Sure, it's different. But rules (like mandatory retirement ages) that apply equally to every pilot on both lists mean less than diddly-dick in regards to what' an arbitrator would consider a "fair SLI list." Everyone has to retire at 65. An arbitrator wouldn't bump one side's pilots up (at the expense of the other side) based on a universal retirement age.
PCL's idea of "ratio by category and status" (essentially an SLI list of relative seniority) really only applies to arbitration when merging two "equal groups." Thats the rub, of course, because that idea is so subjective. Other things are considered: career expectations, strength of contract, company financials, just to name a few. This is why there was such a huge divergence from "ratio by category and status" in the AWA-USAir arbitrated list. While the difference between our two carriers wasn't nearly so stark, there were differences that would have been taken into account by an arbitrator. So PCL's insistence that any arbitration would certainly yield relative seniority is nothing but self-serving, BS speculation.
And since the differences between pilots and other work groups generally mean absolutely nothing when it comes to "fairness," I suspect a arbitrated pilot list would look strikingly similar to other work group arbitrated lists, between the same two carriers.
Bubba
