What about his dissenting opinion also in the same letter? So apparently all was not well. I wonder if he knew they were using a flawed list? And Nic chose to ignore it?
The CAL pilot only disagreed with *one* aspect of the award:
"At a minimum, it is my opinion that the US Airways pilots, who had already received notice of their opportunity to return to work from furlough, should have received some consideration for the substantial time they have already invested in their airline."
That means that his only beef has to do with the treatment of the senior most furloughees. He doesn't specifically disagree with their placement on the list, and in fact he mentions elsewhere in his dissent that those pilots should be all be furloughed ahead of Odell. He doesn't disagree with the ratios either, and he certainly doesn't agree with the division of attrition (your windfall argument).
BTW - it's incorrect of you to state that his dissent was "the placement of the MDA pilots" because he, in fact, never mentions MDA in his dissent. He obviously doesn't agree that MDA was mainline. It's hard to buy that argument when you *had* to be furloughed from mainline to bid MDA, and you didn't accrue mainline longevity while at MDA. It's pretty obvious that the MDA pilots didn't get the consideration they should have from the AAA MEC, as evidenced by their suit against ALPA, but that only solidifies the argument that MDA was NOT mainline.
Also, it's pretty clear to me that although he may have felt that the senior most furloughees should have had more consideration, most of what he wrote could have been done with the primary purpose of political appeasement. He was, after all, hired by the AAA MEC to serve as their pilot neutral.