I think I see the misconception here.....

We have 1998 hires who were never furloughed, and had 12 years of longevity and when you look at a 2001 CAL hire who only has 5 years longevity because he was furloughed for 4 years.

FWIW UAL only used time that a pilot was not on furlough. Those numbers are shown in the UAL proposed seniority list.

Also, there are NO pilots currently flying who as of 2010 had less than 7 years of longevity. So the MOST JUNIOR UAL pilot as of 2010 has at least 7 years of longevity. Guess when those pilots were hired? 1999!! So the 1999 hires (most of them) have at least 7 years longevity. Even some furloughees had 7 years before the furlough.

Were you aware of that? Strictly based on longevity that's more than the 2001 hires who were furloughed and every pilot hired 2005 and beyond.

I think there is some misconception that 1996-1999 hires were all furloughed for 10 years and don't have longevity, just an earlier start date and that isn't true.

Also, if you go to the UAL proposed list and look around the 10,000 seniority number you will find UAL pilots with 10 years longevity paired with CAL pilots with only 5 and this was hailed as being UNFAIR by the CAL MC. Plus all those pilots were in the same stovepipe (narrowbody FO) for status and category.

So these 1999 hires didn't have 4 years longevity. As a matter of fact, UAL 2000 hires had between 4 and 5 years of longevity, and the late 2000 hires and 2001 hires are the ones twice furloughed with maybe 2 or 3 years longevity, which was still more than the CAL 2008 hires.

So I'm not saying I disagree with that, but I just think there is a disconnect between how much longevity these pilots actually have and where that landed them on the CAL proposed list.