Furthermore, the subsequent company will be a COMBINATION of the 2 merged companied NOT just BA. BA must consider aspects of bmi valueable, because they have made an effort to obtain it - they were not being charitable - therefore whether some gave loyalty to one part or another of that combination, it was still LOYALTY to the combined company. Why should some have their loyalty completely ignored?
If all the above is true, what of the loyalty of the Regional and Baby Pilots? they are surplus to requirements, as far as BA is concerned, so is their loyalty to BMI now an irrelevance?
The fact is that the slots are valuable to BA nothing more. BA is only taking over a company losing £200million a year for the potential in the slots, not because a small proportion of the workforce, of a failed competitor, has some intrinsic value to BA. BA are certainly not being charitable - nor do they need to start being so now by increasing the expense of a group of workers from a failed rival.
This may be dressed up in many ways but it is a takeover, the BA name, brand and ethos will continue and BMI's name, brand and failed ethos will be consigned, like BCal and Dan-Air to nostalgia. It will not be a combined company, it will be BA with some new workers that have to come to terms with the BA way.
I am not sure how your loyalty to a competitor has any relevance to BA and in fact rather than it justifying a mergers seniority list it tends to add weight to the argument that BMI pilots should go to the bottom of the BA MSL. Length of continuous service is not a matter of debate as it it clearly protected legally.
You will need to come up with some clearer and more cogent argument than the one outlined above.
Perhaps it would be more worthy of us all if we were to concentrate on what happens to our colleagues in Regional and Baby, rather than this childish and unseemly jockeying for petty personal advantage.