Yep, longer to hold a line with fewer choices to trade or pickup. Longer progression overall in a smaller fleet with snails pace delivery schedule that will surely slide in some form.

It'll be a revolving door at the bottom of both seats.

Hopefully there will be some tall fences for Alaska merger.

FENCES[/QUOTE]

You having this sort of hoping is certainly expected and understandable but preferably done in private and not expressed on online message boards. I’m sure you would prefer not to see what the AK group is hoping for.

Not too late to apply for Hawaiian. Could get that 787 after all :-)

They'll put in an order and have more folks on the plane than HA with our 12.

As a percentage, fewer will be flying it.

Fences work both ways... More importantly, they will ultimately be decided by an arbitrator so no reason to get personally bent if the 787s get split between the groups initially. Not something we can control. It will be decided based on the arbitrator's view of career expectations and past practice.

However I do have one serious question for those more educated on past-practice in previous ALPA-ALPA mergers with significant fences involved. What has happened in past merged groups during a cross-company displacement bid? For example lets say for the sake of argument that EVERYTHING is fenced for 3 years (not realistic, just to illustrate). Then lets say the combined HAL / ALK entity decided to close the entire HNL A321 base (again just to illustrate). Assume the juniormost pilot on the HA seniority list is an A321 FO (not actually true). Let us also assume he is SENIOR to the juniormost Alaska 737 pilot in the SFO base (again, for illustrative purposes only). How does the displacement bid work? Do the displaced A321 crews get to "jump the fence" if that is the only option available to them?

Send a dart! That’s JCBA language I’d think as popes to SLI (which I agree deserves very little analysis or presumption from those most affected).

Happened at United. Not on fenced stuff, but for certain bases and equipment that one side couldn't get on due to lack of vacancies. They would drop a fleet out of a base then reinstate it a month later.

Not a lawyer but that wouldn’t survive a grievance. There must be more to it.