What part are you not understanding??

As Shiz pointed out above.....All furloughs, on both sides of the DAL deal WERE offered the OPPORTUNITY to come back (something referred to as "re-call-ed"). For those who remained "inactive" as you put it, it was the "former furlough's" prerogative to do so, but they HAD been "recalled". As it was stated above by Shiz, in the DAL formula, ALL pilots were treated as "active" during the SLI process b/c all had been "offered" recalled.....Something not germane to our case.

In UCAL's case (assuming things stand as they presently sit and a SLI is constructed) NOT all furloughs have been "recalled" to their respective lists. If an SLI clock were to start in the coming months if/when a JCBA is signed, there would STILL be pilots who were/are NOT recalled to their respective lists, a'la L-UA furloughs......thus NOT "Apples/Apples" in comparing the DAL/NWA's deal.

You can use the word "inactive" all you want, but the FACT OF THE MATTER in the DAL/NWA SLI, all pilots HAD been afforded the opportunity to come back, something that L-UAL has not offered to it's furloughs. There is a difference in being "INACTIVE" by choice (DAL/NWA furloughs), versus being "INACTIVE" by NOT having a choice (L-UA furloughs).

For the record, and outside of popular belief......Several pilots "active" on BOTH sides are in full support that furloughs are to receive "longevity" for "pay purposes only" just as DAL did.