Two way street...I'm sure they were probably countering a popular L-UAL's assertion/argument of 13+ years total longevity (including furlough) for SLI positioning rather than just payscale (involved in the civil lawsuit) with actual 4-5 on property not on furlough...can't blame them either...if someone from L-UAL argues that they should get not only pay but SLI positioning based on time on property AND furlough, then why should a board date versus hire date be tossed aside? Same difference...plus one could argue that those on the board date at COEX were joined to the hip of CAL subject to furlough ties at mainline based on the subsidiary relationship between CAL and COEX before the XJT IPO. Therefore career progression at COEX to XJT and then the flowthrough to CAL were all based on board date which held more power at the time than relative seniority to any specific company. If you use the argument of 'right-sizing' back to the 2000's, then you have to consider the strong tied relationship and career progression of mainline to the regional feeder as the subsidiary relationship existed. Hence the reason for post IPO MOU'S drawn up by CAL and ALPA... Complicated, ain't it,...I wouldn't worry though...not like our opinions have anything to do with anything...but if someone tells be they have been at UAL for 13 years but only on property for 4-5..well then I'm a 96 hire