Your last sentence is simply one of opinion and is essentially the argument of the two LUS committee's as it benefits them to get the arbs to embrace that assumption.

It would be apt to remember Nicolau's statement that "each case turns on its OWN facts" and it's a statement repeated by the arbs in the UAL/CAL integration award as to the reasoning behind their decisions in that SLI. This case has its own facts that diverge from other merger/SLI's. In the U/AWA award by Nic, his reasoning for stapling the furloughed East pilots who had DOH's as much as a decade or more earlier then some probationary West pilots was primarily founded in his belief they had little expectation of return due to legacy (pre AWA merger) US Airways financial condition. The UAL/CAL integration was truly one more of equals unlike the convoluted claims made by Wilder and his witnesses which made treatment of furloughee's in that integration a simpler equation.

I'm not stupid enough to say X will happen with this component (unlike a few others) in this SLI, but I'd suggest you not cling to certainty in that last sentence unless you are willing to risk shock at the outcome of that aspect of the award. The arbs very well may believe these pilots in THIS situation do have viable seniority rights and valid PMCE despite not physically being on property by the snapshot date and if they do, there is valid dispute to any claim otherwise although it is one that many disagree with.