L
luvn737s
Guest
"Because it blows" is not an answer.
I don't care if the east likes the Nic or not, they will eventually be forced to accept it as a result of their previous agreements to do so. Any judge that would allow a union to evade the responsibilities of binding arbitration would be the judge that greenlights the dismantling of the arbitration system, and I doubt you'll find even the most activist of judges willing to throw themselves on that land mine.
I doubt any judge will weigh the fairness of either integration methodology, since the primary question is the legitmacy of binding arbitration. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder so to speak, but responsibiility is pretty clear-cut.
We will have to wait for USAPA to submit a methodology that avoids the DFR threat from either side (which is precisely why ALPA did not want to put itself in that position and utilized arbitration). What puts us in uncharted waters is dealing with a group of people so warped and vindictive that they would withhold presenting a contract to vote on until they have stolen the benefits intended in the arbitration under the protection of No Bump No Flush.
I would say that there are ways for the west to recapture the intended position of the Nic under a displacement/ Nic Superseniority right of first return plan, so to those who felt entitled to take what was denied them in the Nic, I say don't get too comfortable in that seat. You are only temporarily renting it from a west pilot.
