Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:59:47 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-751307@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=148.78.247.34; envelope-from=hwasti@starband.net
From: "Hamid A. Wasti" <hwasti@starband.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lycoming's Future?
References: <list-751160@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

> Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>:
>
>  I don’t think the result  was a lot different than it would have been in
> front of a jury.

I would be hard pressed to believe that.  With the description you have 
given of the arbitrators' qualification, the decision was most probably 
arrived on by logic and relevant world experience.  Arguments that 
appeal to a jury's emotions and "common sense" (based on ignorance and 
lack of relevant experience) were most probably wasted on you and if the 
lawyers were smart, they would not have bothered with them.

Upon second though, you may be right, that if a jury had heard the same 
case as you had, they would most probably have come to the same 
conclusion.  But the more important question that needs to be asked is 
this: If the lawyers had to present the case to a jury of people with no 
clue about aviation, would they have presented the same case?  I greatly 
doubt it.

Hamid