Both, actually. I believe that Nicolau didn't adhere to ALPA merger policy and handed the West a major windfall by not including sufficient fences in the award. I also believe that the EC should have recognized this and determined that the award was invalid due to the arbitrator not adhering to the required provisions of the policy. Of course, this is all a matter of opinion and interpretation, so I can understand the EC coming to a different conclusion. It's certainly not an easy situation.
So in your little dream world how would you combine the lists? (this should be interesting)