A320 Driver,
Your first post above sounds similar to what some have said here for at least a couple of years now. Obviously USAPA wanted nothing to do with it. What makes you think the east would want it now? (Serious question) I have said since day one, why not put a decent contract with a few tweaks to protect attrition and widebody flying, but was bashed from every east direction for uttering such a suggestion. Plus many see the Nic as already protecting your attrition by giving the east 2/3 of the upgrades, which is about what you brought to the table considering pilots on SL and those who would retire from furlough or a junior right seat position.
The fact that you are getting negative comments from east posters shows that this thing is being driven by the junior core of pilots who were furloughed for a good portion of their careers, yet decided to tough it out hoping to one day recover what they have lost.
As for soul searching, IMO that is exactly what a lot of east pilots are now doing in the face of this recent development, along with Cleary's unilateral filing of yet another law suit with no oversight whatsoever. Maybe now is a good time for a vote. Maybe it's time for Reform USAPA to "storm CLT" and do exactly what you suggested, while allowing the west to determine what conditions be acceptable without triggering DFRII.
I can't really say that I blame the west for digging in their heals. It is the east who has pounded them for years now, enduring the name calling, and the bullying with Rico suits and such. This latest loss by Seham sheds some more light on the position the courts might take. Combine that with the way you (the east collectively) have treated the west and you've given them little reason to not follow through.
Whatever happens, this is definitely a game changer and might just move the ball down field a bit.