There are two issues, one is longevity as ALPA Merger Policy defines it for SLI purposes and longevity for pay.

ALPA Merger Policy is specific about how longevity is calculated for SLI purposes and it is not subject to change through any contract negotiations. For SLI it is the number of days from when you were hired to the "snapshot date" minus the number of days you have been furloughed. That is it. The UAL/CAL SLI used SLI longevity as a factor to construct the hybrid list with an October 1, 2010 snapshot date.

Longevity for pay is a matter of negotiations. While extremely unlikely, it's possible to negotiate that a new hire pilot could be given 20 years longevity for pay and and benefits. So he would be paid like a 20 year pilots and given vacation, sick, etc. like a 20 year pilot.

However, for SLI purposes he would not be a 20 year pilot. One year after he was hired he would have 365 days longevity. If he spent the next six months on furlough, his SLI longevity would still be 365 days.

Historically, pay longevity was calculated on the same basis that SLI longevity was, i.e. furlough time didn't count. I think Delta changed that in 1996 when our furloughed pilots from 91-94 were given pay longevity that was not decremented for furlough time. In the DAL/NWA JCBA the NWA pilots were given full pay credit for their furlough time.

In the UAL/CAL JCBA there was some credit given for furlough time and I think that is quoted above. It seems like these guys that are filing this lawsuit don't know what they are talking about because they interchangeably use pay longevity and SLI longevity. They are two completely separate things and neither a court nor a contract can change a pilot's SLI longevity. I think you have another lawyer just collecting bucks from pilots just like the TRO case that was just thrown out.