Why R you wily puppet-master, you got me again...Well worth it though, apparently, as I don't see you scrambling to refute any of the specifics of what I've merely deductively, and speculatively reconstructed...what happened to all that hand-wringing about the 2007 list being used? Or timelines and dates of constructive notice with the Nic? Don't tell me that reconstruction of the process and principles involved had some modicum of accuracy, such that it would cause you to go zip-lip on me...In the absence of any objections on your part we must assume its so.

The thought of your latest treat, while not exactly inducing a Pavlovian salivation in anticipation of the ease with which it will be dispensed...nevertheless, will be dispensed with, with such ease. One need only direct you to previous constructs, ie.

"Self-evident rule #1: Only those pilots with flying jobs at their airlines are actual employees of their airlines.

Self-evident rule #2: In the event of a merger, the actual employees of one company are merged with the actual employees of their merger partner."

-To which I'll add a further, actually unrelated self-evident rule, yet one that will hopefully have some probative value for you:

"Pilots employed at the same airline and belonging to the same union will have new members to their ranks added in descending sequential temporal order, with the earliest hired going above the latest...all such newly hired pilots will be placed below in seniority order to such pilots as are already employed with the airline."

Now R, a combination of these three irrefutable principles, all of which were in place at the time of your merger, should suffice to answer your question of me:

"Just to be sure, your original premise was that pilots with decades experience shouldn't be placed below new hires. Did I get that right?"

-Yes, you got that right, by reason of the third rule cited above. And any further, though thus far unstated "implications" you'd like to make are referred to the first two rules above.