Interesting view.

Could you add a little background, so as to get a clearer picture of why you come to this conclusion? Are you, or someone close to you an east or west US pilot? Do you have a background in law or arbitration?

Why would an arbitrator use a seniority list that has never been used and that one that the conditions for using it will never be met?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know, but I just don't see it.

Judge Silver's ruling:

Turning to the present case, the West Pilots claim USAPA breached its duty of fair
representation by “abandoning the existing obligation to use the Nicolau Award.”
For present purposes, the Court will assume such an obligation existed. Therefore,
the question is whether USAPA had a legitimate union purpose for that abandonment. As
mentioned earlier, this would be an easier inquiry if USAPA had abandoned the Nicolau
Award in favor of a different seniority regime. The Court could then compare the Nicolau
Award to the new seniority regime and evaluate USAPA’s reasons for adopting the new
regime. But the complicated state of affairs means that, at present, there is no new seniority
regime directly comparable to the Nicolau Award. And, in fact, there never will be. The
merger with American Airlines, combined with the terms of the MOU, means a new seniority
regime will exist only after the McCaskill-Bond process is complete. That new seniority
regime will include the thousands of pilots from American Airlines and it will be difficult to
compare that regime to the Nicolau Award. Thus, the only question the Court can answer
at this time is whether USAPA had a legitimate union purpose for entering into the MOU.
It did."