Not sure I understand the question...Forgive my ignorance here, I am not a Westie, though I have obviously chosen to back their side in this dispute...based on the simple, overarching principle of honoring agreed-to commitments. (agreed-to commitments can be broken if an opposing party breaks their commitments, or otherwise acts in bad faith...i.e. -if, for example, the Westies had falsified their seniority lists submitted to the arbitrator, etc...not applicable in the present case) The argument that the Nic is unfair is irrelevant and is subsumed by the implicit principle contained in committing to abide by the award beforehand. That "implicit" but very clear principle being that the award could never have been arrived at voluntarily...that one or both parties would always perceive an unfairness in any award. It is, in a sense, an acknowledgement by both parties that there can never be, even in principle, a totally satisfactory or "fair" award...and thus the only practical solution is commitment to accept a neutral opinion...It is an acknowledgement of bias by each party, and an acceptance that the findings of the arbitrator would be more fair than any that could be arrived at by either party to the case. Thus, in this view, the very reason you (USAir east) committed to the results of the Nic beforehand is the fact that you might have been harmed by it...

Back to your question....??-I must misunderstand the import of your question...but I'll take a stab at it...I suppose there is no contract "bad" enough for you to accept...-that would allow the west to gain their "windfall". I.E. You would suffer the worst contract possible in order to prevent the West's windfall? Or...there is no contract good enough that would make the West's windfall OK in your eyes? Please enlighten me, I sometimes miss the glaringly obvious...

I doubt that the "loopholes" in the Transition Agreement were recognized as such before the arbitration. If not, it does give one the impression that the 2 MEC chairmen merely gave each other a "wink-wink" with their fingers crossed behind their backs as they headed into "contingent arbitration"...merely a "practice run" prior to the "real show", -the award being "contingent" upon its "acceptability" to either group. To think anyone would look upon this "revelation" as anything but an attempt to de-legitimize the process known as "binding arbitration" would strain credibility.

Again, nothing personal here, R57. You seem to be somewhat conflicted in all this. You seem to want to acknowledge that your group's ethical shortcomings are real...not illusory or a mere figment in the imagination of the Westies. Your "enemy" is not "the West", per se, -they merely did what was asked of them...and in fact your enemy is Mr. Nicolau himself, who is insulated from your actions and criticisms by aspects of the very process that got you into this seeming conundrum...that almost by agreed definition, that his findings are deemed "fair" by the world outside your narrow focus.