As Galley Wench said, the arbitrator was non-airline. Each side chooses a "pilot neutral" who assists, advises, etc, the arbitrator but the decision is the arbitrator's alone. The neutrals can and do concur/disagree with the award.

East chose a CO pilot as their neutral, and West chose a UA pilot. The East neutral disagreed with how a relatively small number of furloughees were handled - those recalled after the two side's "official" seniority lists had been compiled and certified in May 2005*. Other than that, both neutrals concurred with the award.

Jim

*When a merger is announced, ALPA sets a policy implementation date (PID) - a date that the ALPA merger policy becomes effective. That involves timelines, etc, but is also the date that each sides "official" seniority list is established for merger purposes. The PID effectively freezes the seniority lists on that date, with any subsequent changes at either airline considered post-merger changes.

The "official" lists are exchanged, verified, any challenges to the other side's data are ironed out, etc. For example, in the Piedmont/US merger in 1989 the hire dates were adjusted for PI pilots - PI used the end of a new hire's initial ground school as the hire date while US used the 1st day of initial ground school as the hire date. Without the adjustment, pilots starting initial training at PI and US on the same day would have different hire dates.

Once both lists are verified and all challenges settled, those two "certified" lists become the basis for all the negotiations and arbitration.

Finally, just FYI, here are the "guiding principles" that ALPA says should be followed when merging seniority lists. They are not in any particular order of importance:

1) Preserve jobs.
2) Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.
3) Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.
4) Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.
5) Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.