As we have this discussion, all should consider that the only thing that allowed the majority of furloughs was age 65. Absent the change in retirement age, most of the furloughs would have been un-economic for the company given the 18-24mo. break-even point for a furlough. Also absent age 65, all furloughees would have been recalled in a short time frame.

But age 65 did happen, you say, so the point is moot. Not really. It allowed the company to furlough and we have all been essentially frozen in time from a seniority perspective. This is one of the pivotal issues the arbitrators will have to deal with because outwardly this appears to be a four year furlough, but only because of an unusual external factor. Remove that factor and this is probably less than a two year furlough for many and for many, no furlough at all.