|
SLI compromises
Just a few thought on ratios: No matter what the final list looks like, the average ratio of DL/NW pilots will be approx. 7/5 or 1.4/1. With that fact in mind, it is just a matter of applying ratios within the combined list to reflect or equalize the underlying demographics. My opinion only, but the most DL would plausibly compromise on the top of the list, which is 1.6/1 -which is the ratio of all WB pilots (DL/NW), would be a list constructed on strict (or nearly so) category positions. For example: 237 NW 747 capt./ 193 DL 777 capt. = 1.22/1 followed by 280 A330/181 767-400=1.54/1 for an average ratio of 517 NW/374 DL= 1.38/1. This, rather self-evidently, results in 517 NW pilots and 374 DL pilots in the top 891 positions at the combined airline. This ratio would address exactly the larger amount of flying NW brings in those.... (need I insert an adjective!?)...categories, as well as the greater short-term attrition at NW. Looks good so far for NW, but that rationale and resulting favorable ratio at the top comes unavoidably, and ultimately -mathematically, at a price. To be technically correct, Delta has 639 captains in a wide body category that NW does not have, ie. 767ER. But let's ignore that, for the purposes of speculating on a compromise by DL, and follow the NW proposition that their 757 category should be treated as "equal" to the entire DL 767/757 category (intnl. & dom.) This would result in 1420 DL to 447 NW capt. which equals a 3.17/1 ratio -unavoidably, in DL's favor. Quite a "hit" for NW on that one, but it only reflects exactly, in terms of numbers of specific quality pilot jobs, what we each brought to the merger. (and does so rather compromisingly, equating the NW 757 narrowbody dom. to the DL 767ER widebody international) As for the rest of the list, one can ratio various combinations of 737/A320/M88-90/DC-9 but overall the ratio would be close to 1202 (DL 737,M88) to 1039 (A320,DC-9) which equals 1.15/1 in DL's favor. All these category/ratio combinations average to the mathematically neccessary 7/5 ratio. Notice this smooth ratio toward the bottom of the list does away with the 400 NW pilot staple, to be replaced perhaps, by a fence containing that risk. Also, the the widebodies at the top would be fenced (but not the 767/757) for say, 5-8 yrs. I haven't by any means thought of all the contingencies, ie. aircraft deliveries/retirements etc. BTW, this proposal would result in a 2% relative loss of seniority for me. |
well thought out but I think nw is more likely to compromise at the top of the list. Why? Well, most of our top 700 guys are already in the seat they want. The Dal captains that are already on the 777 most likely won't bid the 747 or the 330, at least for the forseeable future and most of the top 1000 nw guys will be out of here in the next 5. So, if you put a 777 1985 captain in front of 1980 whale captain, who cares? Neither will affect each other in category and so there is much room for compromise. I.E if you're a 57 year 330 captain and you bid number 20 in DTW and number 500 overall putting a 1985 777 captain in front of him would not affect his life whatsoever as that 777 captain isn't leaving atl for the 330 in dtw, well, probability would suggest. Ergo, we have a lot of room at the top of the list to compromise.
|
Opus: No! absolutely not! You can't have less guys at the top of the list! We want less guys up there! The next thing you'll want, no doubt, to take even further advantage of DL.. -is more guys on the bottom!;):D Honestly though, Opus, I understand your point, although I do not agree with your assessment that the majority of your top 1000 will be gone in 5 yrs., since no one (except F/Es) will turn 65 for at least 4 more yrs. As long as it is understood, by both groups, that their current status quo of seniority cannot/will not be sacrificed, then it is a matter of what method of protecting that status quo is least "risky". DOH w/fences is an attempt (by definition) to protect the "non DOH" group's relative seniority, implicitly acknowledging the list's inherent unfairness. But in my opinion, it only produces or protects a "temporary" or "apparent" seniority, a precarious seniority that is subject to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". DOH would be extremely divisive. The length and complexity of the fences needed is, as well, divisive(literally),-and severely restricts flexibility, and invites controversy and conflict. True, absolute seniority is relative! Seems contradictory, but it is true. It is "absolutely" relative within the group where seniority rights are exercised. In this merger, both groups can and should expect to maintain, as a minimum, per ALPA merger policy, their present status quo of seniority. It is my opinion that, rather than risk the current and future seniority of an entire pilot group, and subject both groups to lengthy and controversial fences, the risk should be shouldered by as small of a group as possible. By Jan. 1, 2017, the demographics show that NW will have retired, by age 65, approx. 300 pilots more than DL--of pilots hired through 1991 and prior.(ie. -of pilots currently in the "upper half" of each list) Surely this "demographic discrepancy" or "expectation" can be addressed reasonably through adjusted ratios/limited dynamic lists/shorter,simpler fences etc. |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 494264)
Opus: No! absolutely not! You can't have less guys at the top of the list! We want less guys up there! The next thing you'll want, no doubt, to take even further advantage of DL.. -is more guys on the bottom!;):D Honestly though, Opus, I understand your point, although I do not agree with your assessment that the majority of your top 1000 will be gone in 5 yrs., since no one (except F/Es) will turn 65 for at least 4 more yrs. As long as it is understood, by both groups, that their current status quo of seniority cannot/will not be sacrificed, then it is a matter of what method of protecting that status quo is least "risky". DOH w/fences is an attempt (by definition) to protect the "non DOH" group's relative seniority, implicitly acknowledging the list's inherent unfairness. But in my opinion, it only produces or protects a "temporary" or "apparent" seniority, a precarious seniority that is subject to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". DOH would be extremely divisive. The length and complexity of the fences needed is, as well, divisive(literally),-and severely restricts flexibility, and invites controversy and conflict. True, absolute seniority is relative! Seems contradictory, but it is true. It is "absolutely" relative within the group where seniority rights are exercised. In this merger, both groups can and should expect to maintain, as a minimum, per ALPA merger policy, their present status quo of seniority. It is my opinion that, rather than risk the current and future seniority of an entire pilot group, and subject both groups to lengthy and controversial fences, the risk should be shouldered by as small of a group as possible. By Jan. 1, 2017, the demographics show that NW will have retired, by age 65, approx. 300 pilots more than DL--of pilots hired through 1991 and prior.(ie. -of pilots currently in the "upper half" of each list) Surely this "demographic discrepancy" or "expectation" can be addressed reasonably through adjusted ratios/limited dynamic lists/shorter,simpler fences etc. Good thoughts but I am wondering why you are picking Jan 1 2017 as a benchmark for retirements? As has been stated many times before, pre DAL's pilots retirements don't start really kicking in until a little later but then out distance pre NWA's by a fair amount. That's the problem with a dynamic list or fences based ONLY on nearterm retirements. Delta guy |
Originally Posted by Cogf16
(Post 494440)
Wiggy,
Good thoughts but I am wondering why you are picking Jan 1 2017 as a benchmark for retirements? As has been stated many times before, pre DAL's pilots retirements don't start really kicking in until a little later but then out distance pre NWA's by a fair amount. That's the problem with a dynamic list or fences based ONLY on nearterm retirements. Delta guy |
Based on rumors and common sense.
If a compromise is reached before December 20th, expect ratios close to Delta's SLI proposal. There will be no dynamic anything. Once the list is published, that's it. Status Quo is the primary factor driving SLI methodology for both the MEC's, their negotiators and the arbitrators. Ideally, perfect status quo alleviates the need for fences since perfect status quo results in both sides being where they are currently - no changes. Since this merger started there have been many pilots, who see what their longevity would hold at Delta and have been dreaming of moves to the left seat of a widebody category for a whole lot more money. If this is done right, there will not be a whole lot of movement. Remember, status quo is the goal ... same as you have now. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 494671)
Based on rumors and common sense.
If a compromise is reached before December 20th, expect ratios close to Delta's SLI proposal. There will be no dynamic anything. Once the list is published, that's it. Status Quo is the primary factor driving SLI methodology for both the MEC's, their negotiators and the arbitrators. Ideally, perfect status quo alleviates the need for fences since perfect status quo results in both sides being where they are currently - no changes. Since this merger started there have been many pilots, who see what their longevity would hold at Delta and have been dreaming of moves to the left seat of a widebody category for a whole lot more money. If this is done right, there will not be a whole lot of movement. Remember, status quo is the goal ... same as you have now. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 494671)
Status Quo is the primary factor driving SLI methodology for both the MEC's, their negotiators and the arbitrators.
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 494671)
Ideally, perfect status quo alleviates the need for fences since perfect status quo results in both sides being where they are currently - no changes.
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 494671)
Remember, status quo is the goal ... same as you have now.
Carl |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 494798)
I agree, 100%. Take care of the "now" being fair rather than attempt to make the future come out as you would like it or as you think you are "entitled" to have it come out. Current seniority preservation has top priority, and is common sense.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 494833)
I agree. Date of Hire is the perfect status quo since both sides' seniority lists are made up predominately of Date of Hire.
Yup. Who needs fences when everyone gets to keep their status quo Date of Hire. You bet. Same as we have now...Date of Hire. Carl Do us all a favor...... Please flush the toilet after you use it. I am not interested in seeing that "turd" you call Date of Hire anymore on any posts. That type of pontification is as offensive to me as Delta's MEC proposal is to you. I promise to always flush from now on if you will....Thanks. :D Cheers:cool: |
Originally Posted by Selcall
(Post 494840)
Carl,
I am not interested in seeing that "turd" you call Date of Hire anymore on any posts. That type of pontification is as offensive to me as Delta's MEC proposal is to you. I shouldn't mention Date of Hire anymore because Selcall thinks it's offensive? Delta's cherry picking ratio is far more offensive. But I would not consider telling any Delta pilot that I don't want to see it mentioned anymore. Get the hell over yourself. You're an internet character - not a moderator.:cool: Carl |
You are right Carl I am not a moderator. My apologies for even thinking I could come close to your ability. I will make sure to quibble in the future so I completely understand my place within this interent board. I just find your statements lacking any real understanding that the position of "Date of Hire" as a tool to intergrate two seprate seniority lists into one is extinct in today's world.
The chance of "Date of Hire" being a reality is like you finding the Holy Grail. Good luck in your quest. I understand that both MEC's positions are highly offensive to our respective pilot groups. Let me make it more clear for you then. You are beating a dead horse on a tireless argument that I truly believe is very close to be negoitiated to an final end by both our repsective MEC's. If we follow ALPA National's Merger Policy between two ALPA carriers then you must be aware that Date of Hire is not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Director's at ALPA National. Have fun on that "Super Premium Widebody". See you in ATL. :D |
Gentlemen,
May I kindly suggest a "knock it off"? We've beat this horse to death. We've each picked our respective gladiators and thrown them into the ring. In the end, I hope they decide to shake hands and live to fight side by side another day. If not, then they'll fight it out. In any event, we're in the grandstands now, and it serves no purpose to continue the fight up here. It will be over soon enough, and regardless of the outcome, I hope we all consider ourselves on the same team going forward. PG |
Originally Posted by Selcall
(Post 494848)
If we follow ALPA National's Merger Policy between two ALPA carriers then you must be aware that Date of Hire is not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Director's at ALPA National.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 494873)
If we follow ALPA merger policy, ratios are not even a part of that policy approved by our Board of Directors. But I'm sure you knew that.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Hawaii50
(Post 494876)
Why not enlighten us on what the policy does say?
Carl |
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 494852)
In any event, we're in the grandstands now, and it serves no purpose to continue the fight up here.
Why not? It works for English soccer hooligans:D |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 494798)
I agree, 100%. Take care of the "now" being fair rather than attempt to make the future come out as you would like it or as you think you are "entitled" to have it come out. Current seniority preservation has top priority, and is common sense.
Your argument is flawed. You want to protect current seniority, and not base it on what "might be" in the future. However, you also want to "protect" DAL guys from the rumor(or so called threat) that ALL the DC9s will be parked. Well, there will still be more than 400 pilots worth of DC9s flying after Christmas, so therefore there is NO NEED to protect DAL pilots. Any further DC9s parked will be AFTER the SLI. If you protect DAL pilots from the DC9s, you are doing it based on something that MAY happen in the near future. That of course is irrelevant, as we are making a list based on the NOW. |
Here is ALPA's merger policy. The arbitrators have agreed to produce a list that abides by this merger policy.
“a. Preserve jobs. “b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other. “c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living. “d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status. “e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.” |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 495108)
Here is ALPA's merger policy. The arbitrators have agreed to produce a list that abides by this merger policy.
“a. Preserve jobs. “b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other. “c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living. “d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status. “e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.” |
How about DOB instead of DOH. Then we would all be #1, or close to it, for at least one day.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 495002)
Your argument is flawed. You want to protect current seniority, and not base it on what "might be" in the future. However, you also want to "protect" DAL guys from the rumor(or so called threat) that ALL the DC9s will be parked. Well, there will still be more than 400 pilots worth of DC9s flying after Christmas, so therefore there is NO NEED to protect DAL pilots. Any further DC9s parked will be AFTER the SLI. If you protect DAL pilots from the DC9s, you are doing it based on something that MAY happen in the near future. That of course is irrelevant, as we are making a list based on the NOW.
Yes, you are responding to DL's opening position, I am assuming the negotiations have gone well beyond that.(both sides) I was speculating on what possible compromises are out there. I speculate that the risk associated with the DC-9 "problem" could be addressed through limited fences, which would confine the risk to the group that brought the "problem" to the merger. Yes, it is speculating about the future demise of the 9', but short-term (3-4yrs.) fences (which may never need to be "used") confines the risk in the most innocuous (or risk-free) manner, that is, without permanently jeopardizing the current or future relative seniority of the bottom 400 NW pilots..... ...... Can anyone at NW make a proposal that does not permanently jeopardize the current and future relative seniority of the ENTIRE DL pilot group, without completely fencing off the entire airline (effectively, NOT merging the pilot groups, and effectively, heaping ALL the risk of future contingencies upon the DL group) for 10 or more years?...(and guaranteeing a divided, contentious pilot group)....Surely such a solution exists, and surely the fundamental principle of any such solution lies in preserving each group's pre-merger status... (right out of ALPA merger policy)...that is, --preserving each group's overall, current, relative seniority..... -then attempt, (not guarantee, because we can't guarantee anything in the future) to preserve career expectations for the (very) limited demographic that needs it. -And surely, Johnso29, you will forgive me for calling you "Shirley".;) |
Why not just go straight to the "How much you bench?" solution? Darwinian solutions always win out over time.
|
Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel
(Post 495330)
Why not just go straight to the "How much you bench?" solution? Darwinian solutions always win out over time.
|
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 495334)
I like this idea, maybe a drinking competition. Remember Raiders of the Lost Arc where Miriam went shot for shot with that Huge Nepalese guy. Thats is how we'll organize the SLI. Last man standing is Captain of the 747, first guy down is FO 767 NYC.
with a straight shots competition you have to watch out for the clown that switches the vodka with water... |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 494836)
Absolutely. And there is no fairer concept to ensure "current seniority preservation" than preserving each employee's Date of Hire. There is nothing unfair about giving each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company.
Carl Carl, -you sly sage of cyberspace, you clever, crafty conjurer of controversy, indeed -you whittling whit of word-play, you wriggling, wearisome wooer from the well-positioned, and all-around wily wisenheimer of the world wide web,---you tricked me!! Now, why'd you go an' do a thing like that? Well, let me see what I've got up my sleeve..... ....Let's see, if we give "each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company" - which I agree with, Carl, but then first, shouldn't we see what that "credit" amounts to for all those "DAYS" spent in "his/her" company? For a Sep. 1985 DL hire, his "DAYS" earn him, or "credit" to him, a junior 777 capt/ senior 767-400 capt. -international, "super premium" widebody variety. For his date of hire equivalent at NW, his "DAYS" "credit" him a mid-seniority A320 domestic, narrow-body capt. -of the non-international, non-"super premium", non-widebody variety. (these, of course, are stovepipe positions). It seems one pilot has "earned" more "credit" in the same amount of time than the other pilot. Should the one be penalized for bringing, and having more 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline, and the other rewarded for bringing, and having less 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline? Or do you think the 777 is equivalent to the A320? (A DL 777 equivalent to a NW A320?) P.S. -Carl, you are confusing longevity with seniority. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 494836)
Absolutely. And there is no fairer concept to ensure "current seniority preservation" than preserving each employee's Date of Hire. There is nothing unfair about giving each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company.
Carl |
When is the next round of arbritration hearings........we need something new to "discuss":D
|
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 495566)
When is the next round of arbritration hearings........we need something new to "discuss":D
|
I have tried to stay out of these discussions but oh well here I go.
Bucking Bar says that we (NWA) should basically accept the ratios because they are "fair" Carl says we should except DOH cause that is "fair" Well as we all know life is not fair and we all need to compromise. As a 1999 hire that would be Jr. to a 2007 hire I am not a big fan of ratios. Even though it lets me hold the same narrow body FO seat I hold today. I think I should have some protection of my (I hate the term) career expectations. At NWA I will retire in the top 30. If we go the ratios I wont crack 1000, so there is definitely some damage done. Of course a straight DOH with fences benefits me more so I am in favor of that. However I think there is a compromise out there. I would think a simple 7 to 5 ratio would be that compromise. Or I would even go with a straight ratio by where you are at on your SL. I.E. 15% at NWA then I would be 15% at the new DAL. I gain some in the short run lose some in the long run. The DAL MEC could throw the NWA guys a bone on this that would help get it done. Since July when the SL at each company was locked in NWA has had about 200 retirements or about 4% of the list (200/5100). So take a new snapshot that has NWA with the same number of total pilots about 5100 but with a newly computed SL as of DCC. i.e. the bottom guy would be 4900 out of 5100. Then refigure the ratios based upon the new list. For example I would go from about 14.5 to 17.5%. I would retire at 500 to 600 versus 200 with straight DOH. The caveat would be no one could move up more than 4% or DOH. I would put the NWA guys hired after 2001 in a straight DOH or a 7 to 5 ratio. Bottom line is we are all not going to get what we want and need to work together so in the end we are all a little ****ed but unified. |
Your ratio concept is the offer that DALPA made last spring. It was a straight relative ratio. Everyone stayed almost exactly where they were relative position. Since it was offered then I suspect DALPA would take it now if NWA agreed. I don't however think such an agreement will be reached.
|
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 495210)
...... Can anyone at NW make a proposal that does not permanently jeopardize the current and future relative seniority of the ENTIRE DL pilot group, without completely fencing off the entire airline (effectively, NOT merging the pilot groups, and effectively, heaping ALL the risk of future contingencies upon the DL group) for 10 or more years?.. I've already made one, but you all hated it because it didn't involve surrender. A great compromise would be a straight ratio right down to the exact .0000001% with dynamic seniority based on ACTUAL attrition. If I recall, the average negative response was: "as long as the dynamic seniority involves everything that could possibly be anticipated now and in the future." Carl |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 495616)
Your ratio concept is the offer that DALPA made last spring. It was a straight relative ratio. Everyone stayed almost exactly where they were relative position. Since it was offered then I suspect DALPA would take it now if NWA agreed. I don't however think such an agreement will be reached.
|
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 495541)
Carl, -you sly sage of cyberspace, you clever, crafty conjurer of controversy, indeed -you whittling whit of word-play, you wriggling, wearisome wooer from the well-positioned, and all-around wily wisenheimer of the world wide web,---you tricked me!! Now, why'd you go an' do a thing like that? Well, let me see what I've got up my sleeve..... ....Let's see, if we give "each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company" - which I agree with, Carl, but then first, shouldn't we see what that "credit" amounts to for all those "DAYS" spent in "his/her" company? For a Sep. 1985 DL hire, his "DAYS" earn him, or "credit" to him, a junior 777 capt/ senior 767-400 capt. -international, "super premium" widebody variety. For his date of hire equivalent at NW, his "DAYS" "credit" him a mid-seniority A320 domestic, narrow-body capt. -of the non-international, non-"super premium", non-widebody variety. (these, of course, are stovepipe positions). It seems one pilot has "earned" more "credit" in the same amount of time than the other pilot. Should the one be penalized for bringing, and having more 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline, and the other rewarded for bringing, and having less 'credit' or seniority from "his/her" airline? Or do you think the 777 is equivalent to the A320? (A DL 777 equivalent to a NW A320?) P.S. -Carl, you are confusing longevity with seniority.There is an inherent fairness in giving each employee credit for every day that employee has worked for their pre-merger company. You must cross a very high bar to overcome that. In the previous distress mergers with DAL, you easily overcame that because there was no arbitration. America West was able to overcome it by showing USAir as an all but dead airline. I don't think you guys successfully showed that with NWA - although your team sure tried. Each merger is different and there are many ways to overcome any unfairness involved with DOH. But DOH as a methodology is time tested, with a very long history. Does it get chosen as the method of construction in our case?...anybody's guess. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 494836)
Absolutely. And there is no fairer concept to ensure "current seniority preservation" than preserving each employee's Date of Hire. There is nothing unfair about giving each employee credit for every DAY that employee has worked at his/her pre-merger company.
Carl
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 495561)
You have got to be kidding....
If the roles were reversed, it would be beyond you too. Carl |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 495616)
Your ratio concept is the offer that DALPA made last spring. It was a straight relative ratio. Everyone stayed almost exactly where they were relative position. Since it was offered then I suspect DALPA would take it now if NWA agreed. I don't however think such an agreement will be reached.
The only thing I've heard is that the ratio was a very "inventive" one based on DAL getting credit for all their options, and NWA getting no credit for their firm orders. But since I've never seen that one either, it's as much BS as the DAL "offer." Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 495650)
America West was able to overcome it by showing USAir as an all but dead airline.
Carl You need to take the emotion out of it and look at the facts. Discussing the AWA/USAir merger: NWA ALPA Merger Committee News Update Mike Lazarowicz Chairman Steve Mayer May 15, 2007 Member Lane Kranz Member "Some US pilots have been “shocked” to see that their DOH of 1985 puts them in the same group as AW pilots with a DOH of 1998. Removing the emotion and looking at the facts, a US pilot with a DOH of 1985 means that he was a very junior Narrowbody Captain at US. And looking at an America West pilot, hired in 1998 means that he is a junior Captain. On the combined list, each of these pilots is in the exact same, relative position. If you were furloughed on the old list, you are still furloughed on the new list. If you are recalled, and choose to return, you will be a junior F/O for a long time. The same conditions held true on the previous US list. Conclusion Mr. Nicolau was charged with deciding a case that was notably difficult, but he used ALPA Merger Policy to lay the framework for his decision. " |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 495656)
I am absolutely NOT kidding. I'm amazed that you would think it unfair to want credit for every day that you've worked at your pre-merger company. There are plenty of creative ways to ensure that no NWA guy benefits at the expense of a DAL guy and vice versa. How you could think that preserving credit for your working time is a joke, is beyond me.
If the roles were reversed, it would be beyond you too. If you were merging with USAir east would you want DOH? Preserving credit for the time you have worked is meaningless. My neighbor has been at ASA longer than I have been at DAL. Should he go ahead of me on a combined ASA/DAL list? Even he thinks that is bullsh*t. How long you have been at an airline doesn't tell us anything. Where has the time at your airline landed you, that's all that matters. |
Originally Posted by Xray678
(Post 495666)
How long you have been at an airline doesn't tell us anything. Where has the time at your airline landed you, that's all that matters.
|
Originally Posted by Xray678
(Post 495666)
If you were merging with USAir east would you want DOH?
Preserving credit for the time you have worked is meaningless. My neighbor has been at ASA longer than I have been at DAL. Should he go ahead of me on a combined ASA/DAL list? Even he thinks that is bullsh*t. How long you have been at an airline doesn't tell us anything. Where has the time at your airline landed you, that's all that matters. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:24 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands