Originally Posted by
757Driver
Or perhaps the evidence was previously accepted by the Arbs and was rejected for being redundant. I'm also of the opinion that one mans moonshot is another mans extremely tangible position.
As you stated, we'll see tomorrow.
There was no way the arbitrators were going to reopen the case in order to accept more evidence on an argument that was already made during the testimony phase. The CAL team already argued and provided numerical evidence claiming that the UAL side was overstaffed as far as A320 FOs were concerned. This last filing only added the company's testimony to that same fact, verifying that the numbers did represent over staffing at UAL.