its always interesting to see the different views in a merger. one airline is up, the other is down, the people ride around in a hole in the ground.
it is generally regarded that the ''east '' pilots and ''east'' routes are the money makers and the ''west'' routes are barely hanging on.
shouldn't the ''best'' pilot be the captain? but, how do we decide who the best pilot is? is it the guy who plays golf with the chief pilot and lets the chief pilot win at golf? is it the guy who kisses the most empenage? is it the guy who flys the best and knows more?
hmmmm
oh, how about the guy who has been there the longest...he should have picked up something by now...just by hanging around for 20 plus years.
so, someone who has been around for 24 years shouldn't be captain over the guy who has been around 7 years?
the argument for how well one airline is doing financially is a cute one. of course in five years the ''doing well'' airline might have been in bankruptcy. things change.
American Airlines was one of the only legacy carriers not having gone bankrupt for the first ten years of the new century or so...and bam...bankrupt and the worst on time record in the industry...pilot strife, furloughs etc...all through the time frame united, usair, and some of the real names of the industry have had to declare bankruptcy.
one day you are up, the next you are down...but years and years of flying experience should count for something.
yup...''east'' pilots wanted date of hire. and why not? DOH worked with other mergers. 20 plus years in the cockpit is still more ''know how'' than 7 years.
oh, and if you think of a way to really know who the best pilot is and grant seniority by that method, I'm all for it.
But it is simply nuts to have a captain with 17 years less experience than the copilot.