It would appear the CN date would be 12/9/13 as the PA defines the seniority list information exchanged to reflect each carriers "status quo" as of that date. The most junior pilot (flow or otherwise) on the AA list with a present OCC date in 2001 was on property prior to that date (at least on the present list), so I don't think this issue applies to them anyway. There are about 300 pilots on the present list that were hired after 12/9/13 and so those pilots would be slotted (IMO) as CN pilots with U pilots (East/West) in the same situation of which there appear to be perhaps 200. Those flows at AA then(post 12/9/13) were part of a different agreement (824) and they don't get AA seniority till they actually start a class.

Everyone pre 12/9/13 would have a pre-merger career expectation based on their separate carriers as opposed to the combined entity. That expectation would include the aircraft they would have the opportunity to fly, the routes they would have the opportunity to fly, the timeline (if any) they'd have those opportunities based on their seniority and known retirements and their expected pay based on their then CBA, etc.......among other things. It would be the pre-merger pilots that will require the arbitrators to fairly dovetail together (some in blocks, others individually), but again, the complication is to benefit one group, you'll hurt another. For example, if the arbitrators were to slot a 2005 East "third-lister" ahead of a 2001 AA flow ostensibly because they didn't activate their training (time-in-seat longevity) until 2013, it hoses any legacy AA non-flow junior to him (remember he has a 2001 OCC date) as the separate lists will not be reordered and will maintain present relativity. So in that example, do they hose the legacy AA F/O (in fact, ALL legacy AA pilots junior to Eagle flow X by applying Eagle flow longevity to the factors in the integration or protect legacy AA pilot pre-merger career expectations by minimizing or even eliminating it. Same could be argued for furloughees on all sides.

That's why I think a hybrid list that maximizes pre-merger career expectations will have the most weight above other factors in constructing the ISL. If they adopted "leapfrogging" (rearrainging seniority lists), then I could see all kinds of whacky outcomes, but that would nullify the concept of pre-merger career expectations and essentially put a "DOH" model (by another method) in the drivers seat. It would also be the most likely to provide windfalls for some at the expense of others and if there's two concepts this final ISL will have (again, in my opinion) and SHOULD have is maintaining pre-merger career expectations and avoidance of windfalls.