Not sure what you mean here.. as it was past practice (on the LCAL side) that when I was FBO'd, I was released and on occasion was able to pick up another trip, thereby getting double pay. Not often, and it was on un augmented trips.. but it did happen.

The problem here is that when it happened on the 756 (which was a LCAL flown fleet) last year, guys where surprised that they were put on the IO position (something that many had never heard of) and then not getting the added pay.

Maybe if we knew what the past practice on the LUAL widebody fleet was, we would have more info to understand what/why things are happening.

What was the procedure when IOE had to be accomplised on the widebody fleet with a bunkie? Was the original FO removed with pay? Was an extra "bunkie" added (I believe that extra bunkie/iro was a result of 117.. but may be wrong)?

At the end of the day-
Two pilots. One in EWR, the other in LAX
The LAX FO bids a Hawaii trip. Un augmented. He is removed from said trip for IOE. He goes home and is pay protected.
The EWR FO bids the HNL trip (Super Senior, probably the Holy Grail of Newark flying.. 3 day, 21 hrs pay, Premium Pay!).
The trip requires augmentation. He is removed from his seat and made IO. No extra pay. Still working.

Why should it be different. They both bid what they wanted and could hold. The company needed the seat so they removed said pilots. Yet, in the two scenarios I've listed.. different outcomes!

Also, now it seems that for the March PBS run, many trips on the 756 EWR FO BES were withheld for IOE. Does the same thing happen on the Airbus and 737 fleet?

I figured this would turn into a mess when it started (last Jan 2014).. and after what happened with the 757-2 crew rest seat grievance, I'm not expecting a good outcome with this issue either.
That's why I posted my original comment. I do not see this arbitration as a win (yet). Time will tell.

Motch