Two airlines merge. Airline ABC has 10 pilots hired in the 80's. Airline XYZ has 10 hired in the 90's. The assumption is the pilots hired in the 80's are older than those of the 90's. For ease of comparison, each airline has a fleet of two 757s and both groups never experienced furloughs or loa.

Under straight longevity, xyz would be stapled beneath abc. With relative seniority, it would be a 1 for 1 sli. Solely utilizing longevity, no 1 at xyz, would now be no 11. He would progress to no 1 but that progression would be delayed. That holds true for all xyz pilots where their progression could be delayed for up to 10 years in a 30-35+ year career.

Now consider relative seniority. The no 10 pilot at abc would be no 20(19) under the merged list. No problem right? He was the bottom feeder then as he is now. At his old carrier he would have progressed to no 1 before retirement. At the new carrier he will never make it above no 10(9). This is due to the senior but younger pilots of xyz who were integrated above him, thereby blocking his career progression.

The bottom third of CAL's list was hired after 2005, The bottom third of UAL's list was hired after 1996. I don't think either relative seniority or straight longevity is fair.

I feel an sli could be devised with a combination of factors to which equal weight is assigned or not. A list composed of one single method, has the ability to benefit one group at the expense of the other.

My agenda is ALPA missed the mark by not creating a definitive isl methodology. We now have to follow this Judas (it's the arbitrator's fault not alpa's)of a merger policy. ALPA should provide a hardened formula to prevent the issues we face now and in the future. Many want to say what is fair(i.e. relative seniority) without regard the merger policy we operate under now. It is what it is, but we should be using the whole policy vs using 1/6 of it's tenants. Yes yes I know, up to but not including. Follow the damn thing in it's entirety and let the chips fall where they may.