When, if ever, would you say the "binding arbitration" should not be binding? No one ever thought that the arbitration was just a suggestion. In this case, it was more than simply disagreeing with the decision. The majority of the pilots believed that the Nic was not only a windfall for the West, but is was a windfall for the West at the expense of the East. So as long as the question is always framed in a way that leaves this fact out, we will ALWAYS be arguing two different arguments. That said, in the end, the USAirways pilots opted to not combine the seniority list and basically ran out the clock - at great financial loss. I think legally so- but I would never claim to know and apparently great legal minds had differing opinions on the subject, so I'm not alone. This alone, is evidence of the complexity of this case, beyond, " binding is binding." I do think that the clock ran out with the MOU- again I could be wrong so I won't debate this point either. The point- the "binding is binding" argument only addresses one of many aspects of this conundrum. If it were that simple this would have been over long ago.