Originally Posted by
justjack
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.
What the majority of the pilots of one side believe was unfair regardless of the degree isn't my point. That litmus is a subjective one. By the same token, USAPA could argue for DOH with AA pilots in arbitration and win and AA pilots would most certainly believe that to be a windfall as well and could elect to decertify APA, form their own union, subvert the award and thus continue the new AA as three separate pre-merger pilot groups and operations. If that were to become reality, then that subjective position would be just as valid as what the pre USAPA East pilots did.
Of course, In that case I'm sure the "other" side in that hypothetical situation would then cry foul and blame AA pilots for not living up to the possible consequences of a process that they agreed to before hand......and IMO would be correct. THAT was my point. Of ALL my comments on this issue, I've not taken sides on Nic vs. DOH. My ONLY assertions have involved agreeing to the RISKS of an uncertain process and then subverting it when you are unhappy with the result, The DEGREE of unhappiness isn't the issue. Then, after that was successful, attacking and undermining the minority that was conquered to the point of destroying themselves.
That's known as a Pyrrhic Victory and what Silver was talking about. It's also interesting that certain people periodically attempt to use various parts of Silvers ruling when it meets their needs, yet belittle her as some sort of dizzy old battleax when she indicates she does so holding her nose. In reality, I think Silvers ruling adds more questions then it answers.