You should go read the apology again. They apologized for the “volume” of usage, and never said they were in the wrong to use 23.M.7. They would state their behavior after the first weekend was consistent with what they said in the letter. Furthermore, the “past practice” you reference is not necessarily a past practice in the legal sense. And even if it was, it applied in a scenario without massive open time and most pilots submitting blanket green slips.

I think we had a decent case. But the language is garbage. It’s not the slam dunk you say it is. That being said, I do wish we pressed forward with the process. The outcome of a loss in arbitration is unlikely to be significantly worse than what we settled for.