The conclusion I make is not that DOH was the problem, but rather the length of the fences. The least disruptive merger I've been a party to on this property was the PSA/USAir merger, which went straight DOH. The next was the PI/U merger, same thing. No operational issues whatsoever, except, of course, the seriously bad management of the company as a whole. The problem is when one of the groups is rewarded with a sense of entitlement by the arbitrator, either with fences or method of merge. Everyone on both sides of the merger worked hard to get where they are, and giving one group an advantage over the other for some percieved "career expectations", which we all by now realize are a farce, is what causes the problems.
There are some APA folks screaming that DOH is unfair, but what would they say if this were to go to an arbitrator that ruled that since they were acquired during a bankruptcy proceeding that they had less "career expectations" than the other group? I'm not saying that is what will happen, but we all know that it could. They would be screaming for DOH in that case.
There is only one real way to combine groups that will provide a fair, honest and understandable merge, and that is some kind of formula based on DOH or LOS with fences of short length (like, 5 years or less) to allow the operation to stabilize. They should get full credit for their contributions to the company, and we should get full credit for ours. The attrition we bring makes up for any perceived issue of more senior employees.
