Their aim isn't to fire the most senior nor the most exp, but just the most paid ones to cut costs during pandemic. Basically AA retained those that are paid lower but with the same or better experience rate that the 2 defendants as a cost saving act. I understand why AA would do so. No point maintaining industry harmony when the company is suffering losses and facing bankruptcy situation.

From what I understand, it seems the crime isn't that AA didn't give compensation, but is more to that AA retrench the 2 defendant first who had the highest pay, instead of firing maybe 3-4 employees with lower pay and lesser working years with AA to cover their loss. It seems the industry standard is to retrench employee based on last in, first out policy when it comes to downsizing. And AA cannot chose which employees they want to retrench during downtimes. Weird ruling.