They didn't refuse binding arbitration. A panel of arbitrators dictated many of the current contract provisions. The three Judges said, this is what you get on October 31st 2017....this is arbitration, which is binding.

The union agreed to this resolution, which I understand to a point. If they didn't agree to binding arbitration, the company could have dragged things out forever, in theory. This is what happened to Republic Airways, which took 9 years to come to an agreement because the company wasn't negotiating. The union also wanted to avoid a US Airways and America West ***tshow.

Three reasons this approach was a fail for Alaska and why an arbitration approach should not have been used (By the unions choice).

1) The Alaska pilot group got burned by arbitration with Kasher. History repeats itself.

2) Both of the examples above and Kasher episode took place when the economy was in the dumps, so the relative compensation bar was low and dropping. This gave companies the incentive to agree to binding arbitration, because it would likely lead to reduced compensation for the workgroup.

3) Alaska is the darling of Seattle and one thing the company hates is bad press. Picketing at the Seattle headquarters and SeaTac would make the shareholders nervous. Do you know why it didn't make a difference for the outcome of the 10/31/17 award? Because a panel of Judges awarded the contract, so it bought you absolutely no leverage. The picketing events and the orange lanyards didn't mean a thing, because once again a group of judges awarded the big provisions of the new contract (binding arbitration).

I really hope things go differently in 2020 because I will support you guys all the way, with picketing or whatever. Just don't agree to eventual binding arbitration again.

Listen to Lewbronski....he has a better idea of what is going on in the industry then you do. Learn from others man.