I was in a similar situation 1.5 years ago (AA gave me a class date while I was in Delta indoc). QoL was by far my #1 concern. I left Delta for AA because I wanted to live in Tucson and be based in PHX, and because the greater retirements looming at AA. Both factors weighed heavily in my decision, so I left Delta. Not having to wear a hat is a bonus!

One thing I learned is that when you consider communting, try to get very specific intel. For example, I thought that communting PHX to LAX would be easier than TUS-LAX. However, there are so many people trying to do it, that it offsets the greater number of flights and broader time ranges. Everyone I have talked to doing that commute hate it, but TUS-LAX was easy.

It wasn't all rosy, though. I had to spend the night in LAX once or twice a month (including the crew room twice when there were no close hotels available), and the last flight left around 7pm. In contrast, the last LAX-PHX flight was after 10pm.

I also recommend getting specific data on the seniority in the bases you want to end up at. They vary a lot, and that will make a big QoL difference. Investigate things like how easy is it to pick up, trade and/or drop trips, how much premium available in a base, how many redeyes, how many commutable trips, etc.

All that said, we don't know what bases will close, how contracts will evolve, etc. Both jobs will be great, and I won't second guess my decision. (Although it does sting a little when profit sharing time hits).

FWIW, while there are plenty of things that need attention in our contract, the pilots I fly with don't let it impact our trips. Same thing goes for the different tribes at AA. The crews have been great!

A buddy of mine was in the exact same position, AA class date one month out, DAL was a month and change. He decided to go with AA because of the retirements. My thought is that you're good to go either way, both are great companies.

Great problem to have.. but honestly most the arguments people will make don’t mean much unless you have less than 10 years till retirement..... culture, pay, contacts, bases, economy, fleet sizes, routes ( maybe not as much but to a certain degree), management, will all be different come 7-8 years from now. It’s a forever changing industry.

The way I see it, the best choice is the one you think will be around for your entire career. If you think they both will make it the distance, then go with the one that gives you the best QOL. usually that means whichever one has a base or even bases (just in case one of them closes) that you wouldn’t mind living in or commuting to. Good luck!

My ignorant/biased decision...... AA, they have a cool paint job :D

Rsv days at delta is different. Minimum is 12 days, but...

If is a 31 day month = 1 extra day
Average Line Value below 75:30 = 1 extra day
20% extra staffing in category = 1 extra day.

It can go up to 15 days in a 31day month. Usually is between 13 and 14 days off on RSV.

I listed advantages in my previous reply but forgot to add one point which would be my deciding factor. If one of the companies has a domicile in a place where I'd love to live, that would be my choice hands down. On average, working for any major airline is going to pay (significantly) more and you'll work less than any full time flying gig you've previously held.

If you're a commuter you are likely giving back anything from 4-8 days/month depending on your commute and tolerance for risk. If you're in base you will have the chance to make the job even more financially lucrative by being available for short notice premium trips or bidding up a category where you wouldn't mind sitting reserve from your couch.

Without a crystal ball, living in a place I like would be my #1 priority if I had calls from multiple legacy airlines.

I’ve commuted. It’s an additional 6-7 hrs time lost before the trip and 4 hrs after the trip for commutable trips.

Living in a junior base that has w/b flying to Europe and Asia is the best deal. But ‘junior’ and ‘Asia’ are oxymorons. So pick Europe trips as the next best option.

This right here! I left AAL to leave behind a commute. If I wanted to live in CLT/DFW/MIA/etc..., I would have stayed at AAL. At DAL, I'm able to live within short call range of a big/relatively junior base that has a decent amount of WB flying. This has allowed me to jump to the WB way junior (90+%) and still have an amazing QOL. I'll likely jump to captain much quicker than if I had to commute as well. Either way this means a significant increase in career earnings AND time at home. I understand for some it's too late as roots have been planted, but not commuting feels like an entirely different job.

At AA we throw stones at living in DFW but there are lots of nice areas to live very near to the airport (10,15,20 minutes). It’s a completely different life than living 1,2,3 hrs away by car and light years away commuting.

Look at the financials of the two carriers. Look at innovation or lack thereof. Seniority may move faster at AA, but it won’t mean much if the company ceases to exist. Delta has historically been conservative and it has served them well. AA has been up big, but also down big, with morale to show.

DL’s fleet age was 17.0 yrs last summer. AA’s was 10.8 yrs.
That gap doesn’t come for free. What will DL’s balance sheet look like when they start updating their fleet and reduce it from its industry lagging position? It’s all a trade off in choosing one path over another from a corporate management decision.

Thank you, Slice. Few have pointed out these buisiness decisions. Newer fleet comes with additional purchasing costs. Older fleets come with more maintenance and fuel consumption. Eventually, older fleets have to be replaced.

Two major airlines have different strategies at the moment. (Things can change over time.) Which is better will be played out over the next few years.

No disputing those facts, however, I’ve heard the 88s are paid for by the 9th or 10th of each month and the rest of the month is pure profit. The one department of ours that is consistently forgotten about and underestimated is our TechOps. There’s a reason they were selected by Pratt to overhaul over 5000 engines as a part of our NB Airbus deal in December.

Also, because of our lower debt we have a better credit rating than similar airlines which in turn helps with lower interest rates on new jets. No doubt our debt may increase in the next 5-10 years but it won’t be dramatic, if things stay the course like it seems to be.

I agree, tech ops makes money, replacement for the 88s are on the way and I think we will stay on the 8-10 billion debt. Even if we go up to 15, still half way of UAL and AA.

Our CEO(AA) addressed the debt situation and basically said “ why take $ that is invested at 8% and pay cash for airplanes , when you can leave it alone and finance them for 3%” I suppose we will see if that is a sound biz decision !

How much cash does AA have invested at 8%?

Maybe they’re counting their anticipated returns on their stock buybacks.

AA has been around a loooong time. They ain’t going anywhere. DAL could pay cash for airplanes with all the stock buybacks they have done.

Not to say anything about AA's future, but that line smacks of a lack of knowledge of the history of this industry.

There are plenty of reasons to say a company isn't going anywhere... they've "been around a long time" is not one of them.

As could AA with the $9B buyback program they started in 2014.

UAL has had some of the most inept management in the last 30 years. They are still here. Many airlines have had equally inept management. They are still here. I don’t know how long you you’ve been in the business but in the right now snapshot, AA is probably as good a bet as any. But that’s just my 30+ years in this business. What do I know.

In the ‘right now snapshot’ when in the past has the industry ever looked like it does right now?

That’s not predicting any airline’s future is guaranteed but an evaluation of the relative, and probable risk, has to include how much the industry has changed from 5-10 yrs ago.

The industry, and life, require risk assessment and prudence. But a number at a Big 3 airline right now is probably the safest bet in the history of the airline business.

I would agree with that. The right now snapshot might be largely different in 5 years. (Ask me how I know).
Having said that. I would take the earliest class date offered unless a home base option is available at one over the other. Even then I would still grab the first brass ring and jump ship if the home base airline offered. Just my opinion.

Given the current climate, I still think AA is a long term player as they have been. DAL as well.

I said I wasn't saying anything about AA's prospects, just that the phrase "they've been around a really long time" is meaningless when it comes to an airline's success. Plenty of "really long time" airlines aren't around anymore.


I get it, you're touchy about AA... but I only talked about using that phrase lightly like that, not AA's prospects in and of itself. You should have seen enough of that in 30+ years.

I have. Not touchy about AA. Even worked there and left for what I thought was a better option for me. My point is in the current climate, I personally wouldn’t pass up AA given no other option as I think their long term prospects as good as any of the big 3. If both choices are on the table, pick the one with a home base option. I will stick with my assertion that AA is a long term player as are the other two.

Probably about as much as 30+ year TWA, Pan Am, and Eastern pilots before their worlds came to a screeching halt. Not flinging mud, just my interpretation of what is likely a fact most of us don't want to acknowledge.

Those companies had to deal with going from complete regulation to the free market.
If the ban is ever lifted on cabotage, you will see a similar seismic shift in the pilot world that happened in the early 80's.
The only thing that is completely predictable is unpredictability.
Good luck to us all, and support ALPA PAC.

Pan Am, Twa, Eastern and others were victims of deregulation (and the introduction of LCCs) At the time they were dying AA was going to a 500 plane fleet (heavily domestic) and hiring 120 pilots/month. AA was there then...they adapted and survived where some didn’t. I suspect they have as good a chance of being around in the future as UAL, DAL.

American Airlines Is Still Wasting Investors' Moneyhttps://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-airlines-still-wasting-investors-010500477.html

So much for adapting!

You're making my point for me. None of those guys saw deregulation and the following carnage coming. Maybe the next 50 years will be nothing but roses but more than likely something will happen to make all the know-it-alls scratch their heads and say WTF was THAT?

You could well be right. I guess if any of us could predict those kind of thing we should probably be doing something other than flying airplanes. I will still maintain that a job with AA is no less a risk than a job with UA or DL. Time will tell and I suppose this industry will be no less a rollercoaster than it has been. Given the OP question...again for me it would come down to a home base option if one is available.

50 years is a long time.... Amazon could invent a transporter machine next year and everything would change...... or age 75 for retirement, or cabotage allowed, or martian attack. Capitalism ensures that companies are continuously looking at ways to do things cheaper/better/with less labor so this job (at the major level at least) will always have potential wolves nipping at your heels.
People need to fly from LA to Boston for $99 each way!

Wait until the public accepts a single pilot up front. I'd bet a beer it won't take 50 years.

The status quo of two pilots upfront is safe for another 20-30 years especially on the PAX front. I’d bet a case of beer on that.

With FedEx and UPS recently spending billions on new 70s/80s technology jets, and no single pilot jet of that scale out there. You can bet it won’t hit cargo in 20-30 years either. It’s more about proven reliability than cutting edge in cargo.

The economic incentive really only exists when going from 2 pilots up front to none. Or so I’ve been told.

And you’re still going to need pilots, they’d just not be in the plane, and maybe monitoring a few planes at a time. Another example, RPA’s in the Air Force are not “drones” they are “remotely piloted” and they have not just a pilot but a sensor operator, so what 1 guy does in the F16 is done by 2 people in an RPA. I just don’t see this as a major cost savings, not for a long time at least.

Delta for sure

Have you taken a real look at Great Lakes?

You’ve got driverless cars killing people, save your beer.

Delta hands down