Just curious . . . what was your approximate pilot number on the snapshot date and what is your approximate number on the final award?

I wish that was true.

If it was straight longevity, I'd be about 2,000 numbers better off in the final award.

You are reading to much into my comments. I am not someone who is about to go postal over the list. I am disappointed with it just like I'm sure UAL 1999 hires are disappointed being lumped with CAL 2006. I can and will live with the list.

My point is people saying they did not change their relative seniority, when in fact they did by a lot. Just like your leading question there. With your question then I should be with 1998 hires and no furloughed pilots in front of me. I'm sure we had about the same amount of people below us on the lists. If you want to play that game.

I was, am, and always thought I would be at the bottom.

The fleets weren't relatively the same. That's the big difference.

The categories were jumbo/mid/narrow as determined by the arbitrators. They ignored the JCBA pay banding, so a 767-400 at CAL was mid and a 747 and 777 was jumbo. 757 also mid despite the stupid paybanding we have to live with.

They also didn't count airplanes not on the property on Oct 1 2010 (i.e. 787 or A-350)

Guppies and Airbus were narrow. (275 guppies, 152 Airbus)

Guess who had far more jumbo (i.e. slots at the top?)

Guess who had more narrow (i.e. slots at the bottom?)

Even if the fleets matched up exactly and the status and categories were the same, they would have STILL had to adjust for longevity, because its in merger policy.