your car broke down on the freeway....what a blessing in disguise...after walking 10 miles to a gas station you will gotten a great cardiovascular workout!" :)

Just passed 13 years on the 73 in LAX. Currently at about 67%. I was at 40% back in 2008.

Ok Buzz,

I have yet to understand why we continuously move backwards in this time of hiring and new captains (over 500 according to people on this board). I actually dread AE's because I inevitably move backwards on every AE for nearly half of a decade. I was also exactly 40% in 2011 and am now 60%ish. Why exactly is this happening? at this rate you will be displaced out of LA by 2017. Does this concern and/or surprise you.

Just venting not trying to bring doom and gloom to the west. I'm sure it is better that seems.

Close to 14 years & at 70% on 737 in ATL.