The interpretation that a carrier which schedules or operates a flight where a flight crew does a 14 hr. duty 2-3 hrs flight time @ $23 hour) is being paid less than the minimum wage. The government sets a national minimum wage and should/cannot allow its employees to travel on a carrier that violates that wage, they would be violating their own laws - which, of course, is supposed to be illegal. There are probably several million federal employees who ride on US carriers, which in some way, operate under these conditions, including buying a ticket on a mainline carrier. The government not flying on these carriers might be a financial interest to those carriers.

It is also an interesting juxtaposition with this minimum wage or federal benefits qualification in regards to the RLA. The minimum wage law post dates the RLA, and in effect, could negate or nullify the RLA. Or, if precedence is the case, with the RLA coming before the minimum wage then maybe carriers don't even have to pay minimum wage. I suppose this could become a supreme court sort of thing.

The RLA thing continues to amaze me. It was supposed to protect vital industries, IE, the railroads. How many airlines are there? How is it that any one is vital? How many have failed, gone bankrupt, etc. No one stepped in to protect them because individually they were "vital".