Originally Posted by Upsddown

If anyone has an argument it seems like it would be the East.

Forget the NIC and DFR. Even the arbs state that is outside the charge of their authority.

The arbs acknowledged their "charge" (page 38) was the "facts of this merger" not of the 2005 merger.
As a result the Nicolau was what was fair and equatable for the AWA/US merger in 2005 but not for integrating
the East, West and AA pilots in 2016 based on considerations of fairness and equity as of December 9, 2013 (page 38).

Then the arbs later proceed to make decisions on construction of "this" list in 2016 based on events prior to this merger (pages 40/41). This seems contrary to their previous explanation of their "charge".

The biggest issue I see is there explanation of "fairness" by using a 85/15 hybrid integration of the East and West list and then use the exact same percentages for the LUS and LAA merger.

How can they conclude that the merging of a pilot group that has greater "sweat equity" service (LOS) (page 39) and LWB positions with a group that has far less LOS and no LWB should be done on a 85/15 and then when merging two other groups (LAA and combined LUS) where one group has LWB on a percentage basis closer to the other carrier and "sweat equity" that in some respects was closer to the other carrier should be done in the exact same percentage (85/15)?

There is no way those two individual merged lists on a "fairness" basis would have resulted in those exact same percentages. Had they concluded a percentage for the first merge and then a different percentage for the second merge it would appeared to have been done in an individual "fairness" basis. However the way it was done appears to be the arbs reengineering the result they wanted to conclude.