GMC1500:
I really have no idea why you need to slander anyone who is simply expressing an opinion. Why not answer the issue instead?
I was simply pointing out that it seems really odd to me that the Tribunal, when dealing with two complaints regarding termination of employment that happened years ago can base its decision on whether or not that past termination of employment should be upheld on the basis of speculation as to what may happen years in the future. It just doesn't make any sense that events that have not yet transpired can be used to decide those issues. What if the ICAO over-under rule is repealed after ICAO does its planned five year review this fall? Why should their employment have been terminated based on the assumption that compliance with a rule that no longer exists would cause the airline problems?