I will preface my response with as I understand it by my research (Danny please feel free to correct me if necessary): I don't think you're understanding the process since the Fair & Equitable law was passed a few months ago. You're trying to base your decision on Delta's most recent mergers/acquisitions: The 1986/87 merger with Western involved Delta, staffed by 6500 f/a's at the time, merging w/ Western with approx 2,000 f/a's at the time. Except for the top 300 (very senior) Delta f/a's, EVERYONE else was basically ranked by date of hire. (This NW situation has both f/a groups being closer in size.) The PanAm situation was an acquistion of assets. PanAm f/a's that were interested in employment with Delta, were interviewed by Delta, and then based on their quals, were offered positions. It was not a complete merger. At the time, many PanAm fa's chose to stay on at PanAm (the SouthAmerican unit Delta was supposed to keep afloat until they decided it lost too much money). Because of this unique situation, PanAm f/a's did indeed lose out on the seniroity list. But again..they interviewed for positions. This NW situation is completely different. Remember, Delta has said that if a mutually-agreed upon list cannot be created, it will go to arbitration. You keep saying "If Delta negotiated a better ranking"...This, common sense tell us, wouldn't happen, based inherently on the fact that it favors DL and therefore, it would be turned down by NW and therefore turned over to an arbitrator. Now, the arbitrator MAY decide to go with a list that favors more DL f/a's than NW, this is true, but we just don't know. So basically, your choice is between a vote for AFA which, if it passes, will guarantee date of hire OR...the decision of an arbitrator, NOT Delta's "negotiating a better ranking."