Some may be familiar with the DL/NWA alignment but for others it wasn't a pure "relative" integration. Certain pilots (mainly the top end where there was a significant imbalance on DOH due to early retirement buyouts) were removed, list created on relative seniority per each percentage block, followed by those "top end" manually inserted with fences on the 777/747(787). This DID result in multiple arbitrations. Everyone was a little ticked, which means it was done right, yet lessons were learned on that as well as to future mergers. Folks, we are next up. Should go even better. Nobody can expect a leapfrog, just as nobody can expect a staple. When all is said and done if you are in your same seat, same base, bidding in your same percentile range, it was done right. Just make sure you update your system bid of where you want to end up as time goes on and movement continues.

 

The whole problem with this discussion is the disparity with DOH on each list.

If you look at the bottom 50% of each list they are similar DOH wise and percentage wise, but the top 50% of each list makes it a little different.

A 7 year 9E guy sits at 21% and at Mesaba 38% (if someone can give me the seniority number of a 7 year (as of this month) Colgan guy, I'll put their percentage here)

If you take that and apply it to the 3000 pilot group, the 9E guy is at 630 and the XJ guy at 1140, that's a difference of 510 numbers and they were hired at the same time. (I would love to add Colgan to this also)

 

Bartok,

I would have a bit more respect for your opinions had you not just set up a new account to comment on this thread.

 

So my "DOH" on APC matters, but DOH in the new Pinnacle should be discounted?

 

Didn't you know the national seniority list is going to be computed from APC/JC relative seniority and a staplejob for FI... duh....

*pure sarcasm of course*

 

Here is how I understand it

If I were Senior Mesaba then I would say date of hire is fair due to all the time it took to get there.

If I am Senior at Colgan I would say relative is fair due to status quo bidding and placement on list should remain the same.

If I am Senior at Pinnacle I would say some combination of the two is fair so we don't lose places from Mesaba's older date of hire or Colgans young group.

 

Exactly.

I'm just trying to point out the flaw in the pure relative seniority method, and if someone could give me the seniority number of a Colgan guy hired in oct of 2003, I'll show you the flaw in the pure DOH method.

We all would like to see where we fall in this 3 headed monster, and thinking your seniority will be based off purely relative is going to make alot of people sorely disappointed.

If you have put in many many years into a crap company like Pinnacle, Mesaba, or Colgan then you should have that factored into something as important as your seniority number.

 

I've heard the MECs are working on this now.

 

Can you define the word "this"?

 

I was referring to your joke.