It’s crystal clear. The issue is about 2 pilots already accommodated, not extrapolation via some patchwork quilt of completely meaningless speculation about nothing in particular regarding the state of the hypothetical universe. There is simply no accommodation issue with these 2 pilots. The Tribunal analysis of BFOR is just simply dead wrong, and reading the Supreme Court analysis makes it even deader wrong. Given the clarity of the errors this would have to be about a half-hour deliberation for a Federal Court. In fact, with the Supreme Court as evidence, how would this even be expected to go past the Federal Court. It looks black and white from any direction. There is no BFOR argument anywhere in the USA or Canada, not including AC's little island of confusion and misinterpretation. There appears to have been very limited evidence in the VK Ruling/Decision and you likely can’t completely fault a Tribunal for getting it all wrong as you work with what’s on paper in front of you. But to any layman, reading all the related documentation leads anybody to see a very obvious complete misinterpretation of the law. The big question is does the ACPA membership pay half of VK’s wages again while they sit out awaiting another reinstatement? There’s the undue hardship for you. Saddling a pilot group with the tab for not being able to think like every other airline in both countries.