The two arguments proffered by EF and his newly- aligned companions from the east present two arguments, the fairness argument and the windfall for the west argument. Both are based on subjective opinion where the perceived detriment disadvantages their own personal gains. Can a two against one scenario develop in front of the arbitration panel? Possibly, because what advantages both EF and the east the most? Subjugation of a minority group for the benefit of the majority.
If both the APA and the east wish to complain about the Nic or hypothesize about ramifications of using the Nic in front of three arbitrators, go right ahead. At that point you aren't arguing against the west but instead criticizing a well respected colleague of the three member arbitration panel. Be my guest.
The best argument I see the APA and the east may have success with to bury Nicolau's decision in a coordinated argument is to recognize that Nicolau did occur but would be unduly burdensome to apply now. That's a stretch in my opinion, because again, the arbitrators are being asked to combine east and west lists , a task which an arbitrator has already completed. I can see APA arguing things have changed with them in the picture so therefore a scratch start needs to happen, but as EF already admitted to the APA interest in involving themselves in the Nicolau question is because they feel the west pilots will hurt their career expectations. I find it interesting a pilot group in bankruptcy at the snapshot date will argue career expectations.
We will see how this shakes out, but I predict lawsuits whether Nicolau is used or not.